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

[HH]

Well exactly franchises don't care, so the current system doesn't work well as the DfT also are disinterested. TfL are more interested in that aspect.

Clip - who said NR give land away? They would retain their share of income from sales, but as they have been poor at capturing value from their land TfLs approach is likely to improve this potential source of revenue.

NR are not poor at capturing value of their land; it's more that they see value accruing out of commercial development, rather than providing housing.

 

[Clip]

Clip - who said NR give land away? They would retain their share of income from sales, but as they have been poor at capturing value from their land TfLs approach is likely to improve this potential source of revenue.

Pretty much says it there in the post I quoted.

 

[jon0844]

Well, I guess we'll have to wait a while longer (at least until there's another transport secretary, which could be any day!).

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-railways-stopped-in-its-tracks-a3413281.html

Sadiq Khan's bid to take over London's suburban railways stopped in its tracks by Chris Grayling

Sadiq Khan’s bid to take over London’s suburban railways was halted in its tracks today.

In an exclusive interview, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said there was a danger of “deckchair shifting” with no real improvement for passengers.

The bitter blow to the Mayor’s devolution ambitions was delivered in a dramatic phone call soon before 10am.

Mr Grayling formally rejected Mr Khan’s proposal to take over Southeastern services from 2018, which would have been the first step towards Transport for London taking charge of all services up to the capital’s boundaries.

Sources close to the Mayor described the call as “short and businesslike”. Mr Khan accused Mr Grayling of blocking a plan that would have brought “desperately needed” improvements.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I guess thats it for now then but I wdoubt wev heard tha last of it.

Short sited move IMO

 

[Class455]

Well, I guess we'll have to wait a while longer (at least until there's another transport secretary, which could be any day!).

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-railways-stopped-in-its-tracks-a3413281.html

Excellent news!

 

[Class377/5]

Sources close to the Mayor described the call as “short and businesslike”. Mr Khan accused Mr Grayling of blocking a plan that would have brought “desperately needed” improvements.

Not sure fare payers need 'improvements' like less seats and less direct services as TfL have proposed doing in order to make that magic 40% capacity increase they suggest.

 

[IKB]

Lots of politics involved here. Grayling does not like Khan. I'd wager there will be little (if any) devolution of London commuter services under a Tory Transport Sec. I may well be proved wrong, but I'm very skeptical. The last time I saw Grayling on TV answering questions about a TFL takeover he rubbished by saying it was ridiculous that the Mayor should control trains heading into the home counties and the south coast. He knows full well that's not what is being proposed, but its a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and discredit the idea before it gains too much traction.

As predicted !

If the "deep alliance" between TOCs and NR goes ahead, then I suspect when franchises are renewed it will be for a considerable period of time. Infrastructure planning requires longevity. In those circumstances I don't think it's unreasonable to assume any prospective TFL devolution could be dead for a long time (perhaps at least 15 years until a franchise is renewed).

Not sure fare payers need 'improvements' like less seats and less direct services as TfL have proposed doing in order to make that magic 40% capacity increase they suggest.

Agree.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its suggested Grayling went cold on the idea since the start of the year because Sadiq had no plan to deal with the union disputes.

 

[physics34]

Not sure fare payers need 'improvements' like less seats and less direct services as TfL have proposed doing in order to make that magic 40% capacity increase they suggest.

Wonder what happens now to the Southern 2018 timetable consultation which has some changes which "look like" they were done with future TfL changes in mind.

 

[IKB]

Wonder what happens now to the Southern 2018 timetable consultation which has some changes which "look like" they were done with future TfL changes in mind.

What changes were you thinking, since GTR is not up for renewal until 2021?

 

[physics34]

What changes were you thinking, since GTR is not up for renewal until 2021?

there seemed to be some changes to the metro timetable that looked like they were geared up for the possible TfL split in 2021, such as fast LBG to Caterhams.... Vic to Coulsdon Town... and the FAST LBG to Epsom services

 

[IKB]

there seemed to be some changes to the metro timetable that looked like they were geared up for the possible TfL split in 2021, such as fast LBG to Caterhams.... Vic to Coulsdon Town... and the FAST LBG to Epsom services

A waiting game to find out! I suspect the fast LBG to Epsoms would be very well used.

 

[ScotGG]

Not sure fare payers need 'improvements' like less seats and less direct services as TfL have proposed doing in order to make that magic 40% capacity increase they suggest.

They may however like staff on stations to ensure freeloaders actually have to pay, the widespread anti-social passenger quota on free-for-all Southeastern Metro is reduced and busy stations, growing at 10-20% a year (e.g. Kidbrooke) actually have staff to assist and serve.

And maybe enough trains for rapidly growing areas of London?

And clapped out 25 year old Networkers refurbed?

And fares that aren't higher than the rest of London, and rising above inflation each year?

Good luck getting the DfT to sort that out. They havn't before.

 

[IKB]

They may however like staff on stations to ensure freeloaders actually have to pay, the widespread anti-social passenger quota on free-for-all Southeastern Metro is reduced and busy stations, growing at 10-20% a year (e.g. Kidbrooke) actually have staff to assist and serve.

And maybe enough trains for rapidly growing areas of London?

And clapped out 25 year old Networkers refurbed?

And fares that aren't higher than the rest of London, and rising above inflation each year?

Good luck getting the DfT to sort that out. They havn't before.

All of those things can be specified in a new franchise agreement. TOCs bidding to win will want to address them.

And TFL couldn't address those things without putting up fares!

 

[ScotGG]

All of those things can be specified in a new franchise agreement. TOCs bidding to win will want to address them.

And TFL couldn't address those things without putting up fares!

This is always said, but it didn't in 2006, nor 2012, nor 2014, and I'm almost certain it won't happen now.

The DfT stipulates the terms, and they wont be anything like as positive as TfL would provide.

Still, good if you don't pay for tickets. Years of free travel yet to come. No station staff in most cases on barriers means freebies continue. Paying punters are the mugs.

And TfL have addressed those things on Greater Anglia stations since 2015 without a fare rise. Many new trains ordered within months of takeover, a more comprehensive refurb in months for existing trains than Govia have ever managed in a decade (and that's on trains with a much shorter shelf life left in them), fares frozen now for 4 years, stations staffed from first to last reducing fare evasion and increasing passengers by 25%. in one year.

All the evidence is there that the DfT have failed Southeastern and TfL have benefited areas it's taken over.

 

[physics34]

A waiting game to find out! I suspect the fast LBG to Epsoms would be very well used.

yep...... SUtton, West Croydon and Norwood Jct would benefit...although its not a bonus for Norwood overall.

 

[bicbasher]

Thanks Chris Grayling for keeping the status quo in SE London. The divide between TfL managed services and NR TOC's continues.

 

[bramling]

Thanks Chris Grayling for keeping the status quo in SE London. The divide between TfL managed services and NR TOC's continues.

In my view the objective should be to get *all* the services up to a good standard, not have a tidemark between the TFL and non-TFL ones.

 

[Class 170101]

Not sure fare payers need 'improvements' like less seats and less direct services as TfL have proposed doing in order to make that magic 40% capacity increase they suggest.

I think less seats in Metro areas will be the only way to increase capacity in the short to medium term. I have my doubts about Mark Carne's digital signalling and whether it will deliver what he claims should it even come to frutition.

Focussing services onto specific routes rather than using crossings should increase capacity, whilst it may mean more people changing trains it will be a balance between easy journeys and capacity and at the moment capacity is important. Remember TfL have been trying to split the Northern Line for years simply to increase capacity but Camden Town has caused serious problems due to lack of station space to accommodate their proposals.

 

[matt_world2004]

In my view the objective should be to get *all* the services up to a good standard, not have a tidemark between the TFL and non-TFL ones.

