It is not often that rail consultations are greeted with unabashed excitement. In this the reaction to today’s announcement that Transport for London (TfL) and the Department for Transport (DfT) are to jointly consult on shared governance and standards for London’s rail network is a strange thing indeed.
That a simple statement of intent could provoke such a passionate response speaks volumes about the current state of commuter services within the Capital. Among regular travellers there is a perception that London is ill-served by the majority of the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) that run its railways, and it is a perception that is difficult for the TOCs to argue against. Just how low their stock has fallen in the eyes of many of their customers is perhaps summarised best by a recent ill-advised social media campaign by South West Trains. To mark the 20th year of the current franchise’s operation the TOC asked people to share their favourite memories on Twitter.
The results were perhaps not quite what the operator was expecting.
@SW_Trains The time the driver forgot to stop at Winnersh and telling us it's fine as there's a train going the other way soon. #SWT20
— Stuart Burchett (@StuBurchett) January 7, 2016
#SWT20 that time I had to pay £3.5k to stand on an overcrowded train every day.
— Tristan O'Dwyer (@tristanod) January 8, 2016
The one where a guard shouted at me while I was helping my pregnant wife onto the train #swt20
— Dan Singerman (@dansingerman) January 9, 2016
Gazing at a sea of people from the mezzanine at Waterloo and wondering if I'll ever get home #SWT20
— Jon Hinchliffe (@JonHinchy) January 8, 2016
When peak time Brentford trains into Waterloo had 530 seats (2014 – 8 coaches) not 358 (2016 – 5 coaches). Happy memories #SWT20 @SW_Train
— Paul O (@twit_paul) January 8, 2016
Bursting the bubble
In the face of this, the general reaction today is perhaps understandable, as is the reaction in the press. All suburban rail services in the capital will be rebranded as London Overground>TfL’s London Overground to take command of the capital’s entire suburban rail network proclaimed the Evening Standard. “All suburban rail services in the capital will be rebranded as London Overground” it continued. Others soon followed their lead.
Sadly this isn’t factually correct.
For making this mistake the Standard (and others) perhaps can’t entirely be faulted. Rarely has a consultation been presented quite so emphatically as an actual announcement, and several bullet points in the Mayoral press release practically leap off the page:
– introducing more frequent services, more reliable trains, better interchanges and increased capacity
– the creation of a London Suburban Metro service with the potential for more than 80 per cent of stations to have a train every 15 minutes, up from 67 per cent today, as well as the potential for more regular services via Clapham Junction, South East London and Kent.
– developing new rail lines to connect poorly serviced areas and to support new homes and jobs
There are, however, a couple of qualifiers in the statement before that list:
The new agreement will look at ways to give millions of rail passengers a better experience by examining the potential for a wide range of improvements.
Similarly it’s easy to see why a couple of other bullet points caused such excitement about takeovers and the timetable for action:
Under the proposals, TfL would become responsible for services mostly or wholly within the GLA boundary, with the DfT remaining accountable for outer suburban services.
– The first franchise coming up for renewal is South West services in 2017, followed by Southeastern in 2018 and South Central (Southern) services, as well as Great Northern services from Kings Cross and Moorgate currently operating as the Govia Thameslink Rail (GTR) franchise, in 2021.
In that excitement though it is perhaps easy to miss that there is actually nothing explicitly linking those two statements together.
Indeed the contrast between the style of the press release and the consultation it is promoting becomes even clearer when one looks at the actual consultation document itself. The release is a breathless statement of apparent facts. The consultation is facts without a great deal of detail.
Staying grounded
There are an awful lot of genuine positives to be found in this consultation, which we will explore both here and in more detail shortly in LR Issue 3 (along with their wider context). First though it is very important to clearly establish what it doesn’t do:
- It does not specify which franchises will pass to TfL for management, although it provides a general idea of the scope.
- It does not say that all London’s railways will become part of London Overground.
- It does not set out a timetable for the devolution of any services.
- It does not commit TfL or the DfT to any specific improvements in service levels or quality of service.
What it does do is offer real options for both TfL and the DfT to take shared steps forward in all of those areas. Those shared steps are loosely defined, but that is to be expected in a consultation rather than an announcement.
