Other lines that could be "Overground-ised"

[Fincra5]

IMO, the London Metro lines should all be L.O operated. A bit like the S-Bahn in big german cities.

Like the Southern, Southeastern, Great Northern metro services should be L.O.

 

[HSTEd]

That wouldn’t be Overground though...

Just as the Overground is in the image of the Underground, we could have the Underground in the image of the Overground!

Overundergroundception!

 

[cle]

Not sure it does. H & I gives access to National Rail and the Victoria Line. FP would only have added the Piccadilly to that. Might have been a different case if the LNER 'Northern Heights' plan hadn't been scuppered by WW2.....

I think that downplays Finsbury Park considerably.

National Rail is not a silo. And in addition to all of the same Moorgate services, Finsbury Park offers at least 6tph to Stevenage, and direct services to Peterborough and Cambridge - plus a lot of service to key commuter towns like Hitchin, Hatfield/Welwyn and Potters Bar. And nobody would use it that way, but it also offers Thameslink south and is a massive bus interchange too.

 

[A0]

I think that downplays Finsbury Park considerably.

National Rail is not a silo. And in addition to all of the same Moorgate services, Finsbury Park offers at least 6tph to Stevenage, and direct services to Peterborough and Cambridge - plus a lot of service to key commuter towns like Hitchin, Hatfield/Welwyn and Potters Bar. And nobody would use it that way, but it also offers Thameslink south and is a massive bus interchange too.

You're not thinking about this though.

The link to the ELL would have meant trains going from FP to East London, but it's a slow journey. So for those travelling from places like Cambridge or Peterboro it was always quicker and more convenient to go to KX and use the Underground. Moving forward it'll be Thameslink and Crossrail with a change at Farringdon.

From places like WGC or Hertford, they already have direct trains to H&I.

And from northern points of the Piccadilly Line it's a cross platform interchange to the Vic, so easier than going up the stairs to the surface platforms at FP.

 

[Hadders]

I really don't see the point of the Moorgate service going over to TfL. It's running pretty well now that it has the 717s and moving it across would mean the loss of operational flexibility.

 

[Bald Rick]

Worth remembering why the Overground has been successful. Some reasons (not comprehensive):

1) new trains
2) higher frequencies on most routes
3) Oystered and many cheaper fares
4) on tube map
5) stations refurbed and brought up to TfL standards
6) more resource (and therefore more reliable)

 

[HSTEd]

On the Sutton Loop to district line, it appears likely you would need a rebuild of Wimbledon Station, a flyover, and have to find somewhere for the District Line trains to terminate at Sutton.

I think it might bew orthwhile, but it is not a cheap scheme! Ofcourse if it was it would have happened by now!

 

[MarkyT]

Yep, there were protests about losing through trains instead of terminating at Blackfriars; the District would give access to Zone 1 and a frequency increase, though of course this would depend on the number of passengers this would add.

The District Line, via a complex crossing of the LSWR at Wimbledon would be a very slow route into central London. Much better for people at the local stations to incorporate Wimbledon-Sutton as a Crossrail 2 branch, with new terminating platforms at Sutton. The remaining Thameslink stubs from Blackfriars could terminate at Wimbledon and possibly the mooted new Cheam turnback.

 

[HSTEd]

The District Line, via a complex crossing of the LSWR at Wimbledon would be a very slow route into central London. Much better for people at the local stations to incorporate Wimbledon-Sutton as a Crossrail 2 branch, with new terminating platforms at Sutton. The remaining Thameslink stubs from Blackfriars could terminate at Wimbledon and possibly the mooted new Cheam turnback.

That is assuming Crossrail 2 ever happens, which is far from guaranteed.

District line extension is probably far more likely to get funded.
And depending on your definition of Central London its not goign to be unworkably slow.

 

[geordieblue]

That is assuming Crossrail 2 ever happens, which is far from guaranteed.

District line extension is probably far more likely to get funded.
And depending on your definition of Central London its not goign to be unworkably slow.

