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

[Antman]

Seeing that most Bakerloo trains originating at Elephant & Castle don't run the full length of the current route (terminating at Queens Park or Stonebridge Park)... why not think outside the box?

There are still two seldom-used platforms at Charing Cross, from when the Jubilee Line was diverted to Westminster... if you're going to build more tunnels anyway to make the extension, why not bore tunnels to access those platforms (from the south) and terminate some 'new branch' trains there ? Passengers wanting a through journey from the new branch to, say, Baker Street or beyond, would need to change at the previous station, though...

The idea here was to extend the Bakerloo Line from Elephant & Castle to Lewisham and then onto Hayes/Beckenham Junction, the seldom used platforms at Charing Cross are a rather seperate matter. Various ideas have been mooted for getting them back into use but that's as far as it's ever got.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Very unlikely to happen now according to the just-published public consultation. I'd be amazed if we ever saw Bakerloo line trains beyond Lewisham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




Or along the Catford Loop, where (unlike at Lewisham) there is plenty of spare capacity and currently only 2tph actually serving the stations.

When the ELLX was under debate one of the options included a Victoria - Bellingham stopper twice an hour. I could imagine Clapham Jn - Bellingham being a similar prospect.

The Catford Loop line is also used by fast services and obviously the capacity becomes more limited with Victoria to Lewisham services joining at Nunhead. Increasing services to 4tph, at least as far as Bellingham, really should be a priority.

 

[urpert]

The Catford Loop line is also used by fast services and obviously the capacity becomes more limited with Victoria to Lewisham services joining at Nunhead. Increasing services to 4tph, at least as far as Bellingham, really should be a priority.

These days it's actually quite lightly used for fast services as it adds 3-4 minutes compared to via Penge East (even with the number of conflicting trains they have to fit through Herne Hill). From PSUL:

Mondays to Fridays (except peaks) and Saturdays:
x.34 Victoria - Dover Priory and x.52 return
Sundays:
x.04 Victoria - Canterbury East and x.04 return

I completely agree that 4tph are needed. There's a ton of suppressed demand at Catford and Crofton Park alone, and if the Brockley interchange happens the line will become much more useful for lots of people.

 

[JamesRowden]

No you just don't appear to understand that there can only be 1 branch as there has to be:
A) spare capacity left for those who get on at elephant waterloo and charing Cross at the moment and growth there.
B) spare capacity for passengers who get on at OKR1 OKR2 New Cross Gate and Lewisham especially as the funding model is predicated on this.

Once you subtract those from the total capacity you only have 1 branch of capacity left and it has to be the least busy one.

I raise you the Central line.

 

[Antman]

I notice the London Live report linked above mentions services from Clapham Junction into Kent. Any ideas about this??

I can't see that being viable, it's a simple change at Denmark Hill for trains to Dartford, Gillingham and Sevenoaks.

 

[XCTurbostar]

Surely these services cannot all be branded "London Overground" this is especially in the case of Thameslink.

I mean if that's the case, they might as well re-brand it all "Network SouthEast" and the transformation will be complete.

Thanks,
Ross

 

[Barn]

What's the difference between a fee and a subsidy ?

From the link you provided. The grant payment to LO was 35.4mil but the subsidy to Southern was 12.4mil and the Subsidy to Southeastern was 35.6mil The tax payer still pays.

There is little difference. I'm happy to be corrected and better informed.

LOROL gets that fee as a service charge. That's their entire income. They then only have to worry about running the contracted service.

Southern (pre-GTR) and Southeastern take the risk on profitability based on ridership and ticket revenue. In their calculations there will be assumptions for ticket revenue and entries for a subsidy or a premium. (Your £12.4m subsidy figure was from 2008; if you scroll right you'll see that more recently there has been a premium from Southern (pre-GTR)).

There is technically an element of risk for a franchised TOC. Can I afford to make the premium payments I offered to make in my bid? Is the subsidy I said I could make do with in my bid enough?

However, especially for London suburban services, the services are at capacity. There is now little chance of operators not having full trains at peak times however bad they are. Therefore, some of the risks and incentives that are passed to operators under the franchise model are not really required or appropriate. TfL sees the LO model* as more appropriate.

* The LO model is often referred to as a 'concession' in contrast to a 'franchise'. As a procurement lawyer I hate using that word, as it has a very particular meaning which is in many ways the complete opposite of the LO model! A better phrase might be 'management contract', which has started being used more in the GTR context.

 

[The Ham]

I can't see that being viable, it's a simple change at Denmark Hill for trains to Dartford, Gillingham and Sevenoaks.

The following maybe of interest, it's a map of how London's rail links could look in 2050, note lots of pale orange (new overground routes) south of the river (worth noting this was produced - by others - prior to this announcement):

https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2014/Tube2050/London Infrastucture Plan 2050 Transport v6.svg

The article linking to it can be found here:
http://randomlylondon.com/tube-map-look-like-2050/

 

[infobleep]

Sadiq Khan said in a Facebook post the other day that he wanted to Mayor to take over South West Trains services. He quote the lateness of trains.

The 8.31 Surbiton to Waterloo was late 100% of the time. I don't see how TfL taking over this will make any difference.

That gets delayed but the 8.25 service. That often leaves Woking late as the 7.59 and 7.59 services get delayed by the late running 7.52. As the 8.02 has to cross the fast line to the slow it can't leave first without delaying further their of those trains.

It also gets delayed on route. No doubt because it's a 450 running as a suburban service. The doors take longer to release. Then this also assumes the 7.57 isn't delayed at Guildford by a late running Reading service.

The 8.25 usually arrives into Waterloo on time as they make allowances for it beyond Surbiton. If the 8.31 arrives on time into Waterloo then that would surely be not such an issue.

The point I'm making is that it won't matter who runs the services because the infrastructure is the same. If the infrastructure changes, surely that would happen regardless of who runs the services.

If they do take over the additional areas, would they extend Oyster to them and would we non Londoners gets say on services, even we don't live in London and we can't vote for the Mayor or Assembly.

 

[AM9]

LOROL gets that fee as a service charge. That's their entire income. They then only have to worry about running the contracted service. TfL sees the LO model* as more appropriate.

The LO model is often referred to as a 'concession' in contrast to a 'franchise'. As a procurement lawyer I hate using that word, as it has a very particular meaning which is in many ways the complete opposite of the LO model! A better phrase might be 'management contract', which has started being used more in the GTR context.

I suspect that the great majority of LO passengers are travelling on Travelcards or Zone season tickets, which means that it would be impossible to extract a figure for fare attribution. So there isn't any practical means whereby a conventional franchise with premium/subsidy could be made to work.

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely these services cannot all be branded "London Overground" this is especially in the case of Thameslink.

They aren't taking over any of "Thameslink". They are proposing to take some of the GN and SN metro routes from the combined TSGN (aka GTR) franchise, but that doesn't mean Thameslink routes.

 

[bramling]

It's true that improvements could come about under a tightly specified franchise system under DfT control. Only problem is, the DfT couldn't really be bothered to do that for Southeastern for a fair amount of time now - particularly metro routes. Some tinkering but generally what they specified resulted in a lack of staff, no real updates for 25 year old and clapped out networkers and no added stock for 10 years despite large growth.

So bring on TfL, who are far more likely to specify badly needed improvements.

One less-than-perfect setup doesn't automatically mean TFL involvement is the best solution.

Regardless of who is spending the money, improvements won't cost any less.

In fact, London Overground introduces inefficiencies into the system. Two different operators on a section of railway when one could do the job. Duplication of things like driver depots, management overheads (etc) - segregated along political lines rather than what works best for the railway.

So far I've seen London Overground deliver nothing that couldn't have been delivered by a TOC. No matter how hard I try to think otherwise, I always end up returning to the feeling that London Overground is the product of a group of TFL management who have got bored with their day job and fancy finding other things to do to shore up their empire.

TFL's record on their own railway is not perfect (for example SSR resignalling is massively late, along with *massive* wastage of money along the way), whilst some Tube investments have also been put on hold due to lack of funds, for example the Piccadilly Line's replacement fleet should have been in service by now.

I would prefer to look at tweaking the existing franchise system, perhaps giving TFL some involvement over franchise specifications, rather than complete segregation.

 

[ascadding]

I note the reference to protecting paths for longer distance routes. I wonder if in reality, over time, as TFL is accountable to the elected Mayor of London, the inevitable political pressure will be for priority for needs of London over others. eg more stopping services Wimbledon-Waterloo? Less paths ....

Cant say I look forward to a slow journey from Woking, perhaps having to stop at every station in between!

 

[infobleep]

There was a map of which routes they wanted knocking about last year.

Page 20 of this report: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/devolving_rail_services_to_london-final-report.pdf

For SWT it included all those routes you mention, including Weybridge via Chertsey and Dorking. But NOT routes via Effingham Jn towards Guidford, or towards Woking.

If they didn't take Effingham Junction routes Woking routes, would they still be classed as metro routes? For the Cobham line I can see how Surbiton onwards is suburban but it certainly doesn't feel suburban between Guildford and Hinchley Wood inclusive.

I guess by not taking Woking, they it would avoid rolling stock issues during peak they use 450s but outside of peak 455s. Would South West Trains have given them some 450s and if not, the 455s would given them less capacity.

 

[Reason077]

I suspect that the great majority of LO passengers are travelling on Travelcards or Zone season tickets, which means that it would be impossible to extract a figure for fare attribution. So there isn't any practical means whereby a conventional franchise with premium/subsidy could be made to work.

Huh? They will know, as accurately as any other ToC, how many people are using Travelcards to travel on London Overground. Most LO stations have ticket barriers, after all.

And the Class 378s can determine passenger counts pretty accurately with their loadweigh system.

 

[IanKR]

It's about time TfL copied the Germans and gave each line or group of lines an S number. It gets a bit complicated south of the river, but they could use Sx for a group of services then Sxy for a particular route, e.g. S1 for Central London-Dartford with S11/S12/S13 for the various permutations of route.

That'd be far too logical.

 

[Domh245]

Sadiq Khan said in a Facebook post the other day that he wanted to Mayor to take over South West Trains services. He quote the lateness of trains.

The 8.31 Surbiton to Waterloo was late 100% of the time. I don't see how TfL taking over this will make any difference.

That gets delayed but the 8.25 service. That often leaves Woking late as the 7.59 and 7.59 services get delayed by the late running 7.52. As the 8.02 has to cross the fast line to the slow it can't leave first without delaying further their of those trains.

It also gets delayed on route. No doubt because it's a 450 running as a suburban service. The doors take longer to release. Then this also assumes the 7.57 isn't delayed at Guildford by a late running Reading service.

The 8.25 usually arrives into Waterloo on time as they make allowances for it beyond Surbiton. If the 8.31 arrives on time into Waterloo then that would surely be not such an issue.

The point I'm making is that it won't matter who runs the services because the infrastructure is the same. If the infrastructure changes, surely that would happen regardless of who runs the services.

If they do take over the additional areas, would they extend Oyster to them and would we non Londoners gets say on services, even we don't live in London and we can't vote for the Mayor or Assembly.

Just remember that most politicians know about as much as the railways and how they operate as the average passenger (that is to say, not a lot!), or at the very least, will wilfully ignore how it operates in an attempt to connect with voters

 

[Antman]

Just remember that most politicians know about as much as the railways and how they operate as the average passenger (that is to say, not a lot!), or at the very least, will wilfully ignore how it operates in an attempt to connect with voters

That's a rather sweeping statement! Some politicians are also railway enthusiasts and quite possibly members of this forum!

 

[EAD]

It may be sweeping, but I have to say it is evident a lot of people (politicians or otherwise) haven't got a clue. Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the worth of that opinion may be debatable.

Reminds me of the other morning at EAD (funny enough my local station) where a guy was handing out leaflets in an end of the world is neigh way telling us all Crossrail 2 means less trains....Of course that is a blinkered and half truth way of putting it. Yes, a lot of the traffic that crams onto the slows and gives EAD a peak frequency of every couple of minutes will go into the pipe after Wimbledon, but that frees up SWML capacity and gives options - even if frequency drops a bit.

 

[po8crg]

That's a rather sweeping statement! Some politicians are also railway enthusiasts and quite possibly members of this forum!

And others have advisors who are.

But yes, a lot of politicians don't really know that much. If they're not in government (ie don't have access to civil servants), then there's plenty of silly things said. Smarter ones know that some things are complicated and to ask people who know what they're talking about before speaking.

No-one can be an expert on everything.

 

[exile]

And others have advisors who are.

But yes, a lot of politicians don't really know that much. If they're not in government (ie don't have access to civil servants), then there's plenty of silly things said. Smarter ones know that some things are complicated and to ask people who know what they're talking about before speaking.

No-one can be an expert on everything.

However, these ignorant politicians are obliged to hand out billions in support of the railways.....

 

[kevjs]

I'm also in Notts at the moment and I can't believe the price of Trent Barton, its insane. The lack of integration of smartcards with the Trams and City buses is stupid too.

What lack of integration? The Robin Hood card within the city (urban splodge not council) offers PAYG (Oyster style) already across NET, NCT, and Trent Barton, extending out into the county later this year. And then there's the Kangaroo tickets too - which include the train.

 

[nuneatonmark]

It's funny that it's a tory mayor that's fully nationalising part of the rail network?

 

[danielnez1]

It's funny that it's a tory mayor that's fully nationalising part of the rail network?

I guess it makes common sense

 

[Busaholic]

These are only ideas, being put about by a Tory Transport Minister and a Tory part-time Mayor. in advance of elections for the London mayor in May. Why have all the shenanigans at Liverpool Street, utterly unaffected by any of the proposals except in the deepest waffle sense? Have some guts and go to London Bridge, so accessible from the mayoral suite, but the rotten eggs might have flown. These are CONSULTATIONS, absolutely nothing committed to financially and, if Sadiq Khan wins as expected in May, precious little will get the go-ahead this side of the next General Election.

 

[jopsuk]

It's funny that it's a tory mayor that's fully nationalising part of the rail network?

But he's not. Not if the proposal is to manage like Overground, which is day-to-day operated by a private company

 

[kevjs]

'Cities' with elected Mayors is not the equivalent of the Mayor of London, who has authority over the whole of Greater London. The equivalent would have been a Mayor for a city region, which was not on offer (though now it is being talked about.) Here in Liverpool we were given no referendum to vote on the principle of an elected Mayor, so we had one foisted on us (theoretically the city could have voted for anyone except the Labour candidate, but that was never going to be likely.) A city mayor has no authority over transport which is organised on a regional basis.

Yet for the D2N2 devolution deal we'll be having to get an elected mayor (replacing the Police and Crime commissioner that absolutely nobody wanted or could be arsed voting for) that the councils don't want - and they will have power over transport - perhaps not at TFL levels but more than currently (although Nottingham City Council are already quite controlling in some aspects)

 

[infobleep]

Having skim-read the prospectus, it appears that TfL's solution is 'throw shedloads of cash at the problem', with new signalling new trains, possible ATO and so on.
It's patently obvious that that is a solution that anyone could implement, if they were allowed to.

Thus begs the question, if correct, why are they not allowed to.

 

[A-driver]

Thus begs the question, if correct, why are they not allowed to.

They are allowed to. But the DfT won't pay for it. NR can't afford it and no TOC is going to spend all that money when hey only have the franchise for 5 years or so and won't ever recoup their costs let alone make a profit (and making mo Ely is all that TOCs are interested in being hat they are, after all, a business, not a service provider.

 

[infobleep]

Worth remembering it'll be off-peak enhancements, which for Southeastern passenegers will be a big improvement on the current 2tph evening and Sunday service they currently get on most branches.

But probably wouldn't be much of an improvement on South West Trains lines if any, beyond what South West Trains would do themselves if they still owned said lines that is.

They might staff and barrier some of the unmanned stations. However surely they are not barriered or staffed for a reason. Not many people use them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly, but again, that's the point as I see it. It frees up services form the constraints of the franchise system. That's why TfL, the Mayor and many other stakeholders have been pushing for it for years. It could be seen as empire building, but it allows more local control over specifications about what will run.

Would this work elsewhere so we could have improvementa?

In the past perhaps if they had taken over London Midland, they wouldn't have been running 4 carriage trains on a Summer Sunday. Nit sure if they are still doing that.

 

[The Ham]

But probably wouldn't be much of an improvement on South West Trains lines if any, beyond what South West Trains would do themselves if they still owned said lines that is.

They might staff and barrier some of the unmanned stations. However surely they are not barriered or staffed for a reason. Not many people use them.

How useful would it to be to reduce the frequency of through trains over one of two routes but provide more services to connect with the more frequent service on the other route.

As an example if two routes currently have say 3tph to Waterloo would it better to have 6tph on both routes with only 3tph to Waterloo the rest of the services being timed to connect with other services to Waterloo. Although it wouldn't increase the frequency to Waterloo but it would mean a more frequent service between the local stations and could mean that between the direct services it was fairly easy to get a train and change to get to London.