|
|
Post by busman on May 20, 2021 8:51:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by busman on May 20, 2021 9:18:16 GMT
Spoiler alert for those who were led to believe by certain media that SouthEastern will fall under TfL - that is not happening…for now. The Williams report has this to say about the future of London services:
Taking into consideration other parts of the report which acknowledges that in some cases fares and government funding could be shared between GBR and other bodies, potentially we could see a future alignment of some national rail fares for journeys made within London, removing some fare disparities we see in the network (e.g. Woolwich Arsenal SouthEastern/Thameslink services to zone 1, vs. DLR.).
I didn’t read anything yet that stops TfL Rail from bidding on metro services into London e.g. Dartford/Medway towns to London, Bromley/Hayes to London etc. Given the understandable resistance of NW Kent boroughs to having their rail services operated by London Overground, perhaps a TfL Rail service operating under the specification of GBR will be more palatable. It could offer independence from the Mayor of London whilst providing simpler fares for journeys made entirely within London.
Note the focus on levelling up and the acknowledgment of the historical skewing of infrastructure investment in the South East. I don’t think we can expect huge big ticket projects any time soon, but potentially the creation of new services utilising existing track will be easier given track, timetables and trains will all come under the control of GBR.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 20, 2021 11:38:30 GMT
Spoiler alert for those who were led to believe by certain media that SouthEastern will fall under TfL - that is not happening…for now. The Williams report has this to say about the future of London services: Taking into consideration other parts of the report which acknowledges that in some cases fares and government funding could be shared between GBR and other bodies, potentially we could see a future alignment of some national rail fares for journeys made within London, removing some fare disparities we see in the network (e.g. Woolwich Arsenal SouthEastern/Thameslink services to zone 1, vs. DLR.). I didn’t read anything yet that stops TfL Rail from bidding on metro services into London e.g. Dartford/Medway towns to London, Bromley/Hayes to London etc. Given the understandable resistance of NW Kent boroughs to having their rail services operated by London Overground, perhaps a TfL Rail service operating under the specification of GBR will be more palatable. It could offer independence from the Mayor of London whilst providing simpler fares for journeys made entirely within London. Note the focus on levelling up and the acknowledgment of the historical skewing of infrastructure investment in the South East. I don’t think we can expect huge big ticket projects any time soon, but potentially the creation of new services utilising existing track will be easier given track, timetables and trains will all come under the control of GBR. This whole levelling up thing is merely a cover as all they’ll do is make the same mistakes except this time it’s the South East who will pay and not the North. How about investing across the board instead |
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on May 20, 2021 11:41:00 GMT
Well this is big. I really was hoping for London Overground to take over the Southeastern (and all the other) metro lines though.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNL33036 on May 20, 2021 20:16:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on May 20, 2021 20:56:28 GMT
From what I've read so far, this seems like it will work well. However, most of this is easier said than done. It's all good and well Grant Shapps saying he wants the trains to run on time, a rhetoric that he's had ever since he became transport secretary but does he realise that the vast majority of major delays are actually caused by Network Rail related issues rather than the TOC's themselves? I had to laugh when I read that. It was also mentioned that the May 2018 timetable change was a reason for this review to be conducted. However yet again this was caused by a failure by Network Rail as they submitted the timetable specifications to the operator later than they usually would do and the TOC's were the scape goat of it all really. You can also argue the same about the 2016/17 strikes on Southern, caused by changes made at Government level but yet they blamed Southern and nearly stripped Govia of the GTR franchise. Although they say they are going to do more in regards to timetable planning, in reality nothing will change there as Network Rail already send train operators timetable that they need to plan towards and then they are bid to Network Rail.
I do like the idea of bringing everything together though into Great British Railways and retaining the private element of the franchising system, and I do agree that the franchising system had been broken for a while - management contracts were the way to go and that's effectively what the new passenger service agreements (PSA's) are. The feeling from the TOC's seem to be that they are in favour of the new system so this can only be a good sign! Simplifying ticketing has also been something that has been long needed, especially in the north but it does remove part of the competition though that privatisation is trying to encourage. The only thing private operators would be competing for is the passenger service contracts.
Eventually, I would think that TfL will take over suburban rail services across London. Because of their current financial state though I feel this will be some way off yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 20, 2021 21:03:19 GMT
From what I've read so far, this seems like it will work well. However, most of this is easier said than done. It's all good and well Grant Shapps saying he wants the trains to run on time, a rhetoric that he's had ever since he became transport secretary but does he realise that the vast majority of major delays are actually caused by Network Rail related issues rather than the TOC's themselves? I had to laugh when I read that. It was also mentioned that the May 2018 timetable change was a reason for this review to be conducted. However yet again this was caused by a failure by Network Rail as they submitted the timetable specifications to the operator later than they usually would do and the TOC's were the scape goat of it all really. You can also argue the same about the 2016/17 strikes on Southern, caused by changes made at Government level but yet they blamed Southern and nearly stripped Govia of the GTR franchise. Although they say they are going to do more in regards to timetable planning, in reality nothing will change there as Network Rail already send train operators timetable that they need to plan towards and then they are bid to Network Rail. I do like the idea of bringing everything together though into Great British Railways and retaining the private element of the franchising system, and I do agree that the franchising system had been broken for a while - management contracts were the way to go and that's effectively what the new passenger service agreements (PSA's) are. The feeling from the TOC's seem to be that they are in favour of the new system so this can only be a good sign! Simplifying ticketing has also been something that has been long needed, especially in the north but it does remove part of the competition though that privatisation is trying to encourage. The only thing private operators would be competing for is the passenger service contracts. Eventually, I would think that TfL will take over suburban rail services across London. Because of their current financial state though I feel this will be some way off yet. The network rail issues you mention are what this aims to solve, what Network Rail might consider an operator issue might be considered a Network Rail issue by the operator. All issues now will fall under the issue of the newly formed Great British Railways company so wouldn't require the TOC to go on a month long argument with the DfT over who should be paying delay compensation. I think in the long term there needs to be some sort of limits on the control TfL gets. The tube map now is ridiculously crowded, I don't know who on earth decided to put the Thameslink on there but stuff like that really needs to go. If TfL start actually taking more and more routes, the tube map becomes crowded. I am in favour of the entire Overground being placed on a separate map completely in the long term. |
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on May 20, 2021 21:09:33 GMT
From what I've read so far, this seems like it will work well. However, most of this is easier said than done. It's all good and well Grant Shapps saying he wants the trains to run on time, a rhetoric that he's had ever since he became transport secretary but does he realise that the vast majority of major delays are actually caused by Network Rail related issues rather than the TOC's themselves? I had to laugh when I read that. It was also mentioned that the May 2018 timetable change was a reason for this review to be conducted. However yet again this was caused by a failure by Network Rail as they submitted the timetable specifications to the operator later than they usually would do and the TOC's were the scape goat of it all really. You can also argue the same about the 2016/17 strikes on Southern, caused by changes made at Government level but yet they blamed Southern and nearly stripped Govia of the GTR franchise. Although they say they are going to do more in regards to timetable planning, in reality nothing will change there as Network Rail already send train operators timetable that they need to plan towards and then they are bid to Network Rail. I do like the idea of bringing everything together though into Great British Railways and retaining the private element of the franchising system, and I do agree that the franchising system had been broken for a while - management contracts were the way to go and that's effectively what the new passenger service agreements (PSA's) are. The feeling from the TOC's seem to be that they are in favour of the new system so this can only be a good sign! Simplifying ticketing has also been something that has been long needed, especially in the north but it does remove part of the competition though that privatisation is trying to encourage. The only thing private operators would be competing for is the passenger service contracts. Eventually, I would think that TfL will take over suburban rail services across London. Because of their current financial state though I feel this will be some way off yet. The network rail issues you mention are what this aims to solve, what Network Rail might consider an operator issue might be considered a Network Rail issue by the operator. All issues now will fall under the issue of the newly formed Great British Railways company so wouldn't require the TOC to go on a month long argument with the DfT over who should be paying delay compensation. I think in the long term there needs to be some sort of limits on the control TfL gets. The tube map now is ridiculously crowded, I don't know who on earth decided to put the Thameslink on there but stuff like that really needs to go. If TfL start actually taking more and more routes, the tube map becomes crowded. I am in favour of the entire Overground being placed on a separate map completely in the long term. ...and its usefulness declines (e.g. route planning, making the best connections etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by busman on May 20, 2021 21:39:00 GMT
Thanks, is this the first deal under the new system? Whilst I’m optimistic, only time will tell if it works for passengers and taxpayers. I’m not familiar with historical cost of rail maintenance and fare revenue p/a on SWR, but in theory, service providers should accept a lower level of guaranteed revenue with big incentives for meeting performance targets - but overall even if those targets are met, their overall revenues should be lower than under the franchise system due to the complete offsetting of financial risk. Is the incentive for GBR to ensure tracks are maintained to deliver punctuality, and timetables, fares and frequency are optimised to maximise fare revenues? The goal will be to ensure fare revenues exceed flat rate contractor payments by as much as possible in order to get the best possible outcome for the taxpayer. |
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on May 20, 2021 22:09:29 GMT
From what I've read so far, this seems like it will work well. However, most of this is easier said than done. It's all good and well Grant Shapps saying he wants the trains to run on time, a rhetoric that he's had ever since he became transport secretary but does he realise that the vast majority of major delays are actually caused by Network Rail related issues rather than the TOC's themselves? I had to laugh when I read that. It was also mentioned that the May 2018 timetable change was a reason for this review to be conducted. However yet again this was caused by a failure by Network Rail as they submitted the timetable specifications to the operator later than they usually would do and the TOC's were the scape goat of it all really. You can also argue the same about the 2016/17 strikes on Southern, caused by changes made at Government level but yet they blamed Southern and nearly stripped Govia of the GTR franchise. Although they say they are going to do more in regards to timetable planning, in reality nothing will change there as Network Rail already send train operators timetable that they need to plan towards and then they are bid to Network Rail. I do like the idea of bringing everything together though into Great British Railways and retaining the private element of the franchising system, and I do agree that the franchising system had been broken for a while - management contracts were the way to go and that's effectively what the new passenger service agreements (PSA's) are. The feeling from the TOC's seem to be that they are in favour of the new system so this can only be a good sign! Simplifying ticketing has also been something that has been long needed, especially in the north but it does remove part of the competition though that privatisation is trying to encourage. The only thing private operators would be competing for is the passenger service contracts. Eventually, I would think that TfL will take over suburban rail services across London. Because of their current financial state though I feel this will be some way off yet. The network rail issues you mention are what this aims to solve, what Network Rail might consider an operator issue might be considered a Network Rail issue by the operator. All issues now will fall under the issue of the newly formed Great British Railways company so wouldn't require the TOC to go on a month long argument with the DfT over who should be paying delay compensation. I think in the long term there needs to be some sort of limits on the control TfL gets. The tube map now is ridiculously crowded, I don't know who on earth decided to put the Thameslink on there but stuff like that really needs to go. If TfL start actually taking more and more routes, the tube map becomes crowded. I am in favour of the entire Overground being placed on a separate map completely in the long term. It’s harder to plan a journey if other modes are missing from the tube map. The tube map should just be replaced by the London Rail & Tube map. Especially when so much of South London is missing from the tube map. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 20, 2021 22:28:35 GMT
The network rail issues you mention are what this aims to solve, what Network Rail might consider an operator issue might be considered a Network Rail issue by the operator. All issues now will fall under the issue of the newly formed Great British Railways company so wouldn't require the TOC to go on a month long argument with the DfT over who should be paying delay compensation. I think in the long term there needs to be some sort of limits on the control TfL gets. The tube map now is ridiculously crowded, I don't know who on earth decided to put the Thameslink on there but stuff like that really needs to go. If TfL start actually taking more and more routes, the tube map becomes crowded. I am in favour of the entire Overground being placed on a separate map completely in the long term. ...and its usefulness declines (e.g. route planning, making the best connections etc.) Then why not go the other way? Add c2c, add SWR, add GWR, add SouthEaster, add Southern, add Chiltern, add London NorthWestern Railway, add the SouthEastern High Speed Services and maybe even East Midlands Railway. Obviously that's not feasible on the London tube map due to its pocket size, so what makes Thameslink so special that it apparently needs to be on there considering it's not even TfL controlled? |
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on May 20, 2021 22:38:30 GMT
...and its usefulness declines (e.g. route planning, making the best connections etc.) Then why not go the other way? Add c2c, add SWR, add GWR, add SouthEaster, add Southern, add Chiltern, add London NorthWestern Railway, add the SouthEastern High Speed Services and maybe even East Midlands Railway. Obviously that's not feasible on the London tube map due to its pocket size, so what makes Thameslink so special that it apparently needs to be on there considering it's not even TfL controlled? It's a cross-London route. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 20, 2021 23:02:45 GMT
Then why not go the other way? Add c2c, add SWR, add GWR, add SouthEaster, add Southern, add Chiltern, add London NorthWestern Railway, add the SouthEastern High Speed Services and maybe even East Midlands Railway. Obviously that's not feasible on the London tube map due to its pocket size, so what makes Thameslink so special that it apparently needs to be on there considering it's not even TfL controlled? It's a cross-London route. Isn't the Southern MKC line also Cross-London? Why is that not there then? That also still doesn't make it more important than other national rail lines in the capital, which are using similar logic, just as important to the rail network. |
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on May 20, 2021 23:28:06 GMT
...and its usefulness declines (e.g. route planning, making the best connections etc.) Then why not go the other way? Add c2c, add SWR, add GWR, add SouthEaster, add Southern, add Chiltern, add London NorthWestern Railway, add the SouthEastern High Speed Services and maybe even East Midlands Railway. Obviously that's not feasible on the London tube map due to its pocket size, so what makes Thameslink so special that it apparently needs to be on there considering it's not even TfL controlled? I doubt many people actually use paper fold out maps in 2021 when we all have phones in our pockets. It should have everything in the London/M25 area on it, including National Rail. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on May 21, 2021 18:05:11 GMT
Spoiler alert for those who were led to believe by certain media that SouthEastern will fall under TfL - that is not happening…for now. The Williams report has this to say about the future of London services: Taking into consideration other parts of the report which acknowledges that in some cases fares and government funding could be shared between GBR and other bodies, potentially we could see a future alignment of some national rail fares for journeys made within London, removing some fare disparities we see in the network (e.g. Woolwich Arsenal SouthEastern/Thameslink services to zone 1, vs. DLR.). I didn’t read anything yet that stops TfL Rail from bidding on metro services into London e.g. Dartford/Medway towns to London, Bromley/Hayes to London etc. Given the understandable resistance of NW Kent boroughs to having their rail services operated by London Overground, perhaps a TfL Rail service operating under the specification of GBR will be more palatable. It could offer independence from the Mayor of London whilst providing simpler fares for journeys made entirely within London. Note the focus on levelling up and the acknowledgment of the historical skewing of infrastructure investment in the South East. I don’t think we can expect huge big ticket projects any time soon, but potentially the creation of new services utilising existing track will be easier given track, timetables and trains will all come under the control of GBR. This whole levelling up thing is merely a cover as all they’ll do is make the same mistakes except this time it’s the South East who will pay and not the North. How about investing across the board instead Khan has also started using the term now with Optare  |
|
