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

[J-2739]

They ought to colour code the lines of the Overground. Right now, it looks like a right Bolognese mess with the Overground being the spaghetti, the zones/boroughs being the dish, and Crossrail being the double-sided fork.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Link to the map on the tfl website: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/vision-for-london-map.jpg

 

[infobleep]

New map doing the rounds today, this is the BBC version of the story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37429631

Still no takeover of Woking, Guildford or Reading services;; I know this will be a disappointment but maybe we could cut back on the discussions of something that no-one appears to be planning for?

Wonder why they don't want them. Are they not metro routes? If they are not, perhaps one day they can have some rolling stock with loos on them. I mean when the rolling stock needs to be upgraded, which will be quiet some years away of course.

Some of the lines don't have loos open at stations for a fair bit of the time and so it would be useful to have such a thing on the trains. I doubt the stations will be staffed for any longer, seeing as TfL aren't interested.

I can but dream.

On a practical level it avoids the issue of the trains using the fast lines during the peak and TfL running them. At least when they continue to use the cast lines, as they do, it will be the same company running the services.

I wonder if TfL would be able to increase any services, on the routes that share the slow lines with Guildford and Woking services?i doubt there any spare capacity. Therefore apart from staffing stations, I'm not sure what they could do to improve things that South West Trains couldn't do themselves.

Incidentally are there any other lines that TfL wish to take over, where stopping services use fast lines and skip stations during g the peak time or is South West Trains area unique?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Chrisgr31]

TFL are very pleased to tell us that they dont make a profit and that their time keeping is better than other TOCs but whilst these statements might be true arent they disingenuous?

TFL may not make profits like a privately owned TOC does not, however they do employ a privately owned train company to run the service for them, and that company doesnt do the job with out an intention of making a profit.

They may also have better time keeping but havent they also introduced more padding in their timetable so journeys take longer and can be more reliable. Not only that but a signaller said in another thread that as they have a lower PPM they get priority other GTR trains,

If we are going to make claims lets have a level playing field first!

 

[bicbasher]

Going by the Southern consultation, it appears Southern are preparing to handover which may explain why the current Sydenham line stopper service via East Croydon is moving to West Croydon, which would give the Overground concession a 6tph service between New Cross Gate and West Croydon.

This leaves Caterham and Tattenham Corner metro services in the hands of GTR which become semi fast services and East Croydon without any TfL influence at all unless the proposed 2tph service to Caterham via Tulse Hill becomes part of the concession.

 

[09065]

Wonder why they don't want them. Are they not metro routes? If they are not, perhaps one day they can have some rolling stock with loos on them. I mean when the rolling stock needs to be upgraded, which will be quiet some years away of course.

Some of the lines don't have loos open at stations for a fair bit of the time and so it would be useful to have such a thing on the trains. I doubt the stations will be staffed for any longer, seeing as TfL aren't interested.

You would hope for fleet consistency that TfL would take the SWT 455's, ready for an upgrade to their preferred HC stock supplier, displacing the Desiro's to the Guildford/Woking stopping services.

I can but dream.

On a practical level it avoids the issue of the trains using the fast lines during the peak and TfL running them. At least when they continue to use the cast lines, as they do, it will be the same company running the services.

I wonder if TfL would be able to increase any services, on the routes that share the slow lines with Guildford and Woking services?i doubt there any spare capacity. Therefore apart from staffing stations, I'm not sure what they could do to improve things that South West Trains couldn't do themselves.

Option B might be that the platform allocations change? All Guildford/Woking stopping services calling Surbiton/Wimbledon/Clapham only and TfL insisting on connecting passengers to change trains?

You would hope that for a few civil servants to be continuing to alter their plans and write press releases; that they actually have researched what is there and what is needed.

Incidentally are there any other lines that TfL wish to take over, where stopping services use fast lines and skip stations during g the peak time or is South West Trains area unique?

Which leads me to think that the stopping services will be less stopping when it all happens.

 

[Class377/5]

TFL are very pleased to tell us that they dont make a profit and that their time keeping is better than other TOCs but whilst these statements might be true arent they disingenuous?

TFL may not make profits like a privately owned TOC does not, however they do employ a privately owned train company to run the service for them, and that company doesnt do the job with out an intention of making a profit.

