Southern reveals 2010 timetable

Southern Railways have confirmed their plans for the new timetable which will come in to effect in May 2010, which will see evening peak services from London to Norwood Junction become "fast" trains, no-longer stopping at Brockely and the other stations in-between. Morning peak services will increase, however.

Here are the pertinent parts of the document:
South London Metro services

The opening of the East London Line with extensions to Dalston, Crystal Palace and West Croydon together with Southern services will provide a significant overall increase in capacity between New Cross Gate and West Croydon. It also necessitates changes to Southern services operating across London. In some cases we are able to provide additional or faster services. There are also instances where services are to be removed or diverted.
AM peak

The morning peak service is revised to provide Southern trains at reasonably regular intervals and to allow East London Line services from West Croydon and Crystal Palace to run additionally. These include additional AM peak services to be introduced from London Bridge to London Victoria via Crystal Palace serving New Cross Gate, Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Forest Hill and Sydenham.
Departure times from Brockley for the central London stations will be as follows:

London Bridge 0647
London Bridge 0655
London Bridge 0702
London Bridge 0717
London Bridge 0725
London Bridge 0732
London Bridge 0747
London Bridge 0755
London Bridge 0803
London Bridge 0817
London Bridge 0826
London Bridge 0835
London Bridge 0847
London Bridge 0855
London Bridge 0902
London Bridge 0917
London Bridge 0925
London Bridge 0932
London Bridge 0950
London Bridge 1002

London Victoria 0627
London Victoria 0659
London Victoria 0729
London Victoria 0759
London Victoria 0829
London Victoria 0900
London Victoria 0930

Off peak
The service patterns below are revised to be compatible with the extended East London services. The planned changes in summary are:

• Off peak London Bridge - Sutton via Sydenham services to be withdrawn.
• Off peak half hourly London Victoria - West Croydon via Crystal Palace services to be extended to Sutton. This will maintain a direct Norwood Junction to Sutton service. It will have connections at Norwood Junction with six fast London Bridge services each hour provided by services to/from Tattenham Corner, Horsham and Reigate/Tonbridge.
• Off peak London Bridge - Tattenham Corner services to call additionally at Norwood Junction.

• Off peak London Bridge - Caterham services to call additionally at Penge West and Anerley.

PM Peak

The service pattern remains broadly similar to the December 2009 timetable though the London Bridge - Sutton, Epsom, Guildford or Dorking services will run non-stop between London Bridge and Norwood Junction, therefore not calling at New Cross Gate, Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Forest Hill and Sydenham.

Evening Off Peak

Some South London metro services in the evening off peak (after 1900) currently operate at different times than during the daytime off peak. The opportunity arises in May 2010 to revise certain departure times to better reflect the daytime off peak pattern as follows.

• London Bridge to London Victoria via Crystal Palace at xx22 and xx52
• London Victoria to Sutton via Norbury at xx00 and xx30
• London Victoria to Epsom or Epsom Downs via Crystal Palace at xx06 and xx36
• London Victoria to London Bridge via Crystal Palace at xx22 and xx52

Thanks to Cllr Dean Walton for the information.

51 comments:

The Cat Man said...

What?? what happened to the 6.05 train in the morning to London Bridge - is it being cancelled? If so, thats bloody annoying - I catch it to get to the gym (at London Bridge) before work...

...please say that you simply started your list from 6.30am and beyond...!

Anonymous said...

Personally I am glad there are now early trains to Victoria which I will now be making full use of.

Tamsin said...

"It also necessitates changes..." What a lovely way of describing the carve up between South-Eastern and Southern favouring the out of London commuters who generate more profit for the shareholders, i.e. the parent company.

No mention or apology for the actual cut in our services to London Bridge or the loss of the direct trains from and to Charing Cross.

Anonymous said...

Its the cut to the peak pm service that is the most astonishing decision for me. Southern have been rubbish for some time but the lengths that they are prepared to go to annoy customers just seems remarkable....

Reality bites. said...

Look, southern have shareholders and their needs have to come first, we just have to accept it. This is how the market works.

Hugh said...