Devolution to TfL
To understand what changes this consultation proposes one must first understand the differences between the way TfL manage their surface railway network and the way that the DfT manage theirs.
We have explored the different models in detail before. In the simplest terms, both bodies effectively subcontract the operation of the railway lines that they manage, but they do so in slightly different ways.
Very broadly, the DfT use a franchise model whereby – within limits – the operator is free to offer whatever service they feel is best at whatever price-point they feel the market will bear. Basic free market principles are intended to ensure that passengers receive a decent service, because otherwise they would simply vote with their feet and take their business elsewhere. Run a bad service and passenger numbers (and profits) will fall, run a good one and numbers (and profits) climb.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this model, but it only works when demand can rise or fall in response to positive or negative actions taken by the operator. Unfortunately, the explosive growth of rail demand in London over the last fifteen years (due to population growth and geographic shift) means that many trains are now operating at capacity. There is thus no incentive for the operator to deliver a good service, whilst the fragmentary nature of the contract distribution means that the cost of improving services beyond current levels is more than the profits any individual operator might make.
By contrast, TfL operate their own franchises on a concession model. Here, TfL set a specific level of service and quality they expect the operator to deliver, regardless of actual passenger numbers. This means that TfL carry all the risk, but it also means that the operator knows exactly what service they are expected to deliver. It also means that the responsibility (and the incentive) for improvement remains with TfL, who can take a wider view on what needs to be done.
In London, this has proven to be a very successful model indeed and for many years TfL has petitioned to be given the responsibility for more London franchises on which to operate it.
Franchising detente
It is on the subject of franchising that this consultation arguably represents the biggest genuine leap forward. Whilst it makes no promises on how franchises will be run, it strongly suggests that TfL and the DfT have agreed to better partition responsibility for running them. In this, it suggests adopting an approach which first appeared in a TfL-commissioned NERA report back in 2011. Existing franchises should either be split or remodelled into “Inner” and “Outer” London franchises. TfL will then be responsible for contracting operators to run the Inners – the lines where their concession model will work best – whilst the DfT will retain responsibility for the Outers.
Just how that breakdown will shake out is not defined here. This is important to state, as it demonstrates that there is still plenty of work to be done – and potentially plenty of disagreement. No franchises are explicitly named for transfer, although all of those lines specified in the press releases’ bullet points are listed as possible options. Of all of them, the most explicit suggestion is that all the inner London services which form part of the South West franchise will be passed to TfL – explicit because the consultation confirms that such a change cannot happen in 2017, but that a transfer in 2019 would be possible thanks to a breakpoint in the franchise, which is currently out to tender.
A question of timescales
Just as no specific franchises are mentioned, neither is any timetable for transfer or improvement. That the end points of existing franchises represent the earliest opportunity for such transfers to take place is relatively obvious, and those expecting an immediate impact as a result of this consultation would do well to remember that fact.
In this vein, it would seem that SouthEastern travellers would likely be the first to see their franchise change hands in some way, but even that wouldn’t be until 2019 and presumes that TfL and the DfT don’t decide to make use of the breakpoint in the South West franchise first.
This may seem a long way off, but realistically it is hard to see much happening before. This is not just a reflection of the contractual reality that already exists, but also of the complexities involved in taking over an entire line. This is something we’ll explore in more detail in our next issue, but the reality is that recent experiences on West Anglia have taught TfL that the logistics involved in taking over an entire line are considerable and cannot be rushed. Indeed sources suggest that, despite hints within the press release to the contrary, TfL themselves have made it very clear that taking over any new services before 2019 would be a considerable challenge, even if the opportunity to do so existed.
Towards a London Suburban Metro
Between the timescales involved and the proposed split between Inner and Outer services, the consultation effectively confirms that we can expect to see both TfL and DfT managed services running in London for the foreseeable future.
On a positive note though, what it also confirms is that the two bodies are looking to take a much more unified approach to specifying the minimum level of quality and functionality (in terms of people, stations and rolling stock) that they require from their respective operators. It is this that is meant by the concept of a London Suburban Metro. This isn’t the suggestion that everything should become one network (whether London Overground or something else), which other new sources seem to have mistakenly suggested. It is simply a term that TfL and the DfT are applying to their unified base specification concept.
Delivering real, noticeable improvement
Perhaps the most misleading element of the press coverage of this announcement so far has been the suggestion (explicit or otherwise) that passengers can expect to see a quick improvement in the quality of service they now receive. As the consultation makes clear, this simply isn’t the case.
A glance at its appendices shows that all of the specific short-term improvements passengers are likely to see are those that are part of the existing franchise agreements. New rolling stock, better staffing levels and station environment changes are all suggested as possible future improvements, but in nearly all cases sit firmly in either the “middle” or “longterm” columns. In reality, these two columns translate to about seven year steps in rail terms. This means that those expecting rolling stock changes on South London rail services will be waiting until 2026 at the earliest. The same applies to timetable or service frequency changes. Indeed in multiple places the consultation stresses that the majority of the improvements it also suggests are currently unfunded. Barring external factors coming into play, that is likely to remain the case.
It’s about housing. Again.
External factors, however, may well present themselves. Most notably the issue of housing. In the last few weeks we’ve looked at several ways that the demand for housing in London has begun to have a real impact on transport funding and the shape of the network, and the same holds true here. Indeed it is noticeable that the consultation makes heavy mention of the impact that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) might have on transport decision making, going so far as to highlight the coming extension of the Metropolitan line to Watford as an example of how things might happen in future.
The choice of this specific example may at first seem curious to those familiar with the project, which has seen both costs and timescales increase as well as the forced handover of the project from Herts to TfL. Viewed through the window of LEP contributions, however, the reason for its inclusion becomes clear, as a significant contribution to the cost of the extension’s construction has come from local developers.
A place at the decision table
One other external factor may simply prove to be TfL itself. The organisation has long sought a more influential place at the table where decisions on infrastructure improvements are made, and in effect this consultation offers exactly that. For it will be an inevitable consequence of the transfer of franchising authority. This translates to a greater ability to influence where Network Rail’s infrastructure efforts are aimed. Sole responsibility for certain parts of the network also increases TfL’s options for commissioning work outside of (but approved by) Network Rail where money allows – something TfL did to great effect during the work to expand the existing Overground network to 5-car length. Here external contracts, paid for directly by TfL, were used to extend the platforms at Brondesbury.
I have here a piece of paper…
What this consultation ultimately is, then, is a promise of cooperation yet to come. It isn’t confirmation that things are about to get significantly better for London’s commuters in the short term, nor a binding contract between TfL and the DfT on the future shape of London railways.
It should not be underestimated, however, just how huge a milestone a simple agreement to cooperate is. For almost as long as LR has existed we have been covering the complete contrast in opinions and approaches taken by the DfT and TfL to running London’s railways. TfL have long demanded more control and the DfT have long resisted those calls.
For a long time relations between the two bodies on this particular subject were decidedly icy, and whilst it is certainly true that in recent months this has shown signs of thawing such a dramatic u-turn is something few would have predicted.
Indeed so sudden a u-turn, at least from the outside, does this appear to be that it is tempting to wonder what outside effects came into play. Transport policy is never formed in a vacuum, and with a Mayoral purdah rapidly approaching and candidates such as Sadiq Kahn and Caroline Pidgeon putting rail devolution at the heart of their current campaign messaging, it is hard not to suspect that the current government may not have felt that taking some wind out of those particular sails wasn’t something of a potential bonus.
Whatever the reasons for today’s sudden announcement, ultimately it is almost certainly good news for London as a whole.
Those looking for quick changes, however, would do well to manage their expectations. Right now this is simply progress on paper. And good as that is, as Neville Chamberlain once discovered, that kind of progress can be very fragile indeed.
Hooray – someone else has seen through the cheering and flag waving and has actually read the document. As you say there’s no commitment to do anything substantive other than talk. There’s no money, there’s no scope and no timetable. It may point broadly in the right direction but I fear there is a lot of politics in this and not the nice sort. If any of this comes off then it is clearly about dumping a “problem child” into TfL and the Mayor’s hands. It is also about saying “you find the money”. In short it’s another example of the current government’s very clever devolution (or blame transfer) strategy.
There are also a whole load of constraints around fares which means any Mayor (regardless of party) would really struggle to cap or reduce fares. That has effectively disabled key policies of three parties fighting the Mayoral Election. My expectation is that TfL would actually have to shove Tube, DLR and Overground fares up to get closer to the current TOC Oyster fares if the cited aspiration of a single fares scale is to achieved (but it may take many years!!).
The concept of a “partnership” is also interesting. The SoS will clearly retain final say in all matters pertaining to these possible transfers of procurement activity. I guess he has to legally as it’s the National network we’re talking about. However the stated desire to involve politicians from multiple authorities and bodies in setting the service spec is a potential recipe for chaos, inertia and indecision. At present TfL just gets on with it (subject to City Hall being content) but no longer. Someone is going to have to be incredibly deft and adept at handling people if the specification process is not going to be stuck in the mud. We’ve seen what can happen with South Eastern not transferring last year. What we have here is a process where DfT’s grip has probably tightened over TfL – it’s effectively got back Overground to some extent and it’s always had a say over Crossrail. Let’s see what “common standards” applied equally to inner and outer suburban services means. Does anyone really think that the “standards” needed at Stratford or Lewisham are the same that are needed at Farningham Road or Ash Vale? How do we ensure that “common standards” don’t actually mean a reduction from what TfL currently do because DfT can’t or won’t fund that standard at rural stations or at county town stations? I’m *not* saying it will happen merely pointing out that things can run in two directions depending on circumstances. As JB points out this has all been presented as “unalloyed joy” for South London commuters and I think we’re miles away from that.
Oh and it’s worth saying that the document states 2020 is the likely date for any South Western transfer because of the need to complete platform works at Waterloo. It’s also possible that any transfer of Great Northern or Southern services could be as late as 2023 if DfT extend Govia’s existing contract to the maximum extent. That is nearly two Mayoral terms on from today and probably completely unacceptable to local commuters and their MPs and Councillors.
Let’s hope all the cheerleaders actually bother to read the document and then think about what it means. They might then stop cheering and get back to protesting for some substantive progress!
Oh and JB please please please put a clickable icon or link at the top of the article that allows us to go back to the home page. These big pictures at the heads of articles without home page links drive me nuts!!! And I know there’s a link at the bottom but I never use it – got used to the old navigation process. (feel free to delete this if / when you’ve made a tweak).
Thank you for such a rational view of the announcements rather than the standard media’s overhyped overreaction.
Now if the inner routes could be physically separated from the outer ones there’d be far more scope for orange improvements, but that will take some cash (and probably TBMs) …
I wonder what the connection is between this consultation and the loss of revenue grant at TfL.
Currently I believe SWT is contributing net of the Network Rail “money go round” but it’s hard to tell.
I guess also that getting the shire counties on board will be crucial, & we have seen some evidence of that recently.
Would it be possible to let SWT on a “management contract” up to the break?
Or would Weymouth/Exeter/Portsmouth ‘white trains’ be sufficiently enticing, stripped of the red and blue “inners”?
@ Alison: makes me think of Gatwick Express for some reason. And lots of money bled through the additional contractual interfaces.
@WW: I am not so sure about the tightening of Ravenclaw’s grip over Hufflepuff. I don’t believe Uncle Patrick and Auntie Claire have much faith left in the quality of advice they receive after West Coast and electrification. So it’s as much about letting TfL show what it can do.
@WW
Waterloo platform works will be complete by December 2016
Scratch that – Dec 2017!
The difference between TfL and DfT is that TfL will make sure the service is of sufficient standard (Clean stations, regular services, platform staff etc) and then get that at the cheapest price, whereas the DfT is only interested in getting best value for the taxpayer (i.e. cheapest price whatever) so platform staff and clean stations disappear as the Franchisee tries to keep costs at an absolute minimum.
So whilst this is going to be a popular move for those within the “TfL” zone for us just outside it means even further diminution of our services as DfT tries to save the money that TfL inevitably will spend making this a success.
Unless it is explicit that the DfT must adhere to the same service levels as TfL on the outer suburban services, prices will be going up and service will be even worse than it is now.
Why the carping? It’s surely good that there’s a consultation at such an early stage rather than just taking a decision one way of the other as has happened in the past.