They may also have better time keeping but havent they also introduced more padding in their timetable so journeys take longer and can be more reliable. Not only that but a signaller said in another thread that as they have a lower PPM they get priority other GTR trains,

If we are going to make claims lets have a level playing field first!

The biggest issue I have with TfL on this is the TOC's work to 3% return. TfL pays LOROL 3% to run its services. The difference is that TOC profits go to the DfT to be put in transport budget where as TfL ring fence it for London projects. It's just all very cleve spin on thier part.

Things like station investments, new rolling stock is all controlled by the DfT not the TOC either (same as LOROL as it's TFL improving the service not it's operator) so it's a big of fudge by TfL to claim it's doing things that TOCs cannot do when the TOCs aren't allowed to play on the same level. Only Chiltern at present has free regin and how often is there complains on here about issues?

 

[Bald Rick]

The biggest issue I have with TfL on this is the TOC's work to 3% return. TfL pays LOROL 3% to run its services. The difference is that TOC profits go to the DfT to be put in transport budget where as TfL ring fence it for London projects. It's just all very cleve spin on thier part.

That's not quite right. TOCs work on (about) 3% return on income (or sometimes cost) and that goes to their shareholders. That's the same for LOROL and any other TOC.

The difference is that those who work on cost based contracts (LOROL, GTR, DLR) have less risk, where as those who work on a whole franchise basis (almost everyone else) bears revenue risk. Most franchises have some protection for revenue not meeting targets, or going above targets, but not all.

The difference is in the specification of the contract. LOROL is the most tightly specified, and it's pretty difficult to get wrong. Hence they bank the 3%. GTR less so, and they have got it wrong (eg drivers) so they are not banking 3%, indeed rather less. Other TOCs on full revenue risk (and even those with revenue protection) could be making very significant losses, equally they could make better than 3%.

Chiltern are bound by the same rules. However they have an unusual market; the low(ish) costs of a mostly DOO railway in the South East, but high(ish) commuter flows mostly over long distance. It's pretty difficult not to make cash in such a scenario (although they try!), and the enhancements they've made have all been genuinely profitable.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How will it affect staff that work the trains and staff in depots? Taking SWTs as an example are there some drivers who'' drive metro routes just as much as non-metro routes, how will they decide if them drivers stay with SWTs driving "blue routes" and "white routes" or whether they get TUPED over to tfl/LO?

 

[Goldfish62]

TFL are very pleased to tell us that they dont make a profit and that their time keeping is better than other TOCs but whilst these statements might be true arent they disingenuous?

TFL may not make profits like a privately owned TOC does not, however they do employ a privately owned train company to run the service for them, and that company doesnt do the job with out an intention of making a profit.

That's a ridiculous argument. That's like saying that because I pay a window cleaner who makes a profit I am therefore myself making a profit.

 

[TEW]

How will it affect staff that work the trains and staff in depots? Taking SWTs as an example are there some drivers who'' drive metro routes just as much as non-metro routes, how will they decide if them drivers stay with SWTs driving "blue routes" and "white routes" or whether they get TUPED over to tfl/LO?

It would definitely make things less efficient on SWT. Drivers and guards tend at the depots in the inner area tend to work a mix of suburban and longer distance stuff, often on the same shifts. So a split would probably require more crew to be recruited. If TfL don't want Woking and Guildford services there will be problems too, as those services interwork with other suburban routes they do want. There isn't the capacity at Waterloo or in the 455 fleet to separate them out. You saw a similar thing with the London Overground West Anglia routes. Previously Chingford and Hertford East services interworked, but now they're run by different companies. I imagine it was similar with drivers.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It would definitely make things less efficient on SWT. Drivers and guards tend at the depots in the inner area tend to work a mix of suburban and longer distance stuff, often on the same shifts. So a split would probably require more crew to be recruited. If TfL don't want Woking and Guildford services there will be problems too, as those services interwork with other suburban routes they do want. There isn't the capacity at Waterloo or in the 455 fleet to separate them out. You saw a similar thing with the London Overground West Anglia routes. Previously Chingford and Hertford East services interworked, but now they're run by different companies. I imagine it was similar with drivers.

