• 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 metro fleet replacement/improvement

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,876
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
Have the paying public been asked what they want? Do their views/comments even count?

Personally, I want a train that is reliable, comfortable, has a working toilet and will get me from A to B without any issues

A manufacturer with a proven track record would help but I would give anyone a chance
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

4BEP

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2022
Messages
60
Location
Loose
Would be unlikely as IIRC the assembly line for that family of trains is now closed - could be restarted but would come at a higher cost. Is do-able and not unheard of, but with this government wanting to do everything on the cheap and the Derby factory desperate for orders its unlikely Siemens would be the cheapest option.

I would hedge my bets on Alstom winning it as the combo of Alstom desperation for orders and the want from the government for orders to arrive ASAP could lead to a good deal being struck, plus the Political side of things (e.g. the idea the government has come and saved the Derby Factory).

Personally I would prefer either Siemens or Stadler winning the order.
Desiro City is still listed as a product by Siemens and I imagine their bid will be based upon that product, class 727, if the class numbering scheme continues to follow the logic.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,687
Location
London
Personally, I want a train that is reliable, comfortable, has a working toilet and will get me from A to B without any issues

Agreed. We might as well stick with the Networkers :).

I’m only half joking. They’ve been allowed to deteriorate into an appalling state, but they’re fundamentally decent trains, and could be spruced up very nicely if some cash is spent on them, as the 465/9 refresh showed.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,444
Location
York
Desiro City is still listed as a product by Siemens and I imagine their bid will be based upon that product, class 727, if the class numbering scheme continues to follow the logic.
Why not just use the 707?
 
Joined
9 Dec 2012
Messages
618
Networkers have had a hard life on the routes they serve, you would hope someone at SE will specify, the new stock interiors to be as vandal proof as practicable!!
 

LLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,478
Location
London
The Networkers are decent units; BR did very well, but they've had the life battered out of them. The refurbed non-retractioned units are much more pleasant to travel in and I always try to travel in them over the others.

I would like to see an expanded Desiro fleet - extending current fleet to 10 cars (would prefer 6/12), and replacing the Networkers and 376s. But I'd put some decent money down on it going to Alstom Derby. Aventras aren't my favourite modern fleet, but I can also see the merit in a pretty universal Southern Region Suburban fleet (considering SWR) too.

I'm glad they'll have toilets - I think the narrative of 'suburban trains don't need toilets' is pretty much nonsense. You only have to be on a busy departure from London Bridge to see how much they're used on the suburban services, especially when there's a event on. And if we want an inclusive railway, we need to remember that not everyone can hold it until their ultimate destination (considering lots of stations don't have them either).

Ideally, I'd like a fleet of:
12 Car (London Bridge routes)
8 car (Penge East)
4 car (Bromley North, Medway Valley, Sheerness).

We've already got some 12 car diagrams in the suburbs, the platforms are there, but I've been told its the power supply that's the problem (is that correct?). And with track capacity being a major issue, I'd hope that we get a fleet which can be extended to 12 cars eventually. With the population growth in South East London, it'll be needed soon enough.

Is there a chance that the new trains could have 100% longitudinal seating?
I'd say almost zero. It'd go down like a led balloon in South London/Kent suburbs. Networkers are the only fleet I've used in London where the middle seats on 2+3 seating are routinely taken in the peaks. We want more seats, not less.

Maybe a third rail version of a 345? The 700s would have been good for SE metro services.


How soon after the election could TFL take over the SE metro route? Khan wants it to happen, so Starmer will probably agree to it. If and when TFL do take over then would an all longitudinal layout become much more likely?

