13 April 2010
Dear Martin
RE: Cannon Street service and ORR comments
Thanks for forwarding me a copy of the letter from the Office of Rail Regulation dated 30th March. What the letter says is that ‘The Thameslink service post completion of the Thameslink Project is not within the gift of either ORR or Network Rail, but will be specified by the Department for Transport’. That’s precisely what I’ve been saying- it is not a decision; it is simply a recommendation which the Department for Transport will evaluate.
It’s true that the letter goes on to say that ORR are content with Network Rail’s proposal insofar as the regulatory issues are concerned but that in no way means that the Department for Transport would be so satisfied. Indeed, my recent meeting with Andrew Adonis suggests that that is unlikely to be the case.
I was grateful to you therefore for sending me the copy letter which confirms what I have been saying, namely that the RUS proposal is no more than that- a proposal, which I know together we intend to oppose.
There is however one issue in the letter which is challengeable.
I have been told for some time past by the Department for Transport that it may well be that 12 carriage trains will be able to be supported south of Tonbridge despite the power supply limits. The Office of Rail Regulation suggests that that is not the case and I know that others agree with them but the Department for Transport is certainly not taking that view. I will however write to ORR to ask that they liaise with the DfT so that we can get this clear as it depends on other options, including the purchase of the trains themselves.
As you know, the Department for Transport are also considering as to whether train swaps may be possible to preserve the Cannon Street connection.
You will note that the ORR letter also says that enhancements of Marshlink services en route either in isolation or in combination would not be possible. In fact we’ve just reached agreement that there will be additional stops at Winchelsea and Three Oaks despite the fact that the ORR do not believe that the case has been made. Concessions made by the Minsiter to allow Southern to do that. I think that proves the point I am making- that it’s not down to Network Rail or ORR but to the Minster through the DfT.
I think we’re all on the same side on this, it’s just that I want to make clear that the DfT have not, not, not, agreed to what RUS have suggested, that it is unlikely that the would do so and that the Office of Rail Regulation confirms that it is a DfT decision in due course and not a Network Rail decision as is being claimed. I know we can win this.
With best wishes
Yours sincerely
MICHAEL FOSTER