please empty your brain below

ah but please could they take over the Tring commuter service. London Midland cares diddley squat about this and it is always the first service to be cancelled if there is anything wrong on the line NORTH of Tring
It isn't quite nationalisation, as the train operator (such as LOROL) would remain a private company, though now working tightly under TfL's control. But indeed, bring it on!
Tring is too far out I guess
The trouble with the SE London services is that the infrastructure is rubbish, so unless TfL is planning to rebuild half of Lewisham, what you have is what you'll get.

On the other hand, you can get extra capacity by unthreading services and making them more modular, only running the Greenwich trains into Cannon Street for example, but apart from that, whatever you try to do, Lewisham Junction will come back to haunt you.
Max has a point. Whilst I do think Southeastern are poor, when you look at the number of trains they run in and out of Charing Cross, which has I think only 6 platforms, it is not surprising that the service is not that reliable.

I think this is a mixed bag really. Capacity is increased by removing seats. I don't consider a train with fewer seats an improvement (especially when the seats that are left will probably face sideways and be rock hard).

My concern here is that the routes, particularly south of the Thames could see more trains in the London suburbs at a cost of fewer trains further out, as there is only a limited number of "paths" which we will then have two operators competing for. A previous dictat by the government was "one operator per station" (which was never quite achieved mind you), so it will be interesting going back to two (or more). For example I know under a previous guise under Ken Livingstone the "ON Network" (short for Overground I think) required 4 trains per hour on the Hounslow loop line. This meant there was no longer room for the Reading to Waterloo trains that used to run fast around this line. So the service on the Waterloo to Reading line were cut back from 4 per hour to 2, meaning towns such as Wokingham and Bracknell, which are sizeables places, saw their train service halved, as well as less services into Reading. I hope we will not see a repeat of these cuts on other routes.
TfL takeover is probably the *only* thing that can save SouthEastern. Bear in mind they're run by the same company that does Southern/Thameslink, who are (inside of railway circles, at least) usually given some credit for managing to be halfway competent at running what has to be one of the worst dog's breakfasts of a railway in the country. They could probably improve in a few areas, but none of it would be enough to save SouthEastern. The only thing that's going to work is a complete change in the way its operated. And even then, it's questionable if that's even possible given the longer distance services the Metro trains have to share rail with.
I agree with Jon Combe that trains with fewer seats is not an improvement.
SW trains, to increase capacity are now running 10 car trains from Waterloo on the Windsor, Reading and Weybridge services.
The Sunday service is now almost the same as a weekday, trains are air conditioned and some are "fast" trains and do not stop at all stations, which the Overground does. In fact the Overground is a very slow service even if frequent.
I dislike the hard tube train style seats in the Overground carriages.
During peak hours SW trains seem to be able to run more than 2 trains an hour on the Reading line via Richmond so maybe line capacity has been improved since the cut backs that Jon mentions due to not running via the Hounslow loop.
"I dislike the hard tube train style seats in the Overground carriages.
John"

You can say that again. Sometimes I travel from Stratford round to Richmond, a journey of about an hour. By the time I get there I have a very numb bum.
I think now IS the time to consider the tangled weave, especially as Jug Cerović has come up with a very neat solution. http://www.citymetric.com/transport/new-take-londons-tube-and-rail-map-neat-clear-and-beautiful-1667

