TfL to take over most, if not all London suburban services

[bicbasher]

Is there capacity to put more tph on the Hayes branch, but send them somewhere else, such as Blackfriars, Victoria or even the SLL terminating platforms at Clapham Junction or Battersea Park?

This would at least increase tph between Denmark Hill and Lewisham.

 

[Antman]

Must admit to being in two minds about more TFL involvement.

New trains are irrelevant, as these could be provided by any franchisee. The 378s will turn old over time, so a more relevant issue is presentation and maintenance. So far to be fair the 378s are turned out ok, and there has been an improvement seen on the West Anglia trains. Also they have evidently made some effort to get hold of as many trains as possible, for example with the 317/7s and also hiring the ex London Midland 321s.

However for some reason I just can't make myself like London Overground. It's inefficient breaking up the railway just because of boundaries on a map. The provision of extra capacity on the NLL has been slow, and I don't find many of the staff particularly useful, the impression is they're 'security'-type staff, rather than well-trained and knowledgable railwaymen.

Personally I find SWT's suburban network to be well run, and Southern is not too bad. I've never really found too much fault with Southeastern either to be fair. The sort of improvements could be brought about with a more tightly-specified franchise system, without the railway getting embroiled with all the politics of TFL and the Mayor of London.

And TFL havn't really covered themselves with shining glory on some of their own recent projects closer to home.

And/or to transfer the Hayes branch to the Bakerloo Line. I've also thought that the Bakerloo Line could also take over another SE London inner suburban branch from Lewisham.

Although this would mean smaller trains on the Hayes branch so I suspect the full service would be needed there and I can't really see what other line the Bakerloo could take over from Lewisham.

 

[Mikey C]

This is a policy which has cross party support, and is a natural development.

Indeed, London's rail transport has been surprisingly unpolitical, when you look at the major developments such as the Overground expansion, Thameslink and Crossrail. Clearly TfL itself is generating a lot of the policy, and thus they've survived elections largely unchanged.

 

[JamesRowden]

Although this would mean smaller trains on the Hayes branch so I suspect the full service would be needed there and I can't really see what other line the Bakerloo could take over from Lewisham.

The Victoria Line can run at 34tph. Therefore it should be possible to upgrade the Bakerloo Line to the same level. Splitting the Bakerloo Line between two branches could provide a 17tph peak tube service per branch rather than the present 8tph on the Hayes branch. The second Bakerloo branch could go underground again at the edge of Zone 6 to terminate at a Dartford Tube station under the National Rail station and therefore allow more services from the other two Dartford branches to run to/through Dartford.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Victoria Line can run at 34tph. Therefore it should be possible to upgrade the Bakerloo Line to the same level. Splitting the Bakerloo Line between two branches could provide a 17tph peak tube service per branch rather than the present 8tph on the Hayes branch. The second Bakerloo branch could go underground again at the edge of Zone 6 to terminate at a Dartford Tube station under the National Rail station and therefore allow more services from the other two Dartford branches to run to/through Dartford.

Replacing 8tph of (potentially) 240m trains of main line dimensions with 17tph of trains half the length of tube dimensions doesn't sound like much of a capacity upgrade.

 

[hwl]

There was never any real danger of long distance Kent routes being cut and any increases were always going to be brought about by longer trains.

Cannon St + Charing Cross are at capacity and wont see an increase in peak time services after 2018, so the only option remaining is to lengthen trains - both metro and longer distance (though some of these are 12 carriages already)

ETCS / ATO could increase capacity on post 2018 level at cannon street by 3 or 4 tph.
Plenty of capacity in Blackfriars terminating platforms.

CR especially if it gets extended East will also help.

 

[JamesRowden]

Replacing 8tph of (potentially) 240m trains of main line dimensions with 17tph of trains half the length of tube dimensions doesn't sound like much of a capacity upgrade.

It's the section between Lewisham and London Bridge which is where I think the present trains would be most full. And Tube should have a lot of standing space.

But then, maybe it would be better to just build a completely new second branch for the Bakerloo line which would produce roughly half of the demand of the Hayes branch and can get 11tph of 34tph.

 

[Bald Rick]

ETCS / ATO could increase capacity on post 2018 level at cannon street by 3 or 4 tph.

