• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Mayor of London reopens 'metro rail to TfL' debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
WRT London trains central Govt pulls all subsidy from TfL,
It wasn’t quite like that.

TfL /GLA asked central Government to be able to retain money from Business rates in London. Government said yes, and part of the deal was that TfL funding was reduced to match the loss of income to central Government.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
TfL have no interest in Thameslink, Chiltern or c2c. They have the Silverlink and GWR services and most of the Anglia ones. There's Great Northern metro, but they are getting new trains and better services under GTR. The SW, SC and SE routes are not particularly viable to take over and make snazzy without great expense unless they found some way of improving service without making Surrey/Kent's worse or spending a ton of money.

As such, it's just station cleaning and staffing. I guess, after taking on the expense of gates, the fares could be made cheaper (eg the £1.50 off-peak Z2-6 single), but they haven't done that on Anglia, so I doubt they'll do it on other routes.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
It wasn’t quite like that.

TfL /GLA asked central Government to be able to retain money from Business rates in London. Government said yes, and part of the deal was that TfL funding was reduced to match the loss of income to central Government.
Thank you for that. This important point is not well known.
 

plcd1

Member
Joined
23 May 2015
Messages
788
It wasn’t quite like that.

TfL /GLA asked central Government to be able to retain money from Business rates in London. Government said yes, and part of the deal was that TfL funding was reduced to match the loss of income to central Government.

I might be wrong but I thought the following happened. Happy to be corrected.

1. Government have progressively removed all Revenue Grant support to TfL operations. This has not been replaced.
2. Government are progressively reducing the Overground Grant for the old Silverlink Metro lines. This goes completely in a year or so.
3. Government have removed all Investment Grant support for TfL's capital programme. This has been replaced by a share of a Business Rates which is NOT hypothecated for transport purposes. The Mayor, so far, has decided to use all the Business Rates revenue for TfL investment but is NOT required to do so. A future Mayor may make different decisions.
 

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
666
It could be argued given the take up of Public Transport in London versus various other large cities that National Government investment is better made in Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.

In terms of TfL expansion, isn’t the real issue the other routes (Southern) etc don’t have the limited geographical spread that the existing TfL Rail routes have ? In terms of TfL levels of staffing, ticketing, service levels, it would be a huge change to take over any significant part of, for example, the Southern routes.

As for Buses and Sadiq’s performance, surely the real story is the general decrease in bus usage. Relatively minor at 0.7% (2017-18) in London, but seismic in lots of other parts of the country. One could argue in a London which continues to struggle with legally binding air quality requirements, that driving Diesel buses around empty is very problematic, and any rationalisation should be, at least from a climate perspective, welcomed.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
How difficult would it be to transfer services that only run within the boundaries of Greater London and keep stopping services that go further in their franchises?
 

700007

Established Member
Joined
6 May 2017
Messages
1,195
Location
Near a bunch of sheds that aren't 66s.
Khan has been an absolute disaster in so many policy areas.
Absolutely agree. Whilst I don't appreciate the likes of Trump calling him out, that's simply because it is our job and not his. It's not in his interests or any of his business to comment on our politics. However Khan has destroyed TfL from the inside out with his terrible policies, has done little for combating crime, housing issues or helping businesses in London flourish.

How difficult would it be to transfer services that only run within the boundaries of Greater London and keep stopping services that go further in their franchises?
Could be the easiest thing or the hardest thing ever. It all depends on how it is proposed the business is split up in respects to:
  • How the Stations are split up
  • How the staff are split up
  • How the driver depots are split up
  • How the maintenance depots are split up
  • How the trains are split up
  • How the schedule will be affected - right now a train doing London to Slade Green working could end up doing London to Dover Priory as soon as it gets back to London Victoria. This would need to be reworked as TfL obviously does not want nor care for the Dover Priory portion of this train's day. However if TfL gets the stock performing this train, where does Southeastern get the train to fill the Dover working?
So many questions. The more answers, the more complications.
 

plcd1

Member
Joined
23 May 2015
Messages
788
It could be argued given the take up of Public Transport in London versus various other large cities that National Government investment is better made in Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.

In terms of TfL expansion, isn’t the real issue the other routes (Southern) etc don’t have the limited geographical spread that the existing TfL Rail routes have ? In terms of TfL levels of staffing, ticketing, service levels, it would be a huge change to take over any significant part of, for example, the Southern routes.