Starmer and Khan may like the idea, but I can't see full on devolution in England happening like in the past with LO and EL. Rail reform wants *integration*, the last thing we need is more splitting off. There's a lot of merit in the Southern Region for example, staying together as a system - timetabling, fleet flexibility, staffing, costs, etc. I feel continental versions are more likely - Transport Authorities and The Railway in alliance together. Think seeing 'SNCF' and 'Ile-de-France Mobilités' on the side of one train.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,449
Why not just use the 707?
Minimum requirements have moved on since the Desiro City designs which would cause non compliance if reused, eg.:
  • Usable handholds required to justify standing space usability
  • seating requiring feet to be able infront (and not at an angle especially at window seats)

We've already got some 12 car diagrams in the suburbs, the platforms are there, but I've been told its the power supply that's the problem (is that correct?). And with track capacity being a major issue, I'd hope that we get a fleet which can be extended to 12 cars eventually. With the population growth in South East London, it'll be needed soon enough.
Key issues for 12 car:
  • Needs a modern (working) SDO system and walk though designs (Principally for Charing Cross and Woolwich Dockyard in the inner metro area)
  • Stabling any additional stock will require significantly more stabling capacity and adapting some space such as Slade green for more /all 12car is horrifically expensive and requires more 12car elsewhere too. Quite a few siding can only take 8/10.
  • Power supply in places but modern EMUs with better efficiency and ability to moderate power draw is it sense the 3rd rail system is under strain will help here (realistically Siemens/Alstom/Hitachi are significantly ahead of the others here).
 
Last edited:

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,573
Location
UK
Key issues for 12 car:
  • Needs a modern (working) SDO system and walk though designs (Principally for Charing Cross and Woolwich Dockyard in the inner metro area)

SE already have a working SDO system in place across most of Metro. The 707's use it.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,894
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The Alstom ex Bombardier electrical (but not software) systems are ex ABB heritage and Alstom are mostly retaining those post merger in preference so so of their own systems for non-French products. ABB and ex Bombardier are still very heavily linked in engineering terms.
Until relatively recently (i.e. just pre 331s) if you bought a CAF EMU it had ABB electrical equipment and before that Siemens and the modern vintage "CAF" traction motors are from TSA (ex ABB Vienna motors factory).
The Stadler locomotives, EMUs and bi/tri-modes are mostly ABB electrical equipment with some traction motors from TSA (ex ABB Vienna motors factory).


Siemens also care about corporate reputation far more than any of the others and will spend money to retain that reputation unlike the others (who can't afford too).
700 roll out wasn't that smooth but GTR handling of some elements saved Siemens reputation there.
Also most Siemens stock was supplied with Siemens maintenance contracts where as most Bombardier stock was operator maintained so it is difficult to compare like for like.
Historically Siemens units had fewer failures than Bombardier but the average impact of a failure was far higher as many of the Bombardier failure were simple reset type fixes.
Siemens also has a big corporate footprint in the UK outside rail (eg wind turbines, medical equipment etc).
Remember they also beat Bombardier to the 700 order partly with lower-risk funding (difficult to know how that might have changed with Alstom).
Hitachi and Alstom, and also CAF, have the baggage of recent product failures, but this never seems to impact the prospects of a new design.
And with ever-higher critical software content I'm always surprised how little that side seems to count in procurement.
I'd go with the product with the best TMS.
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,389
There's no issue with power supply for 12-car on Metro. Network Rail spent a lot of money improving it and extending platforms in the 2010s (though much platform work was done in the 90s) but still barely any 12-car trains due to limited stock as well as no SDO at Woolwich Dockyard and Charing Cross. New stock would of course fix that.

Ordering 5/10 car stock would hamper lines and capacity for the next 40 years. Short sighted if it happened.

As for sidings Slade Green already saw approval for expansion onto adjacent land for freight in the 2010s. Never happened but precedent counts for a lot if another plan was submitted for SE expansion.

Then there's Plumstead sidings. Large amount of land beside existing three track sidings (which can't take 12 car) that was formerly freight, then in temp use as a Crossrail building site and now vacant again. Looking at both prior planning approval and land availability there's space for 8 sidings of 12 car trains.

Will that happen? No.

Will we regret that in 5-10 years given SE metro runs through areas designated for biggest growth in housing in the UK? You bet
 
Last edited:

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,647
Location
West Wiltshire
There's no issue with power supply for 12 car on Metro. Network Rail spent a lot of money improving it and extending platforms in the 2010s (though much platform work was done in the 90s) but still barely any 12-car trains due to limited stock as well as no SDO at Woolwich Dockyard and Charing Cross. New stock would of course fix that.

Ordering 5/10 car stock would hamper lines and capacity for the next 40 years. Short sighted if it happened.

I suspect the power supply is not totally unlimited
For instance 3 or 4 car 380s are 2000Kw (2680hp)
5car 720 and 730 are 2300kw. (3080hp)

I'm doubt Network Rail would allow unrestricted 3 x 2000kw on a 12car set on third rail during an intensive peak hour service,
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,449
SE already have a working SDO system in place across most of Metro. The 707's use it.
Those are 5 car - they don't have it on anything that could form 12 car metro services at the moment.

There's no issue with power supply for 12-car on Metro. Network Rail spent a lot of money improving it and extending platforms in the 2010s (though much platform work was done in the 90s) but still barely any 12-car trains due to limited stock as well as no SDO at Woolwich Dockyard and Charing Cross. New stock would of course fix that.
There are a few residual issues when you get into Kent as these units will and some dubious supply issues on the via Herne Hill routes.
Ordering 5/10 car stock would hamper lines and capacity for the next 40 years. Short sighted if it happened.
This is DfT we are talking about
As for sidings Slade Green already saw approval for expansion onto adjacent land for freight in the 2010s. Never happened but precedent counts for a lot if another plan was submitted for SE expansion.
Both those applications make it harder for SE to improve.
Then there's Plumstead sidings. Large amount of land beside existing three track sidings (which can't take 12 car) that was formerly freight, then in temp use as a Crossrail building site and now vacant again. Looking at both prior planning approval and land availability there's space for 8 sidings of 12 car trains.

Will that happen? No.

Crossrail need to find space for 10x 345s preferably to the east...
Will we regret that in 5-10 years given SE metro runs through areas designated for biggest growth in housing in the UK? You bet
Yep
 
Last edited:

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,573
Location
UK
Those are 5 car - they don't have it on anything that could form 12 car metro services at the moment.

The SDO system has the data in a track based tag. If a new fleet of trains was built then they could use the existing SDO tags
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
1,541
Location
Selhurst
I don't think they would order 5/10 car stock because the Brixton line is restricted to 8 for stopping trains
 

LLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,478
Location
London
I don't think they would order 5/10 car stock because the Brixton line is restricted to 8 for stopping trains

But ordering 4 car sets again for the entire network makes little sense considering how little 4 car diagrams operate across SE London. It'd just be wasting space with cabs which could be used for passengers. 8 car sets for Penge East, or 4 car sets to double up for Penge East, and single 4 car sets the branches, as well as 10 car sets for the rest would make far more sense, surely?

Key issues for 12 car:
  • Needs a modern (working) SDO system and walk though designs (Principally for Charing Cross and Woolwich Dockyard in the inner metro area)
  • Stabling any additional stock will require significantly more stabling capacity and adapting some space such as Slade green for more /all 12car is horrifically expensive and requires more 12car elsewhere too. Quite a few siding can only take 8/10.
  • Power supply in places but modern EMUs with better efficiency and ability to moderate power draw is it sense the 3rd rail system is under strain will help here (realistically Siemens/Alstom/Hitachi are significantly ahead of the others here).
I'd forgot about Charing Cross. Good to know, re: power supply.

Ordering 5/10 car stock would hamper lines and capacity for the next 40 years. Short sighted if it happened.

As for sidings Slade Green already saw approval for expansion onto adjacent land for freight in the 2010s. Never happened but precedent counts for a lot if another plan was submitted for SE expansion.

Then there's Plumstead sidings. Large amount of land beside existing three track sidings (which can't take 12 car) that was formerly freight, then in temp use as a Crossrail building site and now vacant again. Looking at both prior planning approval and land availability there's space for 8 sidings of 12 car trains.

Will that happen? No.

Will we regret that in 5-10 years given SE metro runs through areas designated for biggest growth in housing in the UK? You bet

Tbh, ordering 5/10 cars isn't really an issue, as long as they can be extended to 6/12 - whether it'd just ends up into the 'too difficult' pile once delivered feels predictable, however.

Considering the empty land in Slade Green, it does look like a relatively easy win. I'd also seriously consider using the car park land at Orpington (fast line side) for more stabling space. Put a new car park deck(s) above it, if needs must.

We will absolutely regret not taking action now in 5, 10, 20 years.
 

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
847
Location
Somewhere
But ordering 4 car sets again for the entire network makes little sense considering how little 4 car diagrams operate across SE London. It'd just be wasting space with cabs which could be used for passengers. 8 car sets for Penge East, or 4 car sets to double up for Penge East, and single 4 car sets the branches, as well as 10 car sets for the rest would make far more sense, surely?
A portion of the Networker fleet is in storage, so it's not hard to think that current Metro diagrams could end up running as 4 car sets. Alongside the 12 car platform extensions, most of the fleet (bar the 376, 396 and 707 making up less than one-third of total coaches) are formed in four-coach units, it's more forward-thinking to order new rolling stock as four-car units from the get-go.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,188
Location
Taunton or Kent
But ordering 4 car sets again for the entire network makes little sense considering how little 4 car diagrams operate across SE London. It'd just be wasting space with cabs which could be used for passengers. 8 car sets for Penge East, or 4 car sets to double up for Penge East, and single 4 car sets the branches, as well as 10 car sets for the rest would make far more sense, surely?
Having a new metro fleet capable of all the branch lines would be handy for allowing 375/3s to bolster mainline services, as well as increasing the train capacity on the branch lines themselves. Worth remembering also that if Sharnal Street gets off the ground, this new fleet would have to be able to do that line as well, either with new third rail electrification or battery capacity with enough range to cover this section.

But as always, if boosting overall capacity is involved, more stabling space needs to be built somewhere.
Crossrail need to find space for 10x 345s preferably to the east...
Do you or anyone else know what the situation at Chart Leacon is, which would arguably be the easiest place to expand stabling capacity?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,449
But as always, if boosting overall capacity is involved, more stabling space needs to be built somewhere.

Do you or anyone else know what the situation at Chart Leacon is, which would arguably be the easiest place to expand stabling capacity?
Chart Leacon no - but at least NR did get the first powers pre-Covid and demolition was completed in March 2021.
The full T&W order including compulsory purchase powers (where the previous owned did voluntarily sell to NR - as most ~80% did) was granted in April 2021. Clearing the rest of the site will have provided clear proof of intent to proceed.
I suspect it and many other items (across all government departments) are being left in the in tray for the new government to fund, with he existing one trying to claim there is insufficient demand or they are commissioning cheap studies to assess demand forecasts that won't report back any time soon (e.g. until after the summer holiday which is then into the pre election period for an October election). Not committing to expenditure allows the Government to claim there is room for tax cuts in the 2024-29 parliament as it has been "committed to " ... yet.

The SDO system has the data in a track based tag. If a new fleet of trains was built then they could use the existing SDO tags
Either of the track balise systems that Bombardier and Siemens have used (both have used both) would be more than ideal. ETCS balises are probably the more future looking sensible way to go as that doesn't lock you into a single hardware provider for system that has already been around 21 years but that isn't what is already installed...

I don't think they would order 5/10 car stock because the Brixton line is restricted to 8 for stopping trains
Much of that restriction is due to lack of SDO 9anbd the current positioning of DOO cameras for 465/466 significantly before the platform ends)
Most of those platforms are already 9.5car length and the only real signal positioning issue is southbound at Brixton.

Considering the empty land in Slade Green, it does look like a relatively easy win. I'd also seriously consider using the car park land at Orpington (fast line side) for more stabling space. Put a new car park deck(s) above it, if needs must.
There are no easy wins for adding SE stabling or maintenance capacity.

The 12 year legal saga for the (refused) freight depot ended just pre-Covid.
 
Last edited:

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,444
Location
York
The new trains would differ from 707s and 717s having battery power and some sort of entry/exit assistance probably enough to warrant a new class, hence 727.
Why would they need battery power? This order is to replace Networkers which run on third rail.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,188
Location
Taunton or Kent
Why would they need battery power? This order is to replace Networkers which run on third rail.
Moves around depots are made easier on battery I believe, and it's possible that if Sharnal Street station is built, services from Gravesend use battery power on the Isle of Grain branch between Hoo Junction and that station. There could also be the advantage of a Lewisham 2018 scenario being avoided if ice prevents power being received; battery power could be used to at least get to the nearest station and detrain there.
 