Not sure about that. 2tph maybe, but not 4.

 

[hwl]

It's the section between Lewisham and London Bridge which is where I think the present trains would be most full. And Tube should have a lot of standing space.

But then, maybe it would be better to just build a completely new second branch for the Bakerloo line which would produce roughly half of the demand of the Hayes branch and can get 11tph of 34tph.

Isn't the Hayes branch 6th?

Absolute no point in having 2 bakerloo extension branches it can only relieve one branch while providing room to grow on that branch and sufficient capacity west of Lewisham

 

[Mag_seven]

If TfL get to specify service levels outside of Greater London, should voters in those areas also get a vote for London Mayor?

 

[JamesRowden]

Isn't the Hayes branch 6th?

Absolute no point in having 2 bakerloo extension branches it can only relieve one branch while providing room to grow on that branch and sufficient capacity west of Lewisham

Sorry, the number in my head was wrong. It's indeed just over 6tph.

Only having one branch leads to a large number of trains terminating at Lewisham and reduces the amount of relief that the line can offer to the other lines at Lewisham since the number of people from SE London which would use the Bakerloo Line for the section between Lewisham and Charing Cross would subsequently reduce. A Bakerloo Line potential frequency of 34tph X 113.5m trains is the equivalent of 16tph X 240m (minus the effect of the carriages being slightly narrower) which is 2/3s of a Crossrail/Thameslink service level. A short second Bakerloo branch is already proposed to run to Beckenham Junction. Perhaps it could be extended a bit further?

 

[AM9]

If TfL get to specify service levels outside of Greater London, should voters in those areas also get a vote for London Mayor?

No, why?

 

[Chrisgr31]

If TfL get to specify service levels outside of Greater London, should voters in those areas also get a vote for London Mayor?

Vote and pay for him!?

So TFL are promising all these improvements. AsI have said before Southern have demonstrated how passenger numbers can be increased by improving the service, the Uckfield line being a shining example.

However where is all the funding for these improv,mets promised by TFL coming from? Presumably the DfT have made new trains for Soith Eastern a franchise requirement because they didn't want to pay for them? So how will TFL pay for them? Equally all these new staff, are they actually funded from increased numbers travelling or are funded from taxation?

Finally is it true that London Overground recieves a significantly greater subsidy than other TOCs in the South East, and that their timetables have significant slack in them?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I notice the London Live report linked above mentions services from Clapham Junction into Kent. Any ideas about this??

If that was going to be done, the obvious way would be along the current Overground route from Clapham Junction to Peckham Rye and then via Nunhead to Lewisham and out to Kent from there. It would fit nicely with the new interchange at Brockley that TfL have mentioned in connection with taking over suburban services.

 

[ScotGG]

However where is all the funding for these improv,mets promised by TFL coming from? Presumably the DfT have made new trains for Soith Eastern a franchise requirement because they didn't want to pay for them? So how will TFL pay for them? Equally all these new staff, are they actually funded from increased numbers travelling or are funded from taxation?

Preventing massive levels of ticketless travel by staffing barriers all day long will be a start.

Travelling on some SE suburban lines is pretty grim currently. Drab trains and unstaffed station so quite a few undesirables on board. It can feel like going back 20 years to Silverlink etc. All TfL modes of transport are a world away in ambiance and feelings of safety. Travelling on some SE lines after 7pm is enough to put some off public transport.

There's scope for big growth, particularly off-peak. TfL will likely do a great job of bringing out that latent demand.

 

[Minstral25]

Preventing massive levels of ticketless travel by staffing barriers all day long will be a start.

Travelling on some SE suburban lines is pretty grim currently. Drab trains and unstaffed station so quite a few undesirables on board. It can feel like going back 20 years to Silverlink etc. All TfL modes of transport are a world away in ambiance and feelings of safety. Travelling on some SE lines after 7pm is enough to put some off public transport.

There's scope for big growth, particularly off-peak. TfL will likely do a great job of bringing out that latent demand.