The District Line, via a complex crossing of the LSWR at Wimbledon would be a very slow route into central London. Much better for people at the local stations to incorporate Wimbledon-Sutton as a Crossrail 2 branch, with new terminating platforms at Sutton. The remaining Thameslink stubs from Blackfriars could terminate at Wimbledon and possibly the mooted new Cheam turnback.

I don't think a District line extension is itself likely to happen - if it does I think it'll be about winning votes in South London, and the new Sutton tram line makes it even less probable. A crossing would be difficult (either a diverunder or flyover, depending on cost - I think the days of flat crossings are behind us!) The point about speed is slightly debatable though - passengers tend to prefer frequency (I always seem to mention this example, but Heworth, a joint Metro and NR station in Gateshead, gets one fast heavy rail tph and twelve all-shacks metro tph. The NR side has 25k users per year; the Metro has 2 million plus. And if speed was a massive deal then there are good interchanges at Sutton and Wimbledon).

 

[A0]

I really don't see the point of the Moorgate service going over to TfL. It's running pretty well now that it has the 717s and moving it across would mean the loss of operational flexibility.

+1 and you can add in a good chunk of Herts being treated as second best by TFL who'll be focused on ensuring a better service in the London area with the Herts end being treated as second class.

 

[Bald Rick]

District line extension is probably far more likely to get funded.

It really isn’t!

 

[Wolfie]

You can also add that TFL is a complete financial basket case - and that's not entirely due to Covid.

Courtesy of agreements with HMT made by one B. Johnson....

 

[A0]

Courtesy of agreements with HMT made by one B. Johnson....

Not sure you can entirely lay the blame there.

When he left office in 2016 TFL had £ 9.1bn of debt, but 2019 that was £ 11.1bn. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54652907

Sadiq Khan's political gimmick of freezing fares has backfired a bit like Ken Livingstone's 'Fares fare' wheeze did 30 years ago.

 

[Meglos]

​

TfL Debt

How much debt did TFL have at the beginning and end of each financial year from 2015/16 to 2019/20 and what are the reasons for the new debt at the end of each year?

www.london.gov.uk

TfL Debt​

Answered By:
The Mayor
Date:
Wednesday, 8th July 2020
Borrowing has been an important source of financing for Transport for London (TfL) and supports its capital investment programme. All incremental borrowing raised by TfL is in line with the amounts agreed with Government as part of previous funding settlements. The borrowing is only used to fund capital expenditure (TfL is not able to use borrowing to cover operating expenditure).
The majority of TfL’s borrowing was incurred between 2008/09 and 2015/16, where TfL accrued c. £7bn of debt. The rate of borrowing has since slowed, and as shown in TfL’s latest business plan it has not assumed any additional borrowing from 2022/23.
The proceeds of this borrowing have been used to complete a range of projects that were initiated prior to 2015/16, including major London Underground station upgrades (such as the Victoria station upgrade), signalling upgrades (such as the upgrades to the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines), Crossrail trains and infrastructure, step free station access and others.
The below shows TfL’s outstanding borrowing at the end of each year from 31 March 2015 to 31 March 2020:
Debt as at:
31 March 2015 £8.5bn
31 March 2016 £9.1bn
31 March 2017 £9.8bn
31 March 2018 £10.4bn
31 March 2019 £11.1bn
31 March 2020 £11.7bn

So it looks like Boris borrowed c. 7bn in 8 years, and Sadiq borrowed 2.6bn in 4 years. Simplistically that's £650k of borrowing per year for Sadiq vs £850k for Boris.

 

[A0]

​

TfL Debt

How much debt did TFL have at the beginning and end of each financial year from 2015/16 to 2019/20 and what are the reasons for the new debt at the end of each year?