Getting back on topic though, devolution is clearly great news for London rail users, but won't a lot of this be down to money as well as control? Everyone touts the example of how TfL massively increased quality and ridership on the lines previously run by Silverlink. They did this though by purchasing new trains, improving and extending the infrastructure and increasing the staffing levels. Is this what is proposed for south London? I'm sure the Crayonistas amongst us are ready for the challenge. Grade separation Herne Hill anybody? Rebuild Lewisham? Tunnel Barnes-Richmond? I'll get my coat.
... and also, shouldn't a Tory mayor be proposing to sell off TfL to the highest bidder, or perhaps each Underground line to a separate company, to improve competition and let the market provide? This sounds like more state regulation to me (not that I'm personally opposed to it)
So, if capacity is to be increased by providing fewer seats - will this be reflected in fare prices?
Crumbs, but the maps created by Jug Cerović (example linked by Lorenzo above) are *so* much better than TfL's recent efforts. Please, someone at TfL, commission him to do an official version!
The ten-car trains on SWT are simply restoring the seating capacity removed ten years ago from the eight car trains (with little thought as to what the extra standing passengers would hold on to!)
I'm not expecting more frequent services. However, accountability, better station facilities, and an end to the north/south divide in the fare structure are all things worth having.

There are no quick fixes for improved interchanges like Walthamstow or Hackney, although Brockley is a possibility.
@max Roberts
"only running the Greenwich trains into Cannon Street for example,"

Already been done

@jon Combe
"My concern here is that the routes, particularly south of the Thames could see more trains in the London suburbs at a cost of fewer trains further out"
Won't happen - the outcry from ill-informed Kent MPs who thought a tfL takeover of the South Inners would do just that was enough to kill the takeover proposal stone dead - even though there was never any intention of reducing the number of longer distance paths (at the most there would have been an increase in off peak services)

"A previous dictat by the government was "one operator per station" (which was never quite achieved mind you), so it will be interesting going back to two (or more)"
Overground has already added an extra operator to both Liverpool Street and Euston. Indeed, fewer than half the central London termini are single-operator - Fenchurch Street, Cannon Street, Charing Cross, Paddington, Marylebone and Waterloo (if ignore the East). Euston has four.

the "ON Network" (short for Overground) - an oxymoron, like PIN number, as the N stands for "Network"
Of course with Waterloo, there's the fact that the Wimbledon local trains will be swallowed-up by Crossrail 2, so Tfl taking over South West Trains will be the Putney ones...
timbo, I think Paddington has 3 operators, Great Western, Heathrow Express and connect, plus the Chiltern Railways weekday special that dg wrote about some time ago.
http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/paddington-to-west-ruislip.html
Network rail control the tracks, the signals, the time slots, service frequency and the major stations. What scope is there for the overground to improve the services ?
They can put up lots of orange signs, improve the lighting, put in a few benches, chop down the canopies and install bus shelters, remove half the seats and run a slow service stopping at every station.
Not much more than a rebranding exercise.
@D-notice
" there's the fact that the Wimbledon local trains will be swallowed-up by Crossrail 2"
Not yet a definite fact, and certainly not by 2019!

@john - Paddington - you're right of course, although I think FGW have some say in Connect and HEx is an open access operator like Grand Central. I would claim the secret Chiltern train as de minimus, but then I would probably have to exclude the Caledonian Sleeper from Euston's count!

@coffin dodger
"They can .... improve the lighting, put in a few benches, "
If they would just reopen our waiting room that would double the seating. My local TOC "can't afford it" despite somehow finding £1.1m to shovel into their shareholders' pockets.

"remove half the seats and run a slow service stopping at every station"
The TOC has done that already.
@D-notice
" there's the fact that the Wimbledon local trains will be swallowed-up by Crossrail 2"
Not yet a definite fact, and certainly not by 2019!

@john - Paddington - you're right of course, although I think FGW have some say in Connect and HEx is an open access operator like Grand Central. I would claim the secret Chiltern train as de minimus, but then I would probably have to exclude the Caledonian Sleeper from Euston's count!

@coffin dodger
"They can .... improve the lighting, put in a few benches, "
If they would just reopen our waiting room that would double the seating. My local TOC "can't afford it" despite somehow finding £1.1m to shovel into their shareholders' pockets.

"remove half the seats and run a slow service stopping at every station"
The TOC has done that already.
@D-notice
" there's the fact that the Wimbledon local trains will be swallowed-up by Crossrail 2"
Not yet a definite fact, and certainly not by 2019!