As for Buses and Sadiq’s performance, surely the real story is the general decrease in bus usage. Relatively minor at 0.7% (2017-18) in London, but seismic in lots of other parts of the country. One could argue in a London which continues to struggle with legally binding air quality requirements, that driving Diesel buses around empty is very problematic, and any rationalisation should be, at least from a climate perspective, welcomed.

Surely it can be argued that the level of demand and existing revenue in London and SE gives a *far* greater basis and justification for investment projects to "wash their face" far more effectively than elsewhere? Given the Govt basically wants private money and "profitable" schemes you need a solid underlying revenue base to start with. The big problem in the SE is the enormous scope of many interventions and the associated costs. Note that before everyone outside London piles in to criticise this I am not saying for one second other regions do not have VERY significant transport needs that require investment. I've no issue with lots of money being spent elsewhere - it's just much harder to get the justification to support the spend. I'll leave the role of the dysfunctional DfT to one side - again much debated.

A takeover of Southern is probably the easier one. AIUI rosters have been disentangled to reduce interworking, staffing is a bit more stable than it was and TfL are not after lines that stretch miles beyond the London boundary. Things like station staffing, elements of simpler / smart ticketing and ticket gates were all wrapped in past franchise specs and have been continued. Therefore TfL's increment on Southern probably wouldn't be very high. Investment schemes for Southern is another issue. I suspect taking on parts of South Eastern (much debated here already) and South Western would prove tougher for TfL as there would be some element of operational inefficiency from splitting the franchise service groups plus there's a much higher investment increment needed.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
How difficult would it be to transfer services that only run within the boundaries of Greater London and keep stopping services that go further in their franchises?

I would say, almost impossible because in so many places, routes out of London termini split in the suburbs with some trains staying in London and some just going outside London. And these services will share the same drivers, the same trains, and require complete timetable coordination etc. Consider for example, the three lines to Dartford: Some services run as circular ones, never getting further than Slade Green (thereby qualifying for TfL under your suggestion), while others carry on the one extra stop to Dartford (therefore not qualifying). If you tried to split those into different TOCs, it'd become very much harder to plan out the timetable. Ditto the suburban services from Waterloo: The two circular routes via Kingston and Hounslow stay within London, as do the Chessington services, while just about every other route that shares the same trains runs out of London. Then the network covered by Southern mixes London and out-of-London metro routes even more.
 

700007

Established Member
Joined
6 May 2017
Messages
1,195
Location
Near a bunch of sheds that aren't 66s.
I would say, almost impossible because in so many places, routes out of London termini split in the suburbs with some trains staying in London and some just going outside London. And these services will share the same drivers, the same trains, and require complete timetable coordination etc. Consider for example, the three lines to Dartford: Some services run as circular ones, never getting further than Slade Green (thereby qualifying for TfL under your suggestion), while others carry on the one extra stop to Dartford (therefore not qualifying). If you tried to split those into different TOCs, it'd become very much harder to plan out the timetable. Ditto the suburban services from Waterloo: The two circular routes via Kingston and Hounslow stay within London, as do the Chessington services, while just about every other route that shares the same trains runs out of London. Then the network covered by Southern mixes London and out-of-London metro routes even more.
TfL would be more than happy to take on services to Dartford and even at a stretch out as far as Gravesend but not further than there. Depends what's on the table, what's in it for them and what's in their pocket.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
  • How the schedule will be affected - right now a train doing London to Slade Green working could end up doing London to Dover Priory as soon as it gets back to London Victoria. This would need to be reworked as TfL obviously does not want nor care for the Dover Priory portion of this train's day. However if TfL gets the stock performing this train, where does Southeastern get the train to fill the Dover working?

I'm pretty sure that particular scenario would never normally happen because the class 376's and 465's that are usually used on the Slade Green routes would never normally be used on the Dover route. But substitute a metro route that goes just outside London, such as London-Dartford or London-Gravesend, and your reasoning would be completely correct.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
TfL would be more than happy to take on services to Dartford and even at a stretch out as far as Gravesend but not further than there. Depends what's on the table, what's in it for them and what's in their pocket.

I completely agree. But the post I was replying to was one that suggested TfL ONLY take routes that stay entirely within London - which would obviously rule out London-Dartford. I was attempting to explain why that particular suggestion would not work.
 