www.london.gov.uk

TfL Debt​

Answered By:
The Mayor
Date:
Wednesday, 8th July 2020
Borrowing has been an important source of financing for Transport for London (TfL) and supports its capital investment programme. All incremental borrowing raised by TfL is in line with the amounts agreed with Government as part of previous funding settlements. The borrowing is only used to fund capital expenditure (TfL is not able to use borrowing to cover operating expenditure).
The majority of TfL’s borrowing was incurred between 2008/09 and 2015/16, where TfL accrued c. £7bn of debt. The rate of borrowing has since slowed, and as shown in TfL’s latest business plan it has not assumed any additional borrowing from 2022/23.
The proceeds of this borrowing have been used to complete a range of projects that were initiated prior to 2015/16, including major London Underground station upgrades (such as the Victoria station upgrade), signalling upgrades (such as the upgrades to the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines), Crossrail trains and infrastructure, step free station access and others.
The below shows TfL’s outstanding borrowing at the end of each year from 31 March 2015 to 31 March 2020:
Debt as at:
31 March 2015 £8.5bn
31 March 2016 £9.1bn
31 March 2017 £9.8bn
31 March 2018 £10.4bn
31 March 2019 £11.1bn
31 March 2020 £11.7bn

So it looks like Boris borrowed c. 7bn in 8 years, and Sadiq borrowed 2.6bn in 4 years. Simplistically that's £650k of borrowing per year for Sadiq vs £850k for Boris.

But your expenditure is usually higher at the beginning of projects than at the end - so if this is funding projects with a duration of 10 year ls, you'd expect the spending in Yrs 9 & 10 to be lower as the projects end.

 

[bramling]

+1 and you can add in a good chunk of Herts being treated as second best by TFL who'll be focused on ensuring a better service in the London area with the Herts end being treated as second class.

Especially with the current political game of boxing going on between the mayor and government. Herts is best as far away from TFL as possible.

In any case the current operation is perfectly satisfactory, GTR have very much got their act together since 2018.

 

[cle]

You're not thinking about this though.

The link to the ELL would have meant trains going from FP to East London, but it's a slow journey. So for those travelling from places like Cambridge or Peterboro it was always quicker and more convenient to go to KX and use the Underground. Moving forward it'll be Thameslink and Crossrail with a change at Farringdon.

From places like WGC or Hertford, they already have direct trains to H&I.

And from northern points of the Piccadilly Line it's a cross platform interchange to the Vic, so easier than going up the stairs to the surface platforms at FP.

From the London perspective, I was thinking the Dalston and Hackney areas - which are very populous and under-served, including by tube. The Finsbury Park connection would be useful there.

Yes, H&I has slower services. Finsbury Park has all of them, and further out.

In any case, it's not happening now, but it would have had its own purpose. It was a far busier, more important interchange for its whole life until very recently.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

​

TfL Debt

How much debt did TFL have at the beginning and end of each financial year from 2015/16 to 2019/20 and what are the reasons for the new debt at the end of each year?

www.london.gov.uk

TfL Debt​

Answered By:
The Mayor
Date:
Wednesday, 8th July 2020
Borrowing has been an important source of financing for Transport for London (TfL) and supports its capital investment programme. All incremental borrowing raised by TfL is in line with the amounts agreed with Government as part of previous funding settlements. The borrowing is only used to fund capital expenditure (TfL is not able to use borrowing to cover operating expenditure).
The majority of TfL’s borrowing was incurred between 2008/09 and 2015/16, where TfL accrued c. £7bn of debt. The rate of borrowing has since slowed, and as shown in TfL’s latest business plan it has not assumed any additional borrowing from 2022/23.
The proceeds of this borrowing have been used to complete a range of projects that were initiated prior to 2015/16, including major London Underground station upgrades (such as the Victoria station upgrade), signalling upgrades (such as the upgrades to the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines), Crossrail trains and infrastructure, step free station access and others.
The below shows TfL’s outstanding borrowing at the end of each year from 31 March 2015 to 31 March 2020:
Debt as at:
31 March 2015 £8.5bn
31 March 2016 £9.1bn
31 March 2017 £9.8bn
31 March 2018 £10.4bn
31 March 2019 £11.1bn
31 March 2020 £11.7bn

So it looks like Boris borrowed c. 7bn in 8 years, and Sadiq borrowed 2.6bn in 4 years. Simplistically that's £650k of borrowing per year for Sadiq vs £850k for Boris.

That shows only one side of the equation. The other is equally important: During Boris Johnson's term in office, TfL was cash rich and could finance debt. Sadiq Khan's reckless, self-serving fares freeze rendered TfL cash poor. As I've said before, Covid has saved Sadiq Khan.

 

[Wolfie]

That shows only one side of the equation. The other is equally important: During Boris Johnson's term in office, TfL was cash rich and could finance debt. Sadiq Khan's reckless, self-serving fares freeze rendered TfL cash poor. As I've said before, Covid has saved Sadiq Khan.

You VERY carefully ignore the fact that TfL was receiving money from central Govt pretty much through all of BoZo's abysmal time as mayor (when he failed abjectly to deliver on a single major commitment and blew money on vanity projects). He bequeathed his predecessor with a deal that removed that.

 

[Snow1964]

On the Sutton Loop to district line, it appears likely you would need a rebuild of Wimbledon Station, a flyover, and have to find somewhere for the District Line trains to terminate at Sutton.

I think it might bew orthwhile, but it is not a cheap scheme! Ofcourse if it was it would have happened by now!

This is a re-hash of a 100 year old scheme
It ended up with legal agreement that District would not extend beyond Wimbledon, Underground would not go beyond Morden and Southern Railway would build the Wimbledon and Sutton Railway

Personally I would have liked to see the Overground get an outer Circle line, from Acton reopen the other platforms at Kew Bridge station, the run to Clapham Junction (but would need some flyovers at Barnes and near Wandsworth to segregate flows)

 

[A0]

You VERY carefully ignore the fact that TfL was receiving money from central Govt pretty much through all of BoZo's abysmal time as mayor (when he failed abjectly to deliver on a single major commitment and blew money on vanity projects). He bequeathed his predecessor with a deal that removed that.

That's a very partial view probably driven by a dislike of the then Mayor or his politics as the facts don't really agree with you.

The transport legacy of outgoing mayor Boris Johnson

A look at the transport and 'vanity' projects the mayor of London Boris Johnson delivered during two terms at the helm of the capital.

www.bbc.co.uk

In summary - cycling measures and the cycle hire scheme. Upgrades to the tube network including putting place the plans for 24 hour operation, Jubilee line upgrade, a lot of the Crossrail works, most of the Overground expansion. And whilst he'll be criticised for the new Routemaster and its cost (£ 350k), people are conveniently forgetting Khan signed a £ 12m deal for 20 hydrogen buses which is £ 600k a vehicle.

 

[jon0844]

Aren't the Great Northern Moorgate services joining the Overground network?

I strongly believe that if the DfT takes more control of TfL, and all the TOCs, it will look at things a bit different. There are surely of logistical issues with the GN inners becoming part of TfL, such as how to manage drivers who work on the outers, how you split depots, manage servicing etc.

Not insurmountable, but probably easier if whoever operates GN simply rebrands the inner trains as Overground and nothing more. The drivers remain with GN, and you simply sort out a way to get Oyster to work up to WGC in addition to contactless cards. Oh, and you put it on the Tube map!

I really don't think it could be done any other way, as waiting for TfL to be able to do it would mean it perhaps taking many, many years or not happening at all.

From the DfT's point of view, even this is probably not a high priority anymore. It's not as if people living in Hertfordshire aren't already aware of the trains as they are. Changing the seat pattern isn't really going to make much of a difference to them. The benefit came from new, air conditioned, trains, 4tph, and services all weekend and late into the night.

Other places with more run down stations and old trains would benefit more, but they're likely even less cost effective to do right now.

 

[Mikey C]

London Overground was a great success in creating/promoting orbital services, starting with the original North London line. By creating the full outer Orbital, it's provided London with something genuinely useful, one which gets far more passengers than if the lines had existed separately without the connections and orange line on the tube map

I'm not so convinced whether it makes a great deal of difference to commuter trains. Fine if you want to create a single brand for all London inner suburban routes - a smaller Network Southeast - but someone in Bexleyheath commutes into London for work or leisure, whatever the colour of the train

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

As to the Great Northern services joining the London Overground network, it's been discussed I believe but it has gone no further then that.

