• 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!

SouthEastern franchise direct award through to 1 April 2020 (& franchise competition terminated)

Status
Not open for further replies.

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
Brixton is perfect station for free riders into London. Close to central London by bus (or tube) but no barriers. You can come all the way from zone 5 or 6 and only pay single bus or tube fare. Madness. Fare evasion is rife on this line, only Orpington and Bromley South have gates.

Brixton is also absolute mess of a station...

Its also quite funny at Brixton watching the chancers from Petts Wood, Bickley, Beckenham etc who jump out quickly to touch in on the readers on the up platform and then get straight back on the same train to Victoria. Its laughable. Nunhead is another zone 2 station where this practice is rife. They'd only have to move the readers downstairs which would be easy at Nunhead but presumably at Brixton they can't as the stairs lead directly to a public street?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
They'd only have to move the readers downstairs which would be easy at Nunhead but presumably at Brixton they can't as the stairs lead directly to a public street?

Are they needed as you would be inside the gateline for the Victoria Line?
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
Are they needed as you would be inside the gateline for the Victoria Line?

Brixton main line and underground stations are completely separate entities with interchange between the two involving a short walk along the street. It was decidedly dodgy back in the day sometimes when it was an open drugs market but Brixton is pretty safe now by comparison.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,817
Location
Yorks
I'm one of them, work within spitting distance of Charing Cross but go to St Pancras and then back down as it's quicker than the stopping mainline trains to Charing Cross; bring back the fasts or semi-fasts and I'll be on them like a shot. Similar journey times and cheaper season ticket as I won't need to pay the HS extra. From my trains there are a large amount of people traipsing the same way in the mornings that I'm sure would do something similar as well.

Hopefully the current issues with franchising won't hold this much needed improvement up for too long !
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
No injunction granted on EMT, but SE is already delayed by at least another 5 rail periods (I think it will be more, because whichever bid finally wins, it will now have to be re-negotiated because of the significant time lag).
Depending on how long that said situation might take, could the DfT have to make changes/additions to the current franchise just to keep the SE network running (with or without them taking it over)? I don't know how long a legal challenge and/or re-negotiation can take but some problems with the current franchise could come to a head in that time I think.

For example, as much as I enjoy the Networkers, if come their 30th they get unreliable to the point a number of them are out of service regularly, the service pattern will be badly compromised on this stock-stretched franchise, such that the DfT might have to enforce/suggest some maintenance work before a hypothetical crisis, to improve their reliability enough to keep them going. Also if some of the new services/service patterns outlined as conditions of the new franchise don't get implemented, overcrowding could be exacerbated (the Crossrail delay not helping I suspect) along with dismay that some places are not getting the service promised, all of which may boil over in an increased number of complaints and protest (we know how bad it got with Southern).

This maybe a rather exaggerated hypothesis, but the fact changes are needed ASAP means more delays will make it all much worse than it already is.
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
I wouldn't worry too much, they are clearly just playing for time and stringing it all out until after the Williams Report when they can siphon off the metro bits to TFL and GTR and then let the coastal bit as a separate franchise.
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
Grayling really doesn't want devolution and second, wouldn't separating them reveal the money sink that is HS1 due to high access charges?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Grayling really doesn't want devolution and second, wouldn't separating them reveal the money sink that is HS1 due to high access charges?
Yep. They also probably realise the ticketless travel numbers* are high e.g. at least 15% so there is the potential to start sorting it. Address that level of ticket less travel would probably reduce subsidy by somewhere in the 20-25% range. But that would need some up front investment.
The HS1 sink hole is about 11-12% of the total SE (inc direct DfT-NR grant component) subsidy so splitting the franchise will increase that substantially in whatever remains making it far more obvious. Crossrail and Thameslink are already in danger of doing making it more obvious already.


*Passengers not revenue
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Rookie question here so I apologise in advance - What's the root cause of the HS1 financial sinkhole, how much is it roughly and how and when would / could it be fixed in an ideal world?
HS1 effectively had to be bailed out and refinanced shortly after construction.
SE is use by DfT to funnel in the upper £40s m /p.a. to HS1 (via access costs that are almost an order of magnitude higher than NR costs) till 2041 to help pay of the construction costs.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Grayling really doesn't want devolution and second, wouldn't separating them reveal the money sink that is HS1 due to high access charges?

HS1 effectively had to be bailed out and refinanced shortly after construction.
SE is use by DfT to funnel in the upper £40s m /p.a. to HS1 (via access costs that are almost an order of magnitude higher than NR costs) till 2041 to help pay of the construction costs.
As well as reputation and avoiding paying more in subsidies than they do already, would exposing the sinkhole also degrade the Government's case for HS2 (another story entirely of course)?
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
HS1 and HS2 have little in common (business case wise), except being complex rail projects..

Yes HS2 will undoubtedly costs a lot more than budgeted, which also applies to Crossrail and Thameslink, which aren't high speed (and pretty much all complex UK rail projects). More to the point is that the economic case for HS1 was flawed from the off; I think HS2 has a much greater chance of being economically beneficial, although where to I am less certain - my gut feel is it will benefit London the most.
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
You're probably not wrong about it being something staggeringly high like 80% at certain times and places.

As for "just watch" are you suggesting civil servants want it and are hampering Grayling who definitely doesn't? If they delay long enough he'll be gone and it could proceed?
 

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
I'm suggesting that the Williams Report will spell the end for rail franchising as we know it and that the metro lines will be devolved. It was a done deal anyway until Boris Johnson got voted out and the Tory government then threw their toys out the pram and wouldn't devolve it to a Labour mayor. A total case of going home and taking their ball with them. From speaking to somebody who is in a position to know, the devolution of Southeastern and other Metro services around the country to local transport authorities is definitely going to happen. All Grayling has done is delay it for a few years by acting out of petty, childish, tribal motivation rather than having any intention of providing a decent rail service for passengers and taxpayers.

Of course the Williams Report will keep the private sector heavily involved in the rail industry because the Tories are very aware that Labour under Corbyn would renationalise it and they'd like that not to happen. It'll be a similar thing to the original back-of-a-fag-packet model of privatisation introduced by Major's government in the face of Tony Blair's Labour manifesto that promised immediate rationalisation (which of course never happened).

One side effect of introducing capitalist principles to the railways was that train drivers wages went through the roof. And don't the Tories just hate that it was their own ideology that directly caused working class people to be so well paid? But that's for another discussion.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
, the devolution of Southeastern and other Metro services around the country to local transport authorities is definitely going to happen.

The problem with that is that you can't devolve to London the 27tph per track section between Waterloo East and St Johns since it is the primary route of Mainline services via Tonbridge. An optimal timetable will always need to be a complex compromise between the needs of the mainline services and the metro services (unless you build some very expensive infrastructure).
 
Last edited:

urpert

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Messages
1,164
Location
Essendine or between Étaples and Rang-du-Fliers
The problem with that is that you can't devolve to London the 27tph per track section between Waterloo East and St Johns since it is the primary route of Mainline services via Tonbridge. An optimal timetable will always need to be a complex compromise between the needs of the mainline services and the metro services (unless you build some very expensive infrastructure).
Maybe I’m missing something here, but is it that different to the TfL/NR interface between New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction, or Liverpool St and Hackney Downs?

The Herne Hill - Shortlands situation is a problem whoever is operating the stoppers.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
You're probably not wrong about it being something staggeringly high like 80% at certain times and places.

Agreed but when you look at proportion of overall numbers using Charing Cross, Waterloo East, London Bridge and Cannon Street etc. at one end of their journey it is the minority rather than majority.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
Maybe I’m missing something here, but is it that different to the TfL/NR interface between New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction, or Liverpool St and Hackney Downs?

The Herne Hill - Shortlands situation is a problem whoever is operating the stoppers.
These tracks are the busiest on the British Network.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Maybe I’m missing something here, but is it that different to the TfL/NR interface between New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction, or Liverpool St and Hackney Downs?

The Herne Hill - Shortlands situation is a problem whoever is operating the stoppers.


TfL have an aim of total devolution not shared as it is in those cases at the moment...

TfL also don't have the funds to do much investment unlike the BoJo era when this was being talked about. The main reason DfT were happy was that they though TfL would do the hardwork on SE but TfL expect DfT to fund everything at which point they might as well get franchisee to do it.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
The problem with that is that you can't devolve to London the 27tph per track section between Waterloo East and St Johns since it is the primary route of Mainline services via Tonbridge. An optimal timetable will always need to be a complex compromise between the needs of the mainline services and the metro services (unless you build some very expensive infrastructure).
Maybe I’m missing something here, but is it that different to the TfL/NR interface between New Cross Gate and Norwood Junction, or Liverpool St and Hackney Downs?

The Herne Hill - Shortlands situation is a problem whoever is operating the stoppers.
I would have thought there is a difference with your first example and STJ-CHX, as TfL only use the slow lines, and while Southern do also, it's a small use proportionately, with Thameslink and Southern controlling the fasts and good grade separation helping reduce conflicts with TfL and fast workings. Between Waterloo East and St Johns though, and even going back to Chislehurst with peak Cannon St fasts, Metro services serving CHX must use the same tracks mainline services use from at least as late as Lewisham, which in a TfL devolution would mix services up along that stretch. I'm sure it is possible but in times of operator-specific disruption there maybe verbal conflicts. At least that's my thinking on this anyway.

In addition, a complete devolution maybe tricky without a complete rolling stock use reallocation, and/or replacing the Networkers, because they are still needed on some mainline services, notably to Tun Wells, VIC-Medway Towns (and even Dover) and you could also count the Sheerness branch.
 
Last edited:

bionic

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2013
Messages
883
The problem with that is that you can't devolve to London the 27tph per track section between Waterloo East and St Johns since it is the primary route of Mainline services via Tonbridge. An optimal timetable will always need to be a complex compromise between the needs of the mainline services and the metro services (unless you build some very expensive infrastructure).

As well as the New Cross Gate example above I'd also suggest other examples of TfL and mainline trains sharing the same tracks, such as Chiltern and London Underground between Harrow on The Hill and Amersham, Bakerloo line trains between Queens Park and Harrow and Wealdstone. Thameslink stopping trains intermingle with Intercity trains on the Midland and East Coast Main Lines, while Virgin fasts and West Midands Trains' LNR stoppers intermingle on the west coast. London Overground and Southeastern trains already share tracks between Wandsworth Road and Denmark Hill. The most obvious example though is TFL's Crossrail service and how much that will share with other routes.

I seriously doubt sharing tracks for a few miles is going to hamper any serious plans to devolve. I would point out that most of the depots have had their work carved up accordingly already and it wouldn't take much to swap Grove Park and Tonbridge's mainline and metro work over while splitting off the top link at Vic and hey presto, you are good to go. I'm not saying I want this to happen, all I'm saying is I've been told it will happen and it has been prepared for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
As well as the New Cross Gate example above I'd also suggest other examples of TFL and mainline trains sharing the same tracks, such as Chiltern and London Underground between Harrow on The Hill and Amersham, Bakerloo line trains between Queens Park and Harrow and Wealdstone. Thameslink stopping trains intermingle with intercities on the MML and ECML while Virgin fasts and LNR stoppers intermingle on the west coast. London Overground and SE trains already share tracks between Wandsworth Road and Denmark Hill. The most obvious example though is TFL's Crossrail service and how much that will share with other routes.

I seriously doubt sharing tracks for a few miles is going to hamper any serious plans to devolve. I would point out that most of the depots have had their work carved up accordingly already and it wouldnt take much to swap Grove Park and Tonbridge's mainline and metro work over while splitting off the top link at Vic and hey presto, you are good to go. I'm not saying I want this to happen, all I'm saying is I've been told it will happen and it has been prepared for.
The metro isn't devolved if it's the DfT who decide how many paths the metro services can have.
 

Shug

Member
Joined
23 May 2017
Messages
44
I’m hearing that the extension agreement has still not been signed, anyone know any more on this?
Go Ahead shares have also gone below 1800 having recently been over the 2000 mark, coincidence?
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
I’m hearing that the extension agreement has still not been signed, anyone know any more on this?
Go Ahead shares have also gone below 1800 having recently been over the 2000 mark, coincidence?
It's not been signed, but is in due process (i.e. they must have reached agreement). And yes, coincidence.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
But this is how tfl rail and London Overground currently work
But TfL wanted to move away from that with SE metro devolution which doesn't maximise overall capacity and would cause issues in "inner" Kent.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
But TfL wanted to move away from that with SE metro devolution which doesn't maximise overall capacity and would cause issues in "inner" Kent.
Tfl wanted to rationalise existing capacity so the trains that serve the outer suburban stations serve a fixed terminus rather than the current network profile that where you have stations on the southeastern network that serve different terminus.
 

700007

Established Member
Joined
6 May 2017
Messages
1,195
Location
Near a bunch of sheds that aren't 66s.
Tfl wanted to rationalise existing capacity so the trains that serve the outer suburban stations serve a fixed terminus rather than the current network profile that where you have stations on the southeastern network that serve different terminus.
Wasn't the proposal to send all of them into London Cannon Street with all remaining Integrated Kent services going into London Charing Cross?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top