How many units do the Woking and Guildford services need for the normal timetable (inc peak times) and allowing 2 or 3 to be in the depot for maintenance/repair?

 

[TEW]

It's difficult to work out because 455s work across a variety of routes across the day.

 

[swt_passenger]

It would definitely make things less efficient on SWT. Drivers and guards tend at the depots in the inner area tend to work a mix of suburban and longer distance stuff, often on the same shifts. So a split would probably require more crew to be recruited. If TfL don't want Woking and Guildford services there will be problems too, as those services interwork with other suburban routes they do want. There isn't the capacity at Waterloo or in the 455 fleet to separate them out. You saw a similar thing with the London Overground West Anglia routes. Previously Chingford and Hertford East services interworked, but now they're run by different companies. I imagine it was similar with drivers.

On separation of West Anglia services from AGA to LO they definitely needed more drivers and more rolling stock IIRC? They certainly separated out all the people who were going to transfer well before it happened, there are sections in their franchise agreement that explained how it was to be done.

Accepting that there will be inefficiencies, there is a recent example of it being done, and if the potential dates hold good there will be more transfers before they get round to SWT.

 

[physics34]

Going by the Southern consultation, it appears Southern are preparing to handover which may explain why the current Sydenham line stopper service via East Croydon is moving to West Croydon, which would give the Overground concession a 6tph service between New Cross Gate and West Croydon.

This leaves Caterham and Tattenham Corner metro services in the hands of GTR which become semi fast services and East Croydon without any TfL influence at all unless the proposed 2tph service to Caterham via Tulse Hill becomes part of the concession.

Yeh the Caterham via Tulse Hill service looks like a bit of a stumbling block. Keeping this as a Southern service even though most of the stations it uses will be overground stations.

Removing the link between East Croydon and the Forest Hill line will be a big issue especially with no lift/escalator facilities at Norwood Junction. I'm not sure this is workable.... unless the up fast Caterham/Tattenham to London Bridge stop at Platform 1 on the up and platform 4 and 5 on the down.

 

[BritishRail83]

It would definitely make things less efficient on SWT. Drivers and guards tend at the depots in the inner area tend to work a mix of suburban and longer distance stuff, often on the same shifts. So a split would probably require more crew to be recruited. If TfL don't want Woking and Guildford services there will be problems too, as those services interwork with other suburban routes they do want. There isn't the capacity at Waterloo or in the 455 fleet to separate them out. You saw a similar thing with the London Overground West Anglia routes. Previously Chingford and Hertford East services interworked, but now they're run by different companies. I imagine it was similar with drivers.

Interesting point about fleet separation I wonder about the networkers and 376s on the south eastern side. Will tfl take over the Gravesend stoppers?

 

[Clip]

Yeh the Caterham via Tulse Hill service looks like a bit of a stumbling block. Keeping this as a Southern service even though most of the stations it uses will be overground stations.

Removing the link between East Croydon and the Forest Hill line will be a big issue especially with no lift/escalator facilities at Norwood Junction. I'm not sure this is workable.... unless the up fast Caterham/Tattenham to London Bridge stop at Platform 1 on the up and platform 4 and 5 on the down.

Im pretty sure if TfL did take it over then they would be building lifts at Norwood Junction stopping any of the fasts on plat 1 would just eat into capacity though wouldnt it?

 

[bicbasher]

Yeh the Caterham via Tulse Hill service looks like a bit of a stumbling block. Keeping this as a Southern service even though most of the stations it uses will be overground stations.

Removing the link between East Croydon and the Forest Hill line will be a big issue especially with no lift/escalator facilities at Norwood Junction. I'm not sure this is workable.... unless the up fast Caterham/Tattenham to London Bridge stop at Platform 1 on the up and platform 4 and 5 on the down.

The Norwood Junction issue for me is a non-starter as there's no disabled access with the exception of Platform 1.

It's worth noting that Southern already operate services which only serve London Overground stations (with the exception of LBG), the evening peak and Sunday service from London Bridge to West Croydon via Forest Hill.

 

[HH]

Interesting point about fleet separation I wonder about the networkers and 376s on the south eastern side. Will tfl take over the Gravesend stoppers?

That was the plan.