I would think that the Southern Metro services might be a good fit for the London Overground with services such as:

London Victoria to Epsom via Carshalton

London Victoria to Sutton/Epsom Downs via Norbury

London Victoria to West Croydon via Gipsy Hill

London Victoria to London Bridge via Sydenham

London Bridge to Coulson Town via Sydenham

London Bridge to Epsom

London Bridge to Caterham/Tattenham Corner

London Bridge to Caterham via Norbury

London Bridge to Caterham via Peckham Rye

But we will see what the future sees

The problem is, London Overground is seen as rather a high frequency, all stations Metro service - turn up and go. These routes are largely 2tph only, and most skip stop different stations - Bridge to Caterham/Tattenham Corner even running fast from London Bridge to East Croydon! The service also divides, which seems a little complex for what is effectively a heavy rail metro.

 

[jon0844]

The problem is, London Overground is seen as rather a high frequency, all stations Metro service - turn up and go. These routes are largely 2tph only, and most skip stop different stations - Bridge to Caterham/Tattenham Corner even running fast from London Bridge to East Croydon! The service also divides, which seems a little complex for what is effectively a heavy rail metro.

I think this is why some people want London Overground, because they see it as a way of improving the service because LO is perceived as the saviour of the universe. They'll equate it with nice new trains, a higher frequency, staffed stations, later services, better fares (Oyster) or whatever.

Clearly this isn't always possible, or happens anyway as part of an upgrade (e.g. the GN Moorgate services) which means the Overground element becomes irrelevant.

 

[Wolfie]

That's a very partial view probably driven by a dislike of the then Mayor or his politics as the facts don't really agree with you.

The transport legacy of outgoing mayor Boris Johnson

A look at the transport and 'vanity' projects the mayor of London Boris Johnson delivered during two terms at the helm of the capital.

www.bbc.co.uk

In summary - cycling measures and the cycle hire scheme. Upgrades to the tube network including putting place the plans for 24 hour operation, Jubilee line upgrade, a lot of the Crossrail works, most of the Overground expansion. And whilst he'll be criticised for the new Routemaster and its cost (£ 350k), people are conveniently forgetting Khan signed a £ 12m deal for 20 hydrogen buses which is £ 600k a vehicle.

Virtually all planned by the Livingstone administration.

 

[JonathanH]

The problem is, London Overground is seen as rather a high frequency, all stations Metro service - turn up and go. These routes are largely 2tph only, and most skip stop different stations - Bridge to Caterham/Tattenham Corner even running fast from London Bridge to East Croydon! The service also divides, which seems a little complex for what is effectively a heavy rail metro.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Caterham / Tattenham Corner or Epsom via West Croydon or Dorking via Sutton services would be transferred to London Overground in their current form. However, the stopping services via Tulse Hill, via Crystal Palace and via Norbury could potentially with simplification be changed. A possibility might be to only run four services but at higher frequencies with some sort of fixed link between Streatham Hill and Balham and forget about all the other links.

London Victoria to West Croydon / Sutton / Epsom Downs via Norbury

London Bridge to East Croydon / Beckenham Junction via Tulse Hill & Crystal Palace

London Blackfriars to Sutton / Epsom / Wimbledon

London Bridge to Crystal Palace via Forest Hill

However, the simplification wouldn't be universally popular and to some extent it is completely impractical. One idea is a super-interchanges for slow services at points where the different lines cross.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

You VERY carefully ignore the fact that TfL was receiving money from central Govt pretty much through all of BoZo's abysmal time as mayor (when he failed abjectly to deliver on a single major commitment and blew money on vanity projects). He bequeathed his predecessor with a deal that removed that.

I haven't ignored anything. George Osborne reduced the grant London received from central taxation during Boris Johnson's period in office. Despite that, TfL remained solvent.

If you want to belittle Boris Johnson, you'll get no argument from me.

 

[cle]

I think Wimbledon to Sutton is so underused, with alternate routes to Central London adjacent to much of it - that a Tramlink solution works best.

The Thameslink paths via Mitcham could go on to Epsom and even Guildford, like the good old days, 4tph might be good, and replace something else. Terminate them in Blackfriars.

Wimbledon to Streatham I'm not sure about. Would closure be so bad? Or Victoria via Herne Hill - better for that crossing.