4BEP

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2022
Messages
60
Location
Loose
“Challenging targets to deliver as soon as possible”

Thats doesn't sound like the way to get good results from a process like this.

I would be very surprised if a manufacturer other than Alstom wins the contract for this tbh given the current climate
The bids still have to be scored against agreed criteria. Four years late on SWR order won't help the requirement for proven record of delivering working solutions on time for Alstholm.

Why would they need battery power? This order is to replace Networkers which run on third rail.
Battery option is on the the list of requirements, to be used in non electrified sidings and in case of third rail power issues.

Having a new metro fleet capable of all the branch lines would be handy for allowing 375/3s to bolster mainline services, as well as increasing the train capacity on the branch lines themselves. Worth remembering also that if Sharnal Street gets off the ground, this new fleet would have to be able to do that line as well, either with new third rail electrification or battery capacity with enough range to cover this section.

But as always, if boosting overall capacity is involved, more stabling space needs to be built somewhere.

Do you or anyone else know what the situation at Chart Leacon is, which would arguably be the easiest place to expand stabling capacity?
The Sheerness and Medway Valley lines are part of the Mainline operation and 375/3s not required for those lines are already used to create 11 car trains at the peaks. On Chart Leacon, it is too far from the Metro operating area, also the site has been designated for housing which is why the 377/5s couldn't be stabled there. It will be interesting to see if the 465/9s are included in the requirement as they are mainly used on Mainline services, although much less than previously.
 
Last edited:

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,188
Location
Taunton or Kent
The Sheerness and Medway Valley lines are part of the Mainline operation and 375/3s not required for those lines are already used to create 11 car trains at the peaks. On Chart Leacon, it is too far from the Metro operating area, also the site has been designated for housing which is why the 377/5s couldn't be stabled there. It will be interesting to see if the 465/9s are included in the requirement as they are mainly used on Mainline services, although much less than previously.
Chart Leacon could be mainline and filled by moving some mainline stabling out of areas closer to the metro area, to create metro stabling indirectly. Also, Chart Leacon being used for at least some metro stabling wouldn't be completely out of kilt, given 376s still go all the way to Ramsgate for heavy maintenance.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,432
Why would they need battery power? This order is to replace Networkers which run on third rail.

It is likely that most new electric trains will come with some form of traction battery back up from hereon in.

It is to provide power to get out of a section where traction power is unavailable from the con rail. This could be because of:

weather conditions (snow or ice preventing the shoes making contact with the con rail)
flooding (power isolated)
persons / animals on the track (emergency isolation)
Objects on the track (trees, trampolines, sheds, etc)
a fault with the power supply
a fault with the train conductor beam/ shoes
a planned isolation needed for maintenance
etc.

In all these cases (and more) it would enable trains to keep moving - in some cases under special arrangements - a least to a station to enable detraining, or more likely to be clear of the isolated area and then proceed with the journey.

Seperstely for Southeastern, there was a proposal to reopen the line from Hoo to Grain, and traction batteries would enable that withiut having to electrify or have a special micro fleet for that purpose.

My guess is the battery needs to have range for c25 miles at lowish speed - perhaps 60mph. That’s perhaps 3 times the size of the battery you might get in an EV car.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,249
Location
Surrey
I suspect the power supply is not totally unlimited
For instance 3 or 4 car 380s are 2000Kw (2680hp)
5car 720 and 730 are 2300kw. (3080hp)

I'm doubt Network Rail would allow unrestricted 3 x 2000kw on a 12car set on third rail during an intensive peak hour service,
No current limit is 6kA on high current routes so thats c4.5kW and that includes the hotel load as well.

There are a few residual issues when you get into Kent as these units will and some dubious supply issues on the via Herne Hill routes.
This was the prime Eurostar route and was rated for 6.8kA plenty enough for 12 car.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,449
This was the prime Eurostar route and was rated for 6.8kA plenty enough for 12 car.
But how many concurrent closely spaced 12 car trains in a couple of larger slightly problematic the supply areas?

(Hint: trackside signs and sectional appendix suggest otherwise ;) )

On Chart Leacon, it is too far from the Metro operating area, also the site has been designated for housing which is why the 377/5s couldn't be stabled there.

The granting of the TWAO in 2021 and NR compulsorily purchasing the rest of the land that wasn't voluntarily sold to NR and complete site clearance suggests otherwise...
It will be interesting to see if the 465/9s are included in the requirement as they are mainly used on Mainline services, although much less than previously.
Most 465/9s are in storage and it is all the 465 especially the GEC-Alsthom ones are included.
 
Last edited:

jamieh27

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2023
Messages
128
Location
Falmouth
Southeastern has announced that Alstom, Siemens, CAF, Hitachi and Stadler have been shortlisted for an "Invitation to negotiate" for the SE metro fleet replacement or improvement. Proposed (but not guaranteed) features include air con, toilets, level boarding of some sort, and on-board batteries.

Press release attached below.



I am hoping either Alstom, Siemens, Hitachi AT200 or Stadler gets the bid, CAF not a massive fan of especially with cracks on the Mark 5As would be good if Stadler gets the bid as they had bi-modes on the 755s and Hydro on 756s or Hitachi using AT200s like ScotRail 385s.
 

LLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,478
Location
London
In the FT, Labour have apparently rejected TfL proposals for a take over of Southeastern & Great Northern suburbans, partly because it wouldn't be nationalisation (unless TfL stops contracting out). So I don't imagine an expansion of longitudinal seating anytime soon in London.

https://www.ft.com/content/1ef9421f-bb9b-4af3-9edb-0ec47df8d467

A Labour government would snub Sadiq Khan’s demand to take control of suburban rail lines in London, setting up a potential clash between the party leadership and the UK capital’s mayor. Khan, who was re-elected to a third term for Labour this month, campaigned on the promise of a “rail revolution in London” where some suburban services would be brought into Transport for London, the city’s transport quango. Southeastern services linking central London with Hayes, Dartford and Sevenoaks in Kent were among the lines Khan said in April that he would like to come under TfL control. Khan said the move “would create a metro-style network that delivers genuine benefits to Londoners”, as he suggested also taking control of Great Northern services connecting Moorgate with Welwyn Garden City, Hertford and Stevenage. But Labour officials said the main opposition party had no plans to proceed with Khan’s proposal, and that the lines would be renationalised along with the rest of the passenger railway in England under a Labour government. Instead Louise Haigh, shadow transport secretary, would be entirely focused on what she has called the biggest rail reforms in a generation, the people added. “Under Labour’s plans for publicly owned passenger rail, as franchises expire, they [the suburban services] would come under Great British Railways’ control,” Labour said. TfL has long sought control of more London commuter services. The body chaired by Khan has pointed to the success of the London Overground, a suburban rail network established in 2007 and since enlarged, as proof that it can drive more passengers on to the rail network. It is particularly focused on south London, where there are fewer London Underground stations and passengers are more reliant on the national rail network.

In a 2019 policy document, TfL said it could “create a more reliable, efficient and integrated public transport network across south London, Surrey and Kent”. It said the current system suffered from short-term decision making, fragmentation and inefficiency, with different operators responsible for individual lines. The push for control of commuter lines was overtaken by the pandemic, as lockdowns caused a financial crisis at TfL, but resurfaced during this year’s mayoral election campaign. A spokesperson for Khan said: “The existing commuter rail lines in London are clearly not fit for purpose — with cancellations, delays and poor reliability. We will work closely with a Labour government to deliver a system that provides the service passengers deserve.” The future of the suburban lines, some of the busiest in the capital, also highlights an apparent tension between Khan and Haigh’s rail policies. TfL contracts private companies to operate all its services other than the London Underground — including the tram network, Docklands Light Railway and London Overground — under tightly specified contracts using TfL branding. The private rail industry had lobbied Haigh to copy this so-called Overground model under Labour’s plan for English rail reform, but she chose to cut them out and produced a plan to fully renationalise the passenger railway. It was under state control until the 1990s. If full renationalisation took place, Khan’s London would emerge as one of the last bastions of private sector involvement in the UK passenger railway, although the state would still lease trains from private operators.
 

Top