Old Buccaneer. SWT is indeed a net contributor to the railway, even allowing for infrastructure costs (including asset renewal). However the suburban trains don’t make them any money. The cash cow is all those 12 car trains full of people with £3-£6k season tickets from Winchester, Haslemere, Basingstoke, Guildford etc.
@Old Bucanneer: things are a little “confused” right now, but once the new Class 707 fleet is in place the services TfL would be after on SWT will all be “red trains”, leaving the “blue” and “white” together would still be a hefty and profitable franchise. And about half the “red” services anyway were already pencilled in to be Crossrail 2- this plan essentially affects primarily the Windsor side Metro. CR2 is also why Liverpool Street Lee Valley (the remaining non Overground or TfL rail local services) doesn’t get a mention.
On an operational point, I bet that SWT suburban guards aren’t happy. TfL has a trak record of removing guards; SWT runs entirely with two man operation
I think the ideas being floated here of Herts having a say over general TfL Rail policy, or indeed of TfL having a say over Ash Vale, are off-beam. What’s being proposed is just the means by which non-London LAs’ known concerns about transferring inner London lines with just-outside-London termini to TfL will be addressed.
In other words, TfL will have to consult with Herts on how the lines to Hertford East and Hertford North are run, with Surrey on how the lines to Shepperton and Hampton Court are run, etc. And a major part of this is almost certainly going to be ensuring that non-London and London get equal service standards whilst arguing about who pays the bills.
It’s a testimony to the value of reading this site that I didn’t take the Standard’s story at face value and checked for myself. Why do the journalists swallow these pronouncements whole?
Why the carping? It’s surely good that there’s a consultation at such an early stage rather than just taking a decision one way of the other as has happened in the past.
Just to note that I absolutely agree with this. Whilst I was frustrated (but not surprised) at the way this consultation has been misrepresented in much of the press, this is because I think it’s a spectacular failure of expectations management.
There are some huge positives here. It’s near impossible to overstate the importance of both DfT and TfL recognising and agreeing a way forward – and all my conversations so far with those directly involved with this behind the scenes suggest that this is very much what has happened. This isn’t an attempt by the DfT to trap TfL, nor an attempt by TfL to bully the DfT into action. It’s a genuine detente. Indeed it is worth looking at the questions the consultation actually asks for evidence of that as this is the epitome of a rubber stamp being sought. They’re effectively the railway equivalent of “do you like ice cream?”
That’s great news for London. It’s just not news that in itself automatically means the London rail landscape is guaranteed to change.
Frankly, if we hadn’t already used it, I would probably have used Churchill’s “End of the Beginning” quote for the article title here. Chamberlain’s statement felt an acceptable alternative though given that until the consultation is complete and the details have been filled in, this is still ultimately just a statement of good faith on both sides.
@Sad Fat Dad
“… However the suburban trains don’t make them any money.”
This, of course, is the whole point. If they did then the stations would be as clean, staffed and secure as the Overground/LOROL lines.
This leads me to a small worry about tarnishing the Overground brand. If an operator would be able to say “oh, now we can drop this unprofitable bit of our franchise onto TfL” they might just do that.
Without some additional funding (or funding method perhaps) there is a risk that TfL will have to run stations and services without the ability to enforce the minimum standards their brands require.
From a personal observation veiwpoint, I have noticed that the Victoria Line in-train line diagrams have had the Overground at Walthamstow Central and Seven Sisters removed from them: perhaps TfL don’t want these lines being used until they have the new trains on them.
Another personal note I also note how busy the TfL-Rail line is off-peak recently.
I suggest, as a general point, that everyone here gets their finger out and responds to the consultation.
The DfT, Mayor of London and TfL are interested to hear views on the ideas set out in this prospectus – in particular the six questions set out in the prospectus. To discuss the proposals in more detail, seek further information or provide feedback, please contact us by 18 March 2016 at [email protected]
♦ Do you agree with the principle of a partnership to better integrate the specification of rail passenger services across London and the South East?
♦ Do you agree with the principles that the partnership will work to? Are there any specific issues that have not been captured?
♦ Do you agree with the proposed governance arrangements?
♦ What form do you propose the input from local authorities and LEPs could take?
♦ Do you agree with the safeguards for transfer of inner suburban services to TfL, as set out here?