It's all about Funding. Somehow TfL seem to have the money to pay for the staffing levels whereas the DfT franchises are let on the basis of the best value for the taxpayer - hence are stripped of all peripheries like station staff on all platforms. Perhaps better explained is that TfL are not the "Best" deal for the taxpayer but the best service for the user. It's time all Franchises were worked on that basis - the TOC's wouldn't mind if they could cost it into their bids.

If I am reading the Thameslink part of this correctly it seems that TfL are looking to run the 8 car services routes leaving the 12 car services with the continuing TOC. That would be handy for fleet split but how will the Siemens contract be affected.

 

[jopsuk]

You're right, the WLL is a victim of it's own success. There are I think 3 or 4 Southern tph at peak times to supplement LO on the WLL too and it's still packed. The platforms have been lengthened so 8 car 377's can do the journey which will help a lot.

Remember that this was a line that had very few passengers or stations until relatively recently.

Quite. The comparisons to Operation Princess (which lets not forget DID mean many more people trying to use XC services) are spurious

 

[The Ham]

Quite. The comparisons to Operation Princess (which lets not forget DID mean many more people trying to use XC services) are spurious

Quite, although both result in the running of "short" trains (I.e. not as long as some on the network as a whole) only one shortened trains.

 

[Antman]

The Victoria Line can run at 34tph. Therefore it should be possible to upgrade the Bakerloo Line to the same level. Splitting the Bakerloo Line between two branches could provide a 17tph peak tube service per branch rather than the present 8tph on the Hayes branch. The second Bakerloo branch could go underground again at the edge of Zone 6 to terminate at a Dartford Tube station under the National Rail station and therefore allow more services from the other two Dartford branches to run to/through Dartford.

Queens Park wouldn't be able to cope with 34tph, there is often a queue of northbound trains now, and I'm not sure that level of service would be justified on the relatively quiet Bakerloo Line anyway?

 

[The Ham]

Although the document confirms that split of service will not lead to a reduction in paths for the remaining services to be run by TOC's, there is no talk of what will happen once (say) Crossrail 2 creates new paths.

Will TfL be able to say, Londoners funded a significant amount of the works therefore we should have all of them (or at least some of them) to improve services (beyond those who will see a direct improvement from Crossrail 2 anyway) for Londoners.

If that were to happen there would be a lot of angry commuters on services further out who services could do with more paths to create more capacity but wouldn't get any/many more.

Given the talk was of Crossrail 2 producing about 7 paths an hour (which most people assumed would be mostly for longer distance services) if TfL opt to take 2tph for service improvements for the Richmond/Kingston Waterloo loop services (to increase the service frequency form 4tph to 6tph). That then doesn't leave many of the following being able to gain 1tph; Woking (stoppers), Alton, Basingstoke (stoppers), Guildford (not via Woking, stoppers) Portsmouth (either direct and/or via Basingstoke), Southampton/Weymouth, Salisbury/Exeter.

That is unless they start splitting and joining services further out than Wimbledon but at both Woking and Basingstoke there could, even with junction improvements, be potentially limited scope to do so.

(i'm assuming that Wimbledon is the capacity constraint and that any increase in services on the Windsor Lines can be accommodated as there would be less trains that would need to pass though the existing lines at Clapham Junction. Of course if this isn't the case it could further reduce capacity for TOC services as more paths would be needed by TfL services.)

 

[Bald Rick]

Although the document confirms that split of service will not lead to a reduction in paths for the remaining services to be run by TOC's, there is no talk of what will happen once (say) Crossrail 2 creates new paths.

Will TfL be able to say, Londoners funded a significant amount of the works therefore we should have all of them (or at least some of them) to improve services (beyond those who will see a direct improvement from Crossrail 2 anyway) for Londoners.

If that were to happen there would be a lot of angry commuters on services further out who services could do with more paths to create more capacity but wouldn't get any/many more.

Given the talk was of Crossrail 2 producing about 7 paths an hour (which most people assumed would be mostly for longer distance services) if TfL opt to take 2tph for service improvements for the Richmond/Kingston Waterloo loop services (to increase the service frequency form 4tph to 6tph). That then doesn't leave many of the following being able to gain 1tph; Woking (stoppers), Alton, Basingstoke (stoppers), Guildford (not via Woking, stoppers) Portsmouth (either direct and/or via Basingstoke), Southampton/Weymouth, Salisbury/Exeter.