700007

Established Member
Joined
6 May 2017
Messages
1,195
Location
Near a bunch of sheds that aren't 66s.
I completely agree. But the post I was replying to was one that suggested TfL ONLY take routes that stay entirely within London - which would obviously rule out London-Dartford. I was attempting to explain why that particular suggestion would not work.
Ah my bad I had misread this!
I'm pretty sure that particular scenario would never normally happen because the class 376's and 465's that are usually used on the Slade Green routes would never normally be used on the Dover route. But substitute a metro route that goes just outside London, such as London-Dartford or London-Gravesend, and your reasoning would be completely correct.
I am absolutely clueless on Southeastern diagramming as you can tell haha! All I need to know is the 395s run into St. Pancras and will form the next train out to Kent. But indeed yes that was the general gist I was going for - there are three 465s that do go out to Dover I think though. See the allocations thread. 3 hours in a 376 sounds grim, I can barely tolerate a whole 3 minutes...
 

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
666
And more to the point, even if you can find the odd route which runs inside the boundary, you have to ask, do we want MORE fragmentation ?

In terms of London vs Rest of the UK. If government spending is supposed to be targeted to try and rebalance the economy and target inequality, then schemes like Crossrail, which will doubtless be very successful and generate even more wealth and success in London, (should) place an even greater emphasis on spending restraint in London and spending commitments in the rest of the country in the coming years.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
In terms of TfL levels of staffing, ticketing, service levels, it would be a huge change to take over any significant part of, for example, the Southern routes.

I've heard a lot of talk about "TFL levels of staffing", but the irony is that TFL have drastically cut staff on the underground over the last few years. Particularly visible station staff. Although I do appreciate they've increased it on the Overground sections where most of the stations were completely unstaffed, and in some cases downright dangerous places in Silverlink days.

I'm pretty sure that particular scenario would never normally happen because the class 376's and 465's that are usually used on the Slade Green routes would never normally be used on the Dover route. But substitute a metro route that goes just outside London, such as London-Dartford or London-Gravesend, and your reasoning would be completely correct.

I completely agree. But the post I was replying to was one that suggested TfL ONLY take routes that stay entirely within London - which would obviously rule out London-Dartford. I was attempting to explain why that particular suggestion would not work.

TFL's Crossrail goes way outside London, and of course the tube into Essex and Bucks. I don't see a problem with the Dartford, Gravesend and Sevenoaks stoppers being taken over when you consider that. Thameslink have already taken over the stoppers beyond Gravesend so TFL metro is pretty much good to go in SE land. SE have been gearing up for it to happen for the past few years.

As for driver depots, they've already turned Victoria into a mainly metro depot. Top link there will stay SE while the big bottom link will be TFL. Grove Park and Charing X's small amount of mainline work will go to Tonbridge, Gillingham and Ashford while their small amounts of metro work will go the other way. It would only need a few extra night turns to make it work. Orpington will massively shrink (or close altogether) after the loss of its large amount of Thameslink work to GTR in December, if it does stay open it will be able to pick some metro work from Tonbridge for the drivers who remain.

It's no secret that its pretty much a done deal already. The only sticking point was the Gillingham's and they are gone. As soon as the powers that be say the word it can be transferred over to TFL.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
I've heard a lot of talk about "TFL levels of staffing", but the irony is that TFL have drastically cut staff on the underground over the last few years. Particularly visible station staff.
they've closed LU ticket offices, which has had the opposite effect, because staff aren't sat in offices, but standing with passengers. Nor are they able to hide behind not very good opening times (I once asked a question of a staff member in the window of the ticket office at my local station, who got shirty as the ticket office wasn't opening for another 2 hours, for its evening rush stint, and so they 'couldn't' help as the ticket office she was sat in wasn't open - really it was that they wouldn't help).

So my station feels a lot more staffed since the ticket office closure, even if the number is less - there's staff visible and approachable most of the time. The job change means they can't hide in an office, or its limited hours of opening any more - it's primarily customer assistance, rather than dealing with ticketing.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I would say, almost impossible because in so many places, routes out of London termini split in the suburbs with some trains staying in London and some just going outside London. And these services will share the same drivers, the same trains, and require complete timetable coordination etc. Consider for example, the three lines to Dartford: Some services run as circular ones, never getting further than Slade Green (thereby qualifying for TfL under your suggestion), while others carry on the one extra stop to Dartford (therefore not qualifying). If you tried to split those into different TOCs, it'd become very much harder to plan out the timetable. Ditto the suburban services from Waterloo: The two circular routes via Kingston and Hounslow stay within London, as do the Chessington services, while just about every other route that shares the same trains runs out of London. Then the network covered by Southern mixes London and out-of-London metro routes even more.