 

[TEW]

On separation of West Anglia services from AGA to LO they definitely needed more drivers and more rolling stock IIRC? They certainly separated out all the people who were going to transfer well before it happened, there are sections in their franchise agreement that explained how it was to be done.

Accepting that there will be inefficiencies, there is a recent example of it being done, and if the potential dates hold good there will be more transfers before they get round to SWT.

Of course with the West Anglia routes there was some spare rolling stock available, the 317/7s which had been off lease for a while. There's no obvious spare rolling stock for SWT services, and at the moment Waterloo certainly wouldn't have the capacity for less efficient platform workings. Maybe after the rebuild there will be enough flexibility to allow for potentially longer turnaround times required to split out SWT and LO routes.

 

[Sunset route]

Im pretty sure if TfL did take it over then they would be building lifts at Norwood Junction stopping any of the fasts on plat 1 would just eat into capacity though wouldnt it?

They already run Norwood Junction and have done since just before the East London Line service started running, along with all the other stations from West Croydon/Crystal Palace to New Cross Gate inclusive.

 

[Class377/5]

They already run Norwood Junction and have done since just before the East London Line service started running, along with all the other stations from West Croydon/Crystal Palace to New Cross Gate inclusive.

Perhaps of TfL are incharge of services calling at those stations they might actually bother to provide facilities rather than abandon any other companies passengers like now?

 

[Clip]

Perhaps of TfL are incharge of services calling at those stations they might actually bother to provide facilities rather than abandon any other companies passengers like now?

Pretty much this reply I was going to give. Theres a far higher number of non LOL services call there then its probably not on their list to do until they take it over.

 

[physics34]

Norwood Junction station is built over an underground river i heard, and the foundations cant take the weight of lifts.......

this was what station staff told me so dont shoot the messenger if it is wrong lol

 

[Class377/5]

Norwood Junction station is built over an underground river i heard, and the foundations cant take the weight of lifts.......

this was what station staff told me so dont shoot the messenger if it is wrong lol

You could build a bridge and have the weight of the lifts off set to the bridge if you engineered it to. More expensive but so would be Bridge strengthening.

 

[physics34]

You could build a bridge and have the weight of the lifts off set to the bridge if you engineered it to. More expensive but so would be Bridge strengthening.

it certainly is a station that needs disabled access and access for people with heavy luggage.

Yep im sure it is do-able and is probably an excuse and is probably down to funding.

 

[rd749249]

Interesting point about fleet separation I wonder about the networkers and 376s on the south eastern side. Will tfl take over the Gravesend stoppers?

I certainly hope so

 

[ert47]

it certainly is a station that needs disabled access and access for people with heavy luggage.

Yep im sure it is do-able and is probably an excuse and is probably down to funding.

Not even sure where they could place the lifts. The platform 2/3 island pretty narrow - and it would only be suitable at the country end (south)

 

[hwl]

Norwood Junction station is built over an underground river i heard, and the foundations cant take the weight of lifts.......

this was what station staff told me so dont shoot the messenger if it is wrong lol

TfL have had control of the station since the start of overground services.

See the London Reconnection article and comments on Norwood Junction:

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/study-sussex-part-13-norwood-junction/

1) The former Croydon Canal not a river and this is Red Herring anyway.
2) P2/3 island is too narrow for a lift (lift would be wider than the gap between the yellow lines...) unless it is at the Southern most end of the platform this means a new pedestrian overbridge across all the platforms. ££,£££,£££.pp
3) NR, TfL and LBCroydon have been thinking /talking about this for years and there is no cheap solution.
4) NR are potentially planning Norwood rebuild work in CP6

Note the plans in the article for 6 in use platforms with 3 in each direction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeh the Caterham via Tulse Hill service looks like a bit of a stumbling block. Keeping this as a Southern service even though most of the stations it uses will be overground stations.

Removing the link between East Croydon and the Forest Hill line will be a big issue especially with no lift/escalator facilities at Norwood Junction. I'm not sure this is workable.... unless the up fast Caterham/Tattenham to London Bridge stop at Platform 1 on the up and platform 4 and 5 on the down.

The proposed return of Crystal Palace - East Croydon direct services also causes issues with the no TfL to East Croydon plan...

 

[GodAtum]

I hope 1st class sections from East Croydon - London on the long distance services.