That is unless they start splitting and joining services further out than Wimbledon but at both Woking and Basingstoke there could, even with junction improvements, be potentially limited scope to do so.

(i'm assuming that Wimbledon is the capacity constraint and that any increase in services on the Windsor Lines can be accommodated as there would be less trains that would need to pass though the existing lines at Clapham Junction. Of course if this isn't the case it could further reduce capacity for TOC services as more paths would be needed by TfL services.)

They will be long distance paths. The suburban frequency improvement is provided by CR2.

 

[LLivery]

I don't what relevance 'Boris buses' have or what is stupid about them but they don't all have conductors anyway!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People the buses as overly expensive and see conductors on those buses as doing nothing, while SWT guards are popular with passengers, additionally as far as they are concerned TfL is TfL, there is on difference between LO, Buses, LU etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's all about Funding. Somehow TfL seem to have the money to pay for the staffing levels whereas the DfT franchises are let on the basis of the best value for the taxpayer - hence are stripped of all peripheries like station staff on all platforms. Perhaps better explained is that TfL are not the "Best" deal for the taxpayer but the best service for the user. It's time all Franchises were worked on that basis - the TOC's wouldn't mind if they could cost it into their bids.

If I am reading the Thameslink part of this correctly it seems that TfL are looking to run the 8 car services routes leaving the 12 car services with the continuing TOC. That would be handy for fleet split but how will the Siemens contract be affected.

They won't get Thameslink. The confusion has come from the whole Thameslink, Southern Great Northern franchise/the GTR brands. Southern and Great Northern suburbans will be transferred. The Thameslink route stays out of TfLs hands.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there capacity to put more tph on the Hayes branch, but send them somewhere else, such as Blackfriars, Victoria or even the SLL terminating platforms at Clapham Junction or Battersea Park?

This would at least increase tph between Denmark Hill and Lewisham.

Probably could get more trains on the Hayes line if trains came from Victoria or Blackfriars. Diverting all of them wouldn't be very popular though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It will be interesting what will TfL do with the Desiros, Desiro Cities, Electrostars and Networkers. Looking forward to the Networker refurbs. Maybe a different LO livery to what is already seen.

 

[swt_passenger]

Nice summary of their understanding of the lack of facts from the prospectus on London Reconnections this morning:

It does not specify which franchises will pass to TfL for management, although it provides a general idea of the scope.
It does not say that all London’s railways will become part of London Overground.
It does not set out a timetable for the devolution of any services.
It does not commit TfL or the DfT to any specific improvements in service levels or quality of service.

 

[Barn]

Finally is it true that London Overground recieves a significantly greater subsidy than other TOCs in the South East, and that their timetables have significant slack in them?

It's not really directly comparable. LOROL (the operator of London Overground) receives a fee for operating a defined service specification. It doesn't receive the revenue for ticket sales and does not determine pricing. It is really just a service provider for a service owned by TfL.

A franchised TOC receives the revenue for ticket sales. It prices its own tickets. There is some control over pricing and service levels, but to a lesser degree than LOROL. Depending on the franchise, the TOC either receives a subsidy or pays a premium to the DfT.

Most TOCs actually pay a premium rather than receive a subsidy. The main South Eastern TOC requiring a subsidy is, funnily enough, Southeastern.

See the report below (scroll to the right for more recent years). Negative numbers mean premium, positive numbers mean subsidy.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/95218cca-408d-4047-83ce-a542c53b59e6

It is likely that TfL will prefer the LOROL approach for inner-London services going forward.

 

[hwl]

Sorry, the number in my head was wrong. It's indeed just over 6tph.

Only having one branch leads to a large number of trains terminating at Lewisham and reduces the amount of relief that the line can offer to the other lines at Lewisham since the number of people from SE London which would use the Bakerloo Line for the section between Lewisham an4d Charing Cross would subsequently reduce. A Bakerloo Line potential frequency of 34tph X 113.5m trains is the equivalent of 16tph X 240m (minus the effect of the carriages being slightly narrower) which is 2/3s of a Crossrail/Thameslink service level. A short second Bakerloo branch is already proposed to run to Beckenham Junction. Perhaps it could be extended a bit further?

