😠 Thameslink Train Services

• Thameslink Service Dependency: Many residents in Mid Bedfordshire depend on Thameslink services for commuting to work and leisure activities in London, using stations like Harlington and Flitwick. These services also connect to Luton and Gatwick airports.

• Service Issues: Overcrowding, frequent cancellations, and delays plague Thameslink services. Surveys indicate 57% of passengers rate the service as poor, with 80% affected by cancellations and 88% experiencing delays over 10 minutes in the past month.

• Impact on Daily Life: Residents shared experiences of sudden train cancellations, unreliable schedules affecting travel plans, and the need to make multiple delay repay claims. The unreliability affects their ability to use trains for important journeys, sometimes forcing them to use cars.

• Economic and Accessibility Concerns: Poor service impacts local productivity and economic ties with London. There’s also a pressing need for better accessibility, particularly step-free access at stations, which is crucial for disabled passengers.

• Future Pressures and Planning: Thameslink is expected to face more pressure from future developments such as Luton airport expansion, a Universal theme park, and housing growth. Planning for increased capacity and future projects is critical to meet these demands.

• Government’s Role and Nationalisation Plans: The Government aims to improve rail services through nationalisation and the creation of Great British Railways. However, there’s uncertainty about the timeline and specifics of how it will address reliability, capacity, and fares.

• Efforts to Improve: The Transport Department is addressing crew availability, a major cause of cancellations, and infrastructure upgrades are underway. The Government is committed to overseeing Thameslink’s performance and planning for its future needs.

The level of disagreement displayed in the session is minimal, warranting a rating of 1 (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates the lowest level of disagreement). Throughout the debate, there is a consensus among the participants on the issues affecting Thameslink train services, and their criticism is primarily directed towards the performance and reliability of the services rather than towards each other. Below are the key points and examples supporting this assessment:

1. Consensus on Issues: The main speaker, Blake Stephenson, and other participants, including Alistair Strathern and the Minister Simon Lightwood, all acknowledge the problems with Thameslink services such as delays, cancellations, and insufficient train crew. This shared recognition of the issues does not lead to any visible contention.

2. Supportive Interventions: The interventions from other Members of Parliament, such as Alistair Strathern and Jim Shannon, are generally supportive of Blake Stephenson’s points. For example, Alistair Strathern’s comment about the lack of drivers and the need for more focus on passengers was met with agreement from Blake Stephenson, indicating alignment rather than discord.

   Example: - Alistair Strathern: “Does he agree that securing sufficient drivers for the line and getting back to putting passengers at the heart of our rail operations will be fundamental to delivering the rail services that my communities and his desperately need?” - Blake Stephenson: “I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for joining this important debate for the communities across Bedfordshire that rely heavily on rail services for leisure and work.”

3. Ministerial Response: The Minister also does not contradict or challenge the points raised by other speakers. Instead, Simon Lightwood acknowledges the problems and outlines steps that the government is taking to address the issues, further demonstrating a lack of contention.

   Example: - Simon Lightwood: “I recognise that performance on Thameslink, operated by Govia Thameslink Railway, has not been where we expect it to be, and passengers deserve better.”

4. General Agreement on Solutions: While there are various points raised about solutions, including the need for more train crew and better infrastructure, there is no disagreement on the need for these improvements. The suggestions are all aligned with the goal of improving Thameslink services.

In summary, the session is characterized by a shared frustration with the current state of Thameslink services and a unity in the call for improvements, with no evident disagreements among the participants.