No benefits for Uckfield

Regarding the Gibb Report submitted to Government in December, and published in June ( RAIL 830): Chris Gibb states that the Uckfield line should be electric - not to help us, but to improve Thameslink trains. He says that the Uckfield line should be as reliable as single lines abroad are, but forgets that countries abroad have joined-up railways and not separate companies for trains and infrastructure.

The report suggests taking out the Ashurst stop to improve timekeeping by two minutes. On the single line, it is the Down line train that is always a few minutes late and delays the Up train, so taking out the station stop only means that the train waits on the signal two minutes longer. On the Down line to Uckfield the train has a 12-minute turn-round, so saving two minutes is of little consequence. He then goes on to say that electrifying the line means faster trains.

Other than the three peak services, he suggests joining up at Oxted with the East Grinstead train. Five minutes waiting to join up, then stopping all stations to East Croydon instead of fast from Oxted, lengthens the time by a further ten minutes. So this surely means that the time to London will take 15 minutes longer. Why is he trying to kid us? Is it to save a pathway on his Thameslink line to London Bridge.

He also suggests that the annual season fare to London should be the same as the Hastings line - £2,800 increased to £4,800 - but gives no reason or justification.

I try not to be political, but his report blames all of the poor GTR services on the union disputes. I leave it to RAIL readers to decide if they believe this. Bob Howes, Edenbridge and District Rail Travellers Association