No you just don't appear to understand that there can only be 1 branch as there has to be:
A) spare capacity left for those who get on at elephant waterloo and charing Cross at the moment and growth there.
B) spare capacity for passengers who get on at OKR1 OKR2 New Cross Gate and Lewisham especially as the funding model is predicated on this.

Once you subtract those from the total capacity you only have 1 branch of capacity left and it has to be the least busy one.

 

[Class377/5]

It's not really directly comparable. LOROL (the operator of London Overground) receives a fee for operating a defined service specification. It doesn't receive the revenue for ticket sales and does not determine pricing. It is really just a service provider for a service owned by TfL.

A franchised TOC receives the revenue for ticket sales. It prices its own tickets. There is some control over pricing and service levels, but to a lesser degree than LOROL. Depending on the franchise, the TOC either receives a subsidy or pays a premium to the DfT.

Most TOCs actually pay a premium rather than receive a subsidy. The main South Eastern TOC requiring a subsidy is, funnily enough, Southeastern.

See the report below (scroll to the right for more recent years). Negative numbers mean premium, positive numbers mean subsidy.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/95218cca-408d-4047-83ce-a542c53b59e6

It is likely that TfL will prefer the LOROL approach for inner-London services going forward.

Of course that doesn't apply to GTR which is same model as LO.

 

[ComUtoR]

It's not really directly comparable. LOROL (the operator of London Overground) receives a fee for operating a defined service specification. It doesn't receive the revenue for ticket sales and does not determine pricing. It is really just a service provider for a service owned by TfL.

What's the difference between a fee and a subsidy ?

From the link you provided. The grant payment to LO was 35.4mil but the subsidy to Southern was 12.4mil and the Subsidy to Southeastern was 35.6mil The tax payer still pays.

There is little difference. I'm happy to be corrected and better informed.

 

[The Ham]

They will be long distance paths. The suburban frequency improvement is provided by CR2.

Most suburban frequency will see improvements directly because of CR2, but not all stations will.

However that is not the point, as basically my concern is that although there is talk of the current TOC paths being guaranteed there is no such promise if more paths become available.

As such it is possible that the number of long distance paths created could be less than is assumed at present, especially if TfL want to further increase frequencies in 14 years time (2030) as passenger numbers have gone up faster than is currently assumed.

For instance when LO took on the Silverlink services very few people would have guessed that passenger numbers would increase five fold during the first franchise period. OK, that was from a low base, however growth to 2030 could still be significantly higher than the circa 40% assumed growth (to 2043) in the Wessex Route Strategy.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Queens Park wouldn't be able to cope with 34tph, there is often a queue of northbound trains now, and I'm not sure that level of service would be justified on the relatively quiet Bakerloo Line anyway?

Seeing that most Bakerloo trains originating at Elephant & Castle don't run the full length of the current route (terminating at Queens Park or Stonebridge Park)... why not think outside the box?

There are still two seldom-used platforms at Charing Cross, from when the Jubilee Line was diverted to Westminster... if you're going to build more tunnels anyway to make the extension, why not bore tunnels to access those platforms (from the south) and terminate some 'new branch' trains there ? Passengers wanting a through journey from the new branch to, say, Baker Street or beyond, would need to change at the previous station, though...

 

[urpert]

And/or to transfer the Hayes branch to the Bakerloo Line. I've also thought that the Bakerloo Line could also take over another SE London inner suburban branch from Lewisham.

Very unlikely to happen now according to the just-published public consultation. I'd be amazed if we ever saw Bakerloo line trains beyond Lewisham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If that was going to be done, the obvious way would be along the current Overground route from Clapham Junction to Peckham Rye and then via Nunhead to Lewisham and out to Kent from there. It would fit nicely with the new interchange at Brockley that TfL have mentioned in connection with taking over suburban services.

Or along the Catford Loop, where (unlike at Lewisham) there is plenty of spare capacity and currently only 2tph actually serving the stations.

When the ELLX was under debate one of the options included a Victoria - Bellingham stopper twice an hour. I could imagine Clapham Jn - Bellingham being a similar prospect.