You forgot Hampton Court stays within the London Zones... So that's 4 routes not 3!
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
Khan going for a 'turf grab'. By the time the next election for London Mayor has come, he'll claim TFL is transforming Southern rail services. This is really quite handy for him as the effects of any changes (good or bad) won't have materialised by then.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
they've closed LU ticket offices, which has had the opposite effect, because staff aren't sat in offices, but standing with passengers. Nor are they able to hide behind not very good opening times (I once asked a question of a staff member in the window of the ticket office at my local station, who got shirty as the ticket office wasn't opening for another 2 hours, for its evening rush stint, and so they 'couldn't' help as the ticket office she was sat in wasn't open - really it was that they wouldn't help).

So my station feels a lot more staffed since the ticket office closure, even if the number is less - there's staff visible and approachable most of the time. The job change means they can't hide in an office, or its limited hours of opening any more - it's primarily customer assistance, rather than dealing with ticketing.

Your local station may "feel" better staffed since the ticket office closed, but the fact is that London Underground staffing levels have been drastically cut in recent years and are continuing to be cut.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-41903419

https://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/defendingjobs
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,534
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"

bluegoblin7

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2011
Messages
1,356
Location
JB/JP/JW
Your local station may "feel" better staffed since the ticket office closed, but the fact is that London Underground staffing levels have been drastically cut in recent years and are continuing to be cut.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-41903419

https://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/defendingjobs

Certainly the BBC article, and the general gist of the RMT page, isn't about job losses on stations.

"The cuts will affect engineering and parts of London Underground (LU), said the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union

"TfL said: "Over the next few months we will be consulting on further plans in a number of other managerial, support and other non front-line areas across TfL and London Underground (LU)""


There certainly are job cuts ongoing across TfL but the focus has not been on stations since the roll out of Fit for the Future. I would agree with other posters that in "customer terms" this will have appeared an increase, with staff far more visible and able to help. FftF had many bad parts, but it's far from the disaster that a lot make out.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
It could be argued given the take up of Public Transport in London versus various other large cities that National Government investment is better made in Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.
Surely if you’re going to make that argument then you could say that none of those places should get investment because they also have higher public transport choices and use than cities like Bristol or short distance journeys to regional towns in the South East.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
Not when they have to close section 12 stations due to insufficient numbers or leave surface stations unstaffed for large portions of the day when previously they were always staffed.
That's "more effective staffing", then - having fewer but making better use of them.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
That's "more effective staffing", then - having fewer but making better use of them.

Depends how you define effective. Maybe if one is keen on the idea of having lots of people sniffing about in bright red bibs who can help people read a map, but certainly not when there’s a problem and staff are needed to do something operational to keep the service going. Or even less effective if a particular station requires X people to be open and that number isn’t available, as quite simply the station will be closed!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,263
I would say, almost impossible because in so many places, routes out of London termini split in the suburbs with some trains staying in London and some just going outside London. And these services will share the same drivers, the same trains, and require complete timetable coordination etc. Consider for example, the three lines to Dartford: Some services run as circular ones, never getting further than Slade Green (thereby qualifying for TfL under your suggestion), while others carry on the one extra stop to Dartford (therefore not qualifying). If you tried to split those into different TOCs, it'd become very much harder to plan out the timetable. Ditto the suburban services from Waterloo: The two circular routes via Kingston and Hounslow stay within London, as do the Chessington services, while just about every other route that shares the same trains runs out of London. Then the network covered by Southern mixes London and out-of-London metro routes even more.
Regarding the SWR network, there was a TfL map showing which routes they proposed to take over, it definitely included a number of routes terminating well outside the zones, and outside the GLA boundary. It’ll be in an existing thread somewhere if I can just find it, it’s in a 2015 GLA devolution report:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/devolving_rail_services_to_london-final-report.pdf
The relevant map is Figure 7, page 20. TfL proposals included SWR services to Windsor, Weybridge, Hampton Court, Shepperton, Chessington South and Dorking. Much of that would be involved with Crossrail 2 transfers eventually anyway.
 
Last edited:

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
TfL may have cut staff but levels on the tube are still vastly, vastly higher than SE Metro. Even the terminals are now left open. Didn't think they could make it easier to not pay.

People keep saying DfT could change that, and of course they can, but the fact is they never have on SE Metro. Never interested. At what point do people stop thinking forlornly it will happen. TfL at least have half a clue and interest in doing it.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,534
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Depends how you define effective.

A member of staff in a ticket office on a system where most fares are paid automatically via Oyster or contactless is definitely not effective. One member of staff among the passengers would be more useful than three in the ticket office and unable to leave it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top