@john - Paddington - you're right of course, although I think FGW have some say in Connect and HEx is an open access operator like Grand Central. I would claim the secret Chiltern train as de minimus, but then I would probably have to exclude the Caledonian Sleeper from Euston's count!

@coffin dodger
"They can .... improve the lighting, put in a few benches, "
If they would just reopen our waiting room that would double the seating. My local TOC "can't afford it" despite somehow finding £1.1m to shovel into their shareholders' pockets.

"remove half the seats and run a slow service stopping at every station"
The TOC has done that already.
There's also lots of cheering coming from Sevenoaks !
I'll only comment on SE but there's still much that can be done aside from peak time frequency improvements, which wont happen anytime soon due to capacity being at its limit at terminals. Anyone expecting that is mistaken.

But here's some things that can be done: Firstly, improving the trains. Most trains (and tube stock) get a comprehensive mid life refurb at 20 years old. Many SE metro trains are now 25 years old and havn't had anything substantial done. There's no plans for anything either. They're grim. The DfT didn't specify it at various franchise lettings or extensions. TfL have form in doing so.

Then there's staffing. It's night and day when switching from TfL managed services to Southeastern. One feels safe, has good stations and staff until closing. SE have few station staff and none on-board meaning the experience of travelling, especially off-peak and in the evenings, is not welcoming to many.

As for seat removal - I wouldn't be averse to that on networkers. The bays of three are crap. But as compensation all stock should be 12 carriages in the peak. Network Rail spent million from 2010 to around 2013 on upgrading platforms and electrical supply for 12 car running across SE London and Kent, but the DfT havn't specified or provided the stock, nor have NR revealed what is to be done about Woolwich Dockyards platforms. I'd have more faith in TfL providing more stock given their record with LO and Anglia takeover last year. NR are in charge of WD station, but recent history shows TfL are more likely to badger them into doing upgrade work than the DfT/Southeastern have been.

Money is the issue for much of this of course but TfL will be far more pro-active at protecting revenue and utilising assets, but we will have to see what tricks the DfT and Treasury pull.
Arguably the inner suburban service on the C2C line is already run by TfL, as the District line to Upminster.

There are also rumours that services from Moorgate to Welwyn and Hertford might be taken over by TfL

D-Notice, You refer to the Waterloo services being Putney line, as Wimbledon would be Crossrail.
One point of interest is that there is a line that branches off between Wandsworth Town and Putney and joins up with the District Line via East Putney and goes to Wimbledon along what are now District Line tracks.
Sometimes SW trains run this route if there are diversions.
I wonder if TfL take over they would use that route again.

With Fenchurch Street and Marylebone a further consideration is that their "Metro" services have been part of Underground for a very long time- the District and Metropolitan lines, plus (a bit) the DLR and Central line, a bit like the Bakerloo/Watford DC does for Euston.

The Moorgate to Welwyn and the Hertford Loop (mainly terminating at Hertford North, some Stevenage*) is in the prospectus. It's an obvious move- it has a self contained fleet that is being replaced and Moorgate has recently gone to all-hours, seven day service. It'll become anyway a separate operation within the TSGN Great Northern side.

*With 2tph more going to Cambridge courtesy of Thameslink Moorgate services will no longer go north of Stevenage
Much as I dislike taking out seats as a capacity improvement solution, Networkers are the wrong trains for a high density city commuter service. There should be three sets of doors per carriage for a start, and more space for passengers to circulate. In terms of style of service, Dartford to Charing Cross isn't much different from Uxbridge to Baker Street
Southern Rail seem to be held out as a bastion of good practice - well, least worst practice. I can understand that some of the things - weather, network problems, station refurbishments - are to a degree out of their control. But what about the things that are in their control? Like it taking 20 days to get an acknowledgment of a comment/complaint? The fact that a webpage redesign now means that half the screen is taken up with a map (I suspect most people either know or don't care what the London-Brighton route looks like and would prefer it to show a larger selection of times and fares)? And finally - and this would mean no more of DG's (and my) favourite Seven Sisters walk - what has happened to their DaySave ticket? Ominously it's temporarily unavailable on the website - only available from a couple of tourist offices at the coast. Does anybody know if this good value will be returning?
DG is correct to emphasise the conditional nature of much of what is written in the consultation document. There is no certainty that any of this will happen and a great deal remains to be settled.