Why should tfl pay to improve southerns or south west trains services when they are getting none of the revenue from the running of those services and cannot enforce an penalty on the operator when they do not keep to their agreed service standards

 

[IKB]

I think less seats in Metro areas will be the only way to increase capacity in the short to medium term. I have my doubts about Mark Carne's digital signalling and whether it will deliver what he claims should it even come to frutition.

Terminal station capacity will ultimately limit what can be achieved by digital signalling. Pointless having trains spaced by a couple of minutes if at the end of line there are no platforms to put them in. The existing 6 minute turnarounds on 10 coach services are already too tight, hence outward workings are frequently late as the train is still emptying out 5 minutes after the train has arrived (not to mention losing minutes on the inbound).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why should tfl pay to improve southerns or south west trains services when they are getting none of the revenue from the running of those services and cannot enforce an penalty on the operator when they do not keep to their agreed service standards

I think they meant the DFT bring TOCs up to TFL standards in the new franchise agreements.

 

[infobleep]

Chris Grayling said why should Guildford have a service into London that TfL run when they have no control over the mayor.

I wonder what he thinks of the Queen Elizabeth line to Reading and the Overground line to Watford Junction. Just to examples I can think of where TfL run or will run services beyond London. Those residents don't get a say on the major!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[matt_world2004]

Chris Grayling said why should Guildford have a service into London that TfL run when they have no control over the mayor.

I wonder what he thinks of the Queen Elizabeth line to Reading and the Overground line to Watford Junction. Just to examples I can think of where TfL run or will run services beyond London. Those residents don't get a say on the major!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

There is a steering committee made up of local authorities outside greater London that have a say . All tfl services that cross the greater London boundary in addition to this consultations of service changes are regularly held which are open to all interested parties.

 

[IKB]

Chris Grayling said why should Guildford have a service into London that TfL run when they have no control over the mayor.

I wonder what he thinks of the Queen Elizabeth line to Reading and the Overground line to Watford Junction. Just to examples I can think of where TfL run or will run services beyond London. Those residents don't get a say on the major!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Its often about politics, consistency doesn't necessarily come into it!

 

[infobleep]

There is a steering committee made up of local authorities outside greater London that have a say . All tfl services that cross the greater London boundary in addition to this consultations of service changes are regularly held which are open to all interested parties.

Interesting. Still doesn't change the he fact Mr Grayling said why should Guildford passengers have a mayor they don't elect manage their route, yet that is what will happen with the Queen Elizabeth line and is what is happening with the Overground line to Watford.

I didn't see a quote from a opposite politician but if I were one, that is what I'd be asking in the houses of Parliament.

May still be good reasons for it to be the case but it's worth making the point. He can then answer it.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Class377/5]

Wonder what happens now to the Southern 2018 timetable consultation which has some changes which "look like" they were done with future TfL changes in mind.

Well as GTR have sated thats that they want to run, not sure this will change canything.

They may however like staff on stations to ensure freeloaders actually have to pay, the widespread anti-social passenger quota on free-for-all Southeastern Metro is reduced and busy stations, growing at 10-20% a year (e.g. Kidbrooke) actually have staff to assist and serve.

Puttin gstaff on stations can be specified by DfT if they want to. They had a clause all GTR station with over a million passengers a year. Why not ensure this happens with SE?

And maybe enough trains for rapidly growing areas of London?

Seeing as the fleet has extanded in the last few years, despite your claims, and is going to increase?

Don't forget TfL were suggesting just 6x four car units as the only additions to the fleet.

And clapped out 25 year old Networkers refurbed?

Refurbishment of the Network was put on hold due to short franchses. Actually doing the work isn't linked to TfL or DfT control but can be arranged as part of the new franchise.

However seeing as one proposal made was to remove all seats (and toilets) to make way for more capacity, I'm surprised you support TfL and its intentions on the SE lines.

Perhaps you missed the TfL study on removing seats for a tube like experience? Is that what you really want?

And fares that aren't higher than the rest of London, and rising above inflation each year?

I dont believe TfL stated to change anything in this area. Travelcard still come under TfL's remit so not sure franchise or TfL will have made any different to most of the metro fares.