The only solution is nationalisation but then you'll have to trust the civil service to improve the system. Privatisation has clearly failed, however, so I think there's no real choice.

Brockley Nick said...

@RealityBites - it's not a free-market, rail operators are highly regulated. Government sets the rules for the franchise.

Tamsin said...

The railways should never have been de-nationalised. And the shareholders are not little old ladies dependent on their dividend income but a multi-national, Govia, the major share-holder of which is, I recall, the French government (old-fashioned xeno/franco-phobia kicking in).

Hugh said...

Pointless to wibble about 'foreigners' owning shares in 'our' companies. Stock markets exist so that anyone can own shares in anything - and they do.

Reality bites said...

@Nick yes, the government sets the rules but the rules allow the rail company significant latitude in how they operate in order to ensure they turn a necessary profit for the viability of their business.

As customers in this effectively captive market, unless you want to
Bus, bike or walk to work or work from home, we have to absorb the pressures.

Tamsin said...

But when the issues of the cuts were being raised the Department of Transport, TfL, and the two franchises were playing pass the parecel with the buck - the fault of the whole privatisation debacle. They could not/would not accept that if Southern and South Eastern are both wholly owned subsidiaries of the same multi-national the fact that the franchise previously let to S-E precluded (allegedly) services to Charing Cross for Southern is not an excuse. Contracts can be re-opened.

Still fighting though for things to be restored, so sign the petition and there will be further protests in the New Year.

Reality bites said...

Tamsin, pre-privatisation, were things any better? Honestly were they?

Tamsin said...

Maybe not but at least there was a single body responsible. Now the only people happy are the lawyers - you have contracts weighed by the kilogram and delivered in boxes - and the companies spend more time fining each other than delivering a service.

Lou Baker said...

@ reality bites:

It's not a market at all. In a real market I'd have a choice between travelling with Southern and travelling with someone else. I don't have that choice. They are the only operator on that route. With the exception of some regulated fares, I have to pay whatever they choose to charge and I have to put up with the service level they provide.

It's not like flying to New York. There you have a genuine choice. If BA is crap or too expensive go with Virgin instead. That's what drives up standards. As it is Southern have no incentive whatsoever to improve.

Incidentally I'm amazed no-one has commented on how bloody awful South Eastern have been over the last few days. Yesterday they arbitrarily imposed a Saturday timetable. Of course, they didn't charge Saturday fares.

Anonymous said...

Come on, markets clearly have their place... making it possible for people to raise cash to finance stuff that would be impossible to do without such support.

However, even the Tories have admitted that rail privatisation was an unmitigated disaster and was completely inappropriate.

With all those clever politicians, civil servants, industry experts and consultants working on this there surely must have been a more effective way of making the rail network more "efficient".

As it was those who run the markets skewed the debate in favour of privatisation.

Now that money is going to be even tighter, more efficiencies are going to be demanded (check out the University funding news).

Efficiencies are no bad thing in and of themselves but unfortunately they are not applied through a democratic process but by bureaucracies and markets.

Previous experience suggests that neither of these forms of governance take much effort to consider local communities and this means you have to fight to have your voice heard (so hats off to BC and the other societies for encouraging this).

Although the Southern cuts are unrelated to the finance crisis, cuts are here to stay and are going to effect even the lovely burbs of London....

Bottom line, we need to be vocal when we aren't happy about something. Otherwise attention will focus on those who have a louder voice.

Its called politics.

Tamsin said...

They do have their place, and I do see that even creating something as arcane sounding as a futures market does at least give those producing the actual real commodity some certainty. One also needs to be able to sell off debts. But the whole thing just got too involved and became a money-making machine for the few in that business rather than essential lubrication for real commerce.

You are unfortunately also right about politics and the people who shout loudest being those who are responded to (Kipling's description of Demah-Kerazi, being a devil that inhabits crowds and assemblies). To my mind to worry here is the way the web and new technologies are tipping over from being a force for good (a service for dissidents in oppressive regimes and the vehicle that gave us Obama as US president) to simply favouring those who can for their own ends manipulate it best (look at how the Redeemed Church seems to be coming out first in the poll on this site!).

I sometimes think I favour the Ankh-Morpork version of benevolent dicatorship - but that unfortunately relies on the benevolence and integrity of the one man with the one vote and we know what absolute power does.

Monkeyboy said...

Hmmm... talking about the poll. The Orchard just beats God. The 'Orchard'...apples, garden of Eden. Get it? I sense a malign influence.

Hugh said...

If you think futures markets sound arcane you ought to read a little history. Futures markets grew out of the agricultural economy of yore. We've had them for centuries.

Tamsin said...

Indeed - that is actually what I said - and then, as now, the average country land-owner and even more so the average tenant farmer would not have understood the dealings of the merchant-men in the town and city meeting rooms and coffee houses even though the security of their livelihoods dependend in large measure upon such activities.

And then, as now, the whole thing can come tumbling down with fortunes lost in the South Sea Bubble and local banks collapsing (read Cranford). And then, as now, it was the little people who suffered rather than those whose selfish pursuit their own greedy ends to the detriment of the actual function of their activities brought about the collapse.

Hugh said...

Tamsin, you didn't say it, actually.

Separately, your 'little people' were also, and still are, in it for themselves. The rich and powerful share the same motives but execute more effectively.

And as for it being the little people who feel the worst of economic downturns, how are you measuring that? Many higher earners have lost their jobs lately and those who haven't now face higher taxes that are a standing subsidy for the lifestyles of the rest.

Anonymous said...

Hugh what does the word "arcane" mean in the context of what Tamsin said?

Perseus said...

Hugh you odious little man stop trying to lever a position of patronising ignorance.

Aracane is defined as understood by few and has nothing to do with the age of something.

The powerful spend most of their time creating barriers to entry, keeping the little man out. Barriers include wealth and expertise.

The railways are a complete mess of outsourcing. I should know I spend 4 years as a grad trainee cutting my teeth on their contracts. The solution is smart outsourcing. The government retains ticketing fees and pays companies for maintenance, business as usual and upgrades. Let them compete on service levels and management models whilst providing a public service.

The Oracle said...

Tamsin, I suggest you read up on the South Sea Bubble. You might then speak with some authorship with regards to the losses suffered by a number of different class groups. A large (the largest ?) portion were wealthy.(Perhaps they deserve their losses, which is another point for discussion.)

Hugh said...

I do enjoy seeing the angry mob come out for Christmas. What does 'aracane' mean?

Anonymous said...

Hugh, alone at xmas and picking on a typo instead of apologising for being a prat when losing an argument he started. How sad you encourage abuse as it's the only attention you get beyond your right hand. Mods, if feeding the troll is out of line please remove but alcohol has reduced my self control.

Mmmm, brandy and xmas pudding!

hugh said...

Sorry to hear you're alone. Again is it? Try to get the anger seen to this year, perhaps. Our tax pays for courses you can on. Best of luck with that and the job search.

Anonymous said...

"our tax pays for courses you can on"
What does that mean?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tamsin said...

Oracle, you're right, I should have another go at reading the book on the South Sea Bubble that has been bubbling away on my "read sometime" list - at my first attempt it proved to arcane or aracane for me. Point well made, though that those who invest looking for unrealistic returns in some way deserve what they get. However I stick to the point that the provincial bank collapses hurt the innocent as as this recent debacle.

@Hugh - my heart only bleeds very sluggishly for the "high-earners" who have lost their jobs. They have (or should have if not spent on sinfully conspicuous consumption) enough capital salted away from excess income and bonuses to weather the storm for a bit. They also have the chutzpah to blag their way into alternative careers. It's lower down the scale that there is real suffering on the part of those who only very, very indirectly contributed to the crash.

Also don't see your own motivation in all others. Not everyone is "in it for themselves" - finanancialy anyway. There are still people with vocations for caring (although the creeping privatisation of the increasingly target-orientated health sevice is making that more difficult) and some lawyers work their socks of in legal aid practices (again a job made much harder by the government's blanket reform response to the excesses of the few who milked the system for their own ends).

Perseus said...

Way back in my economics lectures we mooted the idea of a rent seeking tax. Essentially, the less wealth created by a job/industry, the higher the income tax an individual pays. Wealth in the economic sense; anything that makes life better or easier is wealth, more money isn’t. CEOs of companies that make things would pay almost no tax, whilst most people in the city would pay mountains. I still think it would work.

Tamsin, absolutely! Many people aren't driven by the profit motive. The sad truth of modern society is we rely on underpaying people who aren't driven by profit or are from poor backgrounds. Profit focused people spend large amounts of time creating barriers to entry for competitors and barriers to exit for customers. This includes the lawyer who inefficiently writes a rambling contract, the programmer who leaves comments out of his code and trade unions that force employers to keep more staff and not modernise.

The irony is that the more barriers you create, the worse you or your children’s destruction as you force those kept out to get faster, better, stronger and you burden yourself with intransigence and incompetence. Look at the work/study ethic of someone Indian or Chinese.

Hugh, it’s not even worth engaging you as you pick out one typo, ignore the logic that defeats you then resort to patronising pomposity. Don't think you earn more money than most people on here. If "Hugh" isn't a morally dubious social experiment monitoring responses to arrogant nastiness you truly are an unpleasant human. Should my daughter ever had the misfortune of bringing home a pompous fool like your online persona, you wouldn’t be back a second time. However, I doubt your ego could cope with a lady earning more than you.

Hugh said...

Someome clearly had another angry Christmas! Must start reading the Guardian again for occasional intellectual hilarity, clearly.

Tamsin, I agree with you that some people are motivated less selfishly than others. You haven't shown, however, that such people are drawn disproportionately from lower income brackets.

And to the other guy, rage on and keep drawing those benefits. Whatever economics lectures you went to were clearly rather amusing.

Anonymous said...

Christmas resolution, must stop feeding the troll.....doh! done it again.

Anonymous said...

Ah, but which type of troll is he? The second post on this link is lifted from the original BBS definitions from yore.

I vote for contrarian troll

Anonymous said...

Hugh there, rather proving the point about his patronising pomposity.

Anonymous said...

He comes over as a prat but he runs rings around you lot in fairness.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Why do you think he's never once turned up to a BC drinks despite being a regular.

He never will either.

Crofton Parker said...

Er, back on to trains. Does anyone know what time the last train from London Bridge will leave weeknights? Am praying it's later than now...

Tamsin said...

The above looks like an officially published MPs expense claim!

On the trains - go to the rail enquiries, journey planner site. It is usually kept bang up-to-date. When I was looking up the last direct train from Charing X (sign the petition!) a few days before the event it had it flagged that 12th December was when a new timetable was coming in.

Anonymous said...

Anyone got a link or reference to documentation? I know Cllr Walton passed on the info but who at Southern said it? I phoned Southern and they didn't know about the times. Southern planning dept to get back to me.

Anonymous said...

Keep the red flag flying high, power to the people!


Now I have you mongs attention, the train companies shareholders don't get their fat massive profits from the ticket sales of the proletariat, they are paid from the public purse(tax - money taken by the government from people with jobs) a subsidy to run their trains.

Do you think that if they relied on ticket sales for profits that the ticket offices would be shut most of the time and that they would have no revenue protection measures at most of their smaller stations? Do you think Southern would offer massive discounts to customers booking in advance online, especially for 'in-network' journeys.

Anonymous said...

also

Southern are hell of a lot better than those clowns Connex.

Anonymous said...

I finally got a letter from Southern.

Off-peak frequency is far worse than stated originally in this post. '...still to be confirmed...about quarter hourly till 1050, after that they will be hourly'.

Anonymous said...

I finally got a letter from Southern regarding trains from Brockley to London Bridge.

Off-peak frequency is worse than stated in this post. '...still to be confirmed...about quarter hourly till 1050, after that they will be hourly'.

Anonymous said...

"Off-peak frequency is worse than stated in this post. '...still to be confirmed...about quarter hourly till 1050, after that they will be hourly'."

That can't be right even Southern can't be that, bad!

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!