Author Topic: Consultation on reducing train services to Brookmans Park  (Read 12726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sasquartch

  • Forum Moderator
  • Opinions on everything
  • *****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Thanked: 34 times
  • Brookmans Park Forum Member
Re: Consultation on reducing train services to Brookmans Park
« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2017, 01:48:15 pm »
I sent my concerns (basically echoing James) yesterday and got an acknowledgement today. Not sure why the email address is though. Are they part of the same company as Great Northern ?

Thanks for your email.  We're having a great response to our 2018 timetable consultation so it might be a few days until we respond.
If your comment or question is on our current service please contact Customer Services.
Thank you.

   Email us at:

Offline Local Walker

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Forum Member
Re: Consultation on reducing train services to Brookmans Park
« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2017, 02:04:21 pm »
Not sure why the email address is though. Are they part of the same company as Great Northern ?

The overarching company is Govia Thameslink Railway of which Southern, Gatwick Express, Thameslink and Great Northern are sub-brands. So in other words, yes they are all part of the same company and have been like that since GTR's takeover nearly 3 years ago and Southern merger nearly 2.

Offline Nimbus

  • Opinions on some things
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Thanked: 31 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Forum Member
Re: Consultation on reducing train services to Brookmans Park
« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2017, 02:54:06 pm »
Cuffley otoh merits 6 per hour. Perhaps our local parking problems may migrate there.

I also note that evening peak may be starting 30 minutes earlier under these proposals.

Once it's all linked up, I dread to think what sort of contagion will ensue when things go pear-shaped south of The River!

Offline Tubbs

  • Opinions on some things
  • **
  • Posts: 48
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Consultation on reducing train services to Brookmans Park
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2017, 06:13:27 pm »
Thanks to James and his unstinting hard work on behalf of the community.

I've sent the following to their consultation email address

Re: Rail Consultation: Unnacceptable service reduction to Brookmans Park/Welham Green

This is in response to the apparent consultation re: proposed services changes; in particular those affecting Brookmans Park and Welham Green, Hertfordshire. It is my understanding that expressing a view is to be via the email addresss above. If is is not please advise and re-address as appropriate

In brief: The 'proposed' service reductioins are TOTALLY UNNACCEPTABLE.

Your web states that this is a consultation seeking views on proposed changes. Since these are proposals, then I assume that the 'proposed changes' can be reversed. I require your confirmation by return that this is the case. If they cannot be, or only within limits which of themselves would be unnacceptable, then clearly this would not be a true consultation and would be a sham.

The 'proposals' (assuming they have not yet become 'undeclared facts') are that the services to Brookmans Park ['BP'] and Welham Green ['WG'] will be (or already irrevocably planned to be) reduced from three to TWO.

This reduction will have a MAJOR NEGATIVE IMPACT on those who depend on these services. This includes this writer and his immediate family. The service reduction would add logistic / work / programme schedule difficulties impacting the ability to earn a  living and other commitments and increase the already disproportionate amout of time travelling. And that assumes the present service runs on time or at all; which frequently is not the case.


The proposed (assuming it's not already cast in a hidden stone?) timetable reductions have trains using the line and stopping at all other stations except BP and WG. Why is this? Given the limited information from yourselves, let us consider the possible reasons.

1. The trains will run through so there is zero (or near zero) money cost in stopping.

2. The time taken for the stops is (and would be) little more than 1 minute in each case. And those (non-stopping) trains will have to join the train queues further up / down the line. So there is no timetable saving.

3. Is the overall rail / track usage so crowded that you consider it necessary to shave even 3 or 4 minutes total off the train journey times to make the overall schedule work? If that is the case then clearly the overall planning is seriously poor. And moreover the new trains which are to be introduced are - one assumes - faster than the antiquated present units. The higher speed of those new trains must mean that service reductions are not necessary. (Ps: The attitude to the maintenance of trains has been appalling. For at least 10 years on most trains communicating doors have been swinging back and fourth (with SAFETY and comfort implications), because apparently you are unwilling or unable to carry out simple 10 door catch repairs! On this item alone one must doubt motives and thus sincerity.)

4. Wear and tear on the trains due to stopping and starting? Is that the reason? If it is, the miniscule marginal cost is being set at a higher value than the gross inconvenience to the customers the rail system is supposed to serve.

5. Is it to minimize potential lost revenue (from ticketless passengers) due to the stations concerned having no barriers / being un-manned? One suspects that reducing the service - during the day and evenings -when a higher number of passengers might not hold season tickets - might contribute. If that is the case then are the 99.999% ticketed passengers (whether holding a season or a single jouney ticket) are to be penalised / inconvenienced; and simply because ther ail franchisee is unable to manage its affairs?

In the evenings in particular many passengers commence their journey at Kings Cross and change at Finsbury Park to take limited stopping trains to Potters Bar and await a 'local' train. A reduction in service will result in a major increase in mid and late evening road traffic because of the otherwsie incres in waiting time. It deios appear that your proposals take no account of (or dismiss) that increase in road traffic with its consequences.

In summary your proposals are unnecessary, seem to be proposed for unnacceptable ulterior motives to provide at the most a small marginal benfit to yourselves at a major cost to customers.

I look forward to receiving your reply.