Good luck getting the DfT to sort that out. They havn't before.

And what were TfL offering to do? Very little actually when you looked into it it recognised that the latest GTR timetable proposal would have meant they weren't going to do that much anyway.

Thanks Chris Grayling for keeping the status quo in SE London. The divide between TfL managed services and NR TOC's continues.

I wait evidence that TfL will magically improve anything. And the original LO lines are nothing like the SE lines. Even with the Anglia stuff they haven't fixed a lot of issues other than paint stuff.

I think less seats in Metro areas will be the only way to increase capacity in the short to medium term. I have my doubts about Mark Carne's digital signalling and whether it will deliver what he claims should it even come to frutition.

Focussing services onto specific routes rather than using crossings should increase capacity, whilst it may mean more people changing trains it will be a balance between easy journeys and capacity and at the moment capacity is important. Remember TfL have been trying to split the Northern Line for years simply to increase capacity but Camden Town has caused serious problems due to lack of station space to accommodate their proposals.

TfL have suggested they would fix the capacity issues by the same techniques as NR, however TfL will remove seats while ensuring maximum capacity. Can you imagine the uproar if they remove around half the seats? Because that is one idea floating around. Or did you see the idea of removing all seats from the Networkers as a way to increase capacity?

The general public think TfL have a magic fix the railways wand as they basically took the old NLL, WLL, ELL and DC lines and put new stock along with massive investments to increase the capacity while ensuring the lines don't pay for themselves. TfL has a big black hole in its budget where its now renting out stations as adverting space (see Canary Wharf) meaning there is no massive amount of money for SE lines like anything else they've done before. So expect pretty the same as now with less seats and new paint. Is that all people want?

Camden Town is a silly comparison as basically LUL kept getting refused building permission due to the wrecking of a busy historical area that takes nothing into account of the the locals and councils want. Case of failing to learn from ones history meaning they have been doomed to failure over and over.

 

[JamesRowden]

Interesting. Still doesn't change the he fact Mr Grayling said why should Guildford passengers have a mayor they don't elect manage their route, yet that is what will happen with the Queen Elizabeth line and is what is happening with the Overground line to Watford.

I didn't see a quote from a opposite politician but if I were one, that is what I'd be asking in the houses of Parliament.

May still be good reasons for it to be the case but it's worth making the point. He can then answer it.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

A significant difference is probably that Crossrail services provide a benefit to those on the GWML/GEML compared to the alternative of having Paddington/Liverpool Street terminators. TfL taking over Guildford-Waterloo services would not result in the services running beyond Waterloo (at this time).

The Overground services to Watford Junction share track with the Bakerloo line. Guildford-Waterloo services do not share track with an Underground line.

 

[Class377/5]

In my view the objective should be to get *all* the services up to a good standard, not have a tidemark between the TFL and non-TFL ones.

Completely agree. Why are we pushing for the railway to improve?

I mean TfL are the ones who replaced 8 car services via Sydenham then got surprised when the four car replaces at improved frequencies (which generate increase in passengers numbers) were very busy.

I mean currently they are trying to replace 10 car 377 Southern services via Balham with five car 378s! Off peak it might be ok, peak its stupid.

 

[infobleep]

A significant difference is probably that Crossrail services provide a benefit to those on the GWML/GEML compared to the alternative of having Paddington/Liverpool Street terminators. TfL taking over Guildford-Waterloo services would not result in the services running beyond Waterloo (at this time).

The Overground services to Watford Junction share track with the Bakerloo line. Guildford-Waterloo services do not share track with an Underground line.

Only as far as Harrow though.

I can see the point that TfL might not bring any benefit to Guildford.

Of course I've just remembered that Guildford wasn't part of TfL proposal and if that hadn't changed, what was Chris Grayling on about by mentioning Guildford?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its often about politics, consistency doesn't necessarily come into it!

Hear hear.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[telstarbox]

Taking some seats out of the 465s would be a good short term fix - the 376s were designed this way from the start with lots of space around the doors.