For those worried about loss of long distance train paths then don't be. There are two firm statements in the document that says no train paths for longer distance services will be surrendered for the use of "Metro" services. It also says that DfT expect to see equal investment priority given to Metro and longer distance trains.

Sure there are simpler things that can be done in the short run but where on earth is the money coming from? Operation will still be in the hands of the private sector and there's a limit as to how much TfL can limit profit margins on any contract before the private sector says they're not interested. Ditto about the private sector owning up to more onerous operating standards if there isn't investment to support its delivery. Any substantive investment in removal of pinchpoints, longer platforms and new signalling is 10-15 years away at best. You might get new trains a bit faster than that but TfL doesn't have the budget for that. There's little point buying "souped up" high performance trains if the tracks and signals aren't upgraded at the same time to maximise the gain.

Anyone expecting cheap fares should prepare to be disappointed because the consultation makes clear that the Mayor cannot make changes that create adverse effects elsewhere on the network. Moving to a single tariff will take at least a decade IMO and the only way it'll happen is that currently cheap TfL fares in outer areas will be pushed up to meet the current TOC fares. Therefore the whole of London gets screwed over to fund this but I doubt those paying TOC fares today will be shedding any tears - they'll simply be glad others are taking up the burden.

The general direction of the policy is probably correct but there are significant constraints in the prospectus. The lack of financial commitments and the removal of TfL's revenue grant means there are genuine risks that the optimal solutions to deliver significant social benefits won't happen because they can't be afforded. I also think the much repeated "common standards" in the document may end up being lower than TfL currently deliver - again on affordability grounds and also because because what's justified at Lewisham or Croydon or Kingston is not justified at stations under DfT's remit. The document says Metro and longer distance passengers should have the same standards but that doesn't mean "high" standards. It could mean average and watered down standards. Sorry to be gloomy but I'd have preferred a straight TfL takeover with appropriate funding and then the DfT can do what they like with the rest. I've no problem with protecting train paths for outer area trains if that soothes the nerves of politicians and commuters. The issue remains that we have a crisis of demand and inadequate capacity and there is no great urgency being expressed about how you sort it out. That's disappointing.
@ PC

'Anyone expecting cheap fares should prepare to be disappointed because the consultation makes clear that the Mayor cannot make changes that create adverse effects elsewhere on the network.'

Well, past performance may not be a guarantee, but fares from Brentwood to London fell significantly when TfL Rail took over. They even had loudspeaker announcements telling passengers who had bought season tickets at the old price how to claim a refund of the difference ! That's never happened before.

On the North London Line, staffed stations, better services and Oyster have dramatically increased ridership and reduced fare evasion, both helping to fund the improvements. Southeastern may not offer quite as much scope, but the farebox will be fuller.
Ah, this is good news. Reducing fare evasion will bring in plenty of money and make it safer to travel.
GJ: "Southern Rail seem to be held out as a bastion of good practice - well, least worst practice."

Oh, they have plenty of problems and I don't think anyone questions that. But TL/SC is the most problematic railway in the country to run and it's taken as a sign of competence that it's not actually in last place in *every* metric. That being said, the same company was given SE in the hopes that they'd work a bit of magic there (because does anyone remember when Connex ran SC?) but they've failed miserably.

It's quite telling that the companies with the best reputations are running very simple railways that don't interact much with anything else. (Chiltern and whatever C2C is called these days)
C2C's crown very tarnished at present - they appear to have made a right balls up of a new timetable (e.g. http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/14222162)

Also Southern being kicked hard over their service - Great Northern services reliability are likely to suffer as a result of Thameslink.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy