|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 12, 2024 11:26:00 GMT
Overground yes, but the Elizabeth Line has suffered from a lot of problems that are causing major issues. Despite those issues, it has still been successful. Southeastern aren't great and I trust TfL with it more than the current band of private operators - London Overground is proven and is something mayors of both political persuasions have improved and embraced. The first step should be the Victoria to Orpington service which would be an easier one to start with and there should be space to have the off peak match the peak every 15 minute service and then once that's bedded in, start exploring how best to proceed with the Great Northern and the rest of the Southeastern routes that are more complex. Victoria to Orpington and Charing Cross to Hayes and maybe the loop services via Slade Green would be good if not just for the reason they all remain in London. Would be interesting to see what TFL will consider the extremities outside the border. possibly stopping services to Sevenoaks and Dartford maybe even Gravesend.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jul 12, 2024 11:29:11 GMT
Interesting about the point of staying within the Greater London boundary. I believe a turnback siding is being constructed at Belmont soon which just about squeezes in the Borough of Sutton I'm not convinced this will be the case being already existing Overground services terminate outside the boundary, the Watford DC line at Watford Junction and the Lea Valley at Cheshunt. We also have the Elizabeth Line stretching into out of London which can indicate a potential model TfL can use if any takeover happens regarding fare structure specifically.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 12, 2024 11:29:40 GMT
The only other benefit I can see in a renationalised rail network of TfL bringing all London metro train services in house is better integration with other TfL modes of Transport, but this is far from the solution required to fix the many problems this complex rail network has. And doing just that will take many years to achieve, though Southeastern would be a good place to start integrating London metro systems into TfL control - especially given as they are about to order new trains to replace the Networkers and still need to refurbish 376's. But how far this new labour government will get with renationalising the rail network and what they do remains to be seen, and I'm hoping this will be made clear in the coming weeks. I do like the idea of a better integrated system but personally I feel full re-nationalisation is the wrong way to go about it. I believe when the Labour manifesto came out there was talk that mayors would only be limited to operating services in their areas, meaning TfL wouldn't get to operate any metro services outside the Greater London boundary. This seems quite arbitrary as obviously plenty of services stop just outside the Greater London area at places like Hampton Court and Epsom but are effectively London commuter services. Now it looks like rail devolution is back on the cards, as Khan is saying 'watch this space' and I suspect he will get rail services which wholly run within the Greater London boundary. TfL will likely improve many of these services, which are often being badly neglected by their current TOCs. I do think though that there can be a tendency to look at rail devolution to TfL through rose tinted glasses, with this notion that the transport authority will do a great job of running the railway no questions asked. In some cases the bar is so low for services TfL take over its difficult for them not to improve the services. capitalomnibus is right about the shoddy performance of the North London Line, which is still some way off a service you'd be happy to rely on daily. Wait until TfL start plastering all these gimmicky line names over the new rail services they takeover, introduce awful all stations calling patterns and put horrible spartan longitudinal seating in on all new trains. In a nutshell, I'm not convinced TfL have quite got the hang of operating national rail services yet. Apart from the longitudinal seating which is a big downgrade, I think TfL have got far more right than wrong with the Overground and Elizabeth line in general compared to National Rail operators, a number of whom are performing far worse over the years. I would put more trust in them than say Southeastern for example.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 12, 2024 11:33:58 GMT
Despite those issues, it has still been successful. Southeastern aren't great and I trust TfL with it more than the current band of private operators - London Overground is proven and is something mayors of both political persuasions have improved and embraced. The first step should be the Victoria to Orpington service which would be an easier one to start with and there should be space to have the off peak match the peak every 15 minute service and then once that's bedded in, start exploring how best to proceed with the Great Northern and the rest of the Southeastern routes that are more complex. Victoria to Orpington and Charing Cross to Hayes and maybe the loop services via Slade Green would be good if not just for the reason they all remain in London. Would be interesting to see what TFL will consider the extremities outside the border. possibly stopping services to Sevenoaks and Dartford maybe even Gravesend. I’d imagine those services would be the furthest they go, similar to Overground services to Cheshunt & Watford Junction. The Victoria to Orpington service would be very easy to move over so I’d imagine that would be done first whilst they work out the services via Lewisham.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 12, 2024 12:27:11 GMT
They’re totally different from the complex Southeastern network. The only other benefit I can see in a renationalised rail network of TfL bringing all London metro train services in house is better integration with other TfL modes of Transport, but this is far from the solution required to fix the many problems this complex rail network has. And doing just that will take many years to achieve, though Southeastern would be a good place to start integrating London metro systems into TfL control - especially given as they are about to order new trains to replace the Networkers and still need to refurbish 376's. But how far this new labour government will get with renationalising the rail network and what they do remains to be seen, and I'm hoping this will be made clear in the coming weeks. I do like the idea of a better integrated system but personally I feel full re-nationalisation is the wrong way to go about it. Network Rail is already state-owned, as are some of the franchises. All it needs is for Labour to take all the remaining contracts into state ownership as they expire; unless I have my information wrong, there are no contracts that extend beyond 2027. Open-access operators (including the freight sector) are likely to remain as private operations, as they would need to be bought out otherwise; but Labour may play a more hands-on role in deciding a strategy for freight operations.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jul 12, 2024 12:41:43 GMT
The only other benefit I can see in a renationalised rail network of TfL bringing all London metro train services in house is better integration with other TfL modes of Transport, but this is far from the solution required to fix the many problems this complex rail network has. And doing just that will take many years to achieve, though Southeastern would be a good place to start integrating London metro systems into TfL control - especially given as they are about to order new trains to replace the Networkers and still need to refurbish 376's. But how far this new labour government will get with renationalising the rail network and what they do remains to be seen, and I'm hoping this will be made clear in the coming weeks. I do like the idea of a better integrated system but personally I feel full re-nationalisation is the wrong way to go about it. Network Rail is already state-owned, as are some of the franchises. All it needs is for Labour to take all the remaining contracts into state ownership as they expire; unless I have my information wrong, there are no contracts that extend beyond 2027. Open-access operators (including the freight sector) are likely to remain as private operations, as they would need to be bought out otherwise; but Labour may play a more hands-on role in deciding a strategy for freight operations. I still think the government would be better off looking at the Overground model for how private operations can be successful under public ownership. Stricter controls, fixed fees with financial penalties and more regulations. I think Overground and to a lesser extent Thameslink have proven that under the right controls private operators can play a solid part.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 12, 2024 13:07:41 GMT
Interesting about the point of staying within the Greater London boundary. I believe a turnback siding is being constructed at Belmont soon which just about squeezes in the Borough of Sutton That is to allow more trains to be operated to/from Belmont for when the expanded London Cancer Hub opens nearby. It's nothing to do with keeping services within the Greater London boundary.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 12, 2024 13:27:47 GMT
A member of staff at Bromley South said the Victoria to Orpington service will be increased to 4tph off peak and evening from December 15th.
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Jul 12, 2024 13:37:07 GMT
I believe when the Labour manifesto came out there was talk that mayors would only be limited to operating services in their areas, meaning TfL wouldn't get to operate any metro services outside the Greater London boundary. This seems quite arbitrary as obviously plenty of services stop just outside the Greater London area at places like Hampton Court and Epsom but are effectively London commuter services. Now it looks like rail devolution is back on the cards, as Khan is saying 'watch this space' and I suspect he will get rail services which wholly run within the Greater London boundary. TfL will likely improve many of these services, which are often being badly neglected by their current TOCs. I do think though that there can be a tendency to look at rail devolution to TfL through rose tinted glasses, with this notion that the transport authority will do a great job of running the railway no questions asked. In some cases the bar is so low for services TfL take over its difficult for them not to improve the services. capitalomnibus is right about the shoddy performance of the North London Line, which is still some way off a service you'd be happy to rely on daily. Wait until TfL start plastering all these gimmicky line names over the new rail services they takeover, introduce awful all stations calling patterns and put horrible spartan longitudinal seating in on all new trains. In a nutshell, I'm not convinced TfL have quite got the hang of operating national rail services yet. Apart from the longitudinal seating which is a big downgrade, I think TfL have got far more right than wrong with the Overground and Elizabeth line in general compared to National Rail operators, a number of whom are performing far worse over the years. I would put more trust in them than say Southeastern for example. Apologies for being pedantic, and I'm sure that you're aware that Elizabeth Line does contain (some) traverse seating: Car 1 & 9 (Longitudinal = 46 seats) Car 2-8 (Longitudinal = 36* seats / Traverse = 16 seats) * including 2 x 3 fold-down seats for accommodation of wheelchairs Total Seats per Class 345 = 456 seats I'm not a fan of the 100% longitudinal seating arrangement on LO.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 12, 2024 14:04:06 GMT
Apart from the longitudinal seating which is a big downgrade, I think TfL have got far more right than wrong with the Overground and Elizabeth line in general compared to National Rail operators, a number of whom are performing far worse over the years. I would put more trust in them than say Southeastern for example. Apologies for being pedantic, and I'm sure that you're aware that Elizabeth Line does contain (some) traverse seating: Car 1 & 9 (Longitudinal = 46 seats) Car 2-8 (Longitudinal = 36* seats / Traverse = 16 seats) * including 2 x 3 fold-down seats for accommodation of wheelchairs Total Seats per Class 345 = 456 seats I'm not a fan of the 100% longitudinal seating arrangement on LO. The arrangement on the Elizabeth line is an acceptable compromise which I specifically didn't mention it Personally, I'd extend it to tube stock too - it's why I like the Mets S stock more than the rest and why I think the Bakerloo's 72 stock layout is more preferable to me - there is still enough space for standees even with the 16 forward/rear facing seats in a carriage
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 12, 2024 16:12:23 GMT
Another annoyance I have is that London Overground and Elizabeth line services seem to cost a bomb if you want to buy a national rail ticket, which isn't a problem if you're staying within the PAYG area, but if you want to begin your journey at one of these stations and go outside London, you can be looking at a costly ticket, even with a railcard. They seem hell bent on pushing people towards contactless.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 12, 2024 16:48:35 GMT
Another annoyance I have is that London Overground and Elizabeth line services seem to cost a bomb if you want to buy a national rail ticket, which isn't a problem if you're staying within the PAYG area, but if you want to begin your journey at one of these stations and go outside London, you can be looking at a costly ticket, even with a railcard. They seem hell bent on pushing people towards contactless. There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies with this. In my opinion, I think TFL fares should be extended beyond where TFL trains operate, to cover most commutable stations. Could go as far as places like Basingstoke, Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford, etc. And perhaps also with commuter rail services to to/from these places having some kind of co-operation with TFL, even if part of a separate rail franchise. At a minimum, I think at least all stations within the M25 should accept Oyster/contactless payments, just to make fares more consistent between nearby routes. Like how you can use TFL fares out to Reading, Amersham/Chesham and Luton Airport, but not to stations like Denham or Watford North.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Jul 12, 2024 17:05:27 GMT
Another annoyance I have is that London Overground and Elizabeth line services seem to cost a bomb if you want to buy a national rail ticket, which isn't a problem if you're staying within the PAYG area, but if you want to begin your journey at one of these stations and go outside London, you can be looking at a costly ticket, even with a railcard. They seem hell bent on pushing people towards contactless. That's always been an issue. I've always had to split at East Croydon for example if I use a train from Forest Hill which transferred from Southern to LO in 2009 (before the LO launched in May 2010). Southeastern because they're allowed to hike fares up more because of HS1 is very expensive which just puts off leisure travellers.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 12, 2024 17:09:14 GMT
Legislation to kick-start the creation of Great British Railways is expected to be announced in the King's Speech on 17th July, with officials starting work on the set-up of the new structure before the Summer Recess. Bosses of the worst-performing franchises, including Avanti West Coast and Transpennine Express, are being summoned to meetings with the Transport Minister, Louise Haigh, next week. Network Rail route directors will also attend these meetings. Louise Haigh has already met with Rail Union Leaders, describing her meetings as a departure from "the days of antagonism and gimmicks” and the start of “an era of grownup industrial relations”. www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/12/labour-summons-bosses-of-worst-performing-train-operators-to-meetings
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 12, 2024 18:48:07 GMT
I wonder if TFL know the potential revenue of these routes that they may take over?
|
|