♦ Are there other outcomes you might expect to see achieved?
Sounds great and all. Right up until the point the unions decide they are unhappy when London is under one great umbrella and go on strike. One common enemy across all of London, rather than different operators.
And then London shuts down.
Sort that out, then I might truly be happy with the idea of all of this potentially coming under TfL’s remit.
It will be interesting to see the train planning perspective of this if / when it happens. Can we expect Reading / East Croydon / Stevenage / Hither Green / Dartford etc to become transport hubs to connect with LO to central London? Will customers from the wider commuting area accept making a change of train rather than a direct service? Given the capacity constrains of the network then there’s no way that an enhanced south London ‘metro’ service can run in conjunction with GTR/SWT/SET through services without major changes to separate Slow lines and Fast lines & signalling and some significant infrastucture projects to bridge / tunnel rather than junction (north end of East Croydon / Streatham Common / Balham are some examples). In broad, it’s a welcome discussion to start, but in real world railway it’s a very, very long way away.
This translates to a greater ability to influence where Network Rail’s infrastructure efforts are aimed.
Herne Hill? Tulse Hill? Copper Mill & Clapton Jns?
I’m assuming that things like the Windmill Jns/E Croydon tangle would rest entirely with DfT/NR, because most services there are “Outers” & thus non-London.
I have here a piece of paper …, Yes, there certainly appears to have been an outbreak of sense at Dft & a turnaround in desires for future operation.
What happened/what caused this apparent outbreak of rationality?
@Jordan D. My (semi-joking) words to TfL on the phone yesterday:
“You’ll be fine with this as long as the Unions don’t spot the throwaway remark about night time train services that’s in there.”
FYI it should be “barring” not “baring”.
[Corrected. Thanks. PoP]
@Sad Fat Dad
I know it is regularly said that it is the long distance commuter trains that make the money rather than the inner suburbans, but is that really the case? A 12 coach unit on a long distance commuter run can make one run in the morning peak and one in the evening peak. For the additional peak hour services that means a 12 coach train is left effectively idle for the rest of the day – or else it runs up and down but at a very low capacity.
An inner suburban set, on the other hand, can usually make two trips each peak, because the journeys are shorter and the amount of contra flow peak period traffic is much higher than on longer distance routes as well as the relative level of off peak traffic. This all means that the inner suburban units are more efficiently used. Add to that that fares per mile are higher for shorter journeys.
It may well be that the longer distance commuters are paying more for their tickets in cash terms, but I suspect that their costs are significantly higher, too. The net effect may well be that it is the inner suburban services that are actually better profit makers.
At one end of the scale look at routes such as the North London Line which now have services that are well filled all day and have significant traffic generators along the route of the line meaning that there is no overriding peak flow direction. Thus all these trains are far more efficiently used.
WW
I note your points, & realise that DfT may want “more” control, but it runs, as you say, both ways – if it goes pear-shaped then it isn’t DfT’s “fault” (for a change) – they can blame TfL.
As for TSGN, I think they may be the last to go, because of the complexity/problems, err (mismanagement?) & other considerations of shoehorning longer-distance 24tph through their core, as much discussed already in these columns.
I note that the consultation document also suggests that on the London Overground there will be ‘clear, identifiable routes’ and elsewhere there has been a suggestion of route numbers. Obviously something is needed to address the complexity of the of the network if the Overground expands – and this has been covered in other threads here previously – so perhaps something has been learned here.
Re RJ 90,
December 2018 for completion of Waterloo station works (you just can’t open without the full retail experience on offer for Windsor line passengers! )
…just in time for TfL to get the all the benefit without the pain.
Ditto lots of 10 car services coming on stream.
Re SFD,
SWT suburban services must surely be fairly close to breakeven else they would soon dilute the Winchester / Basingrad etc. cash cow, which puts them in different league to even TSGN which only just breaks even subsidy wise excluding the NR direct funding?
With mostly 10 car suburban services in 2019 (max 15x 8 car remaining) the finances on the suburban side should improve as there is plenty of passenger growth see Putney alone adding about 1.5 trains worth of passengers in each direction every year for the last few years and will probably keep doing so for the next few as well.
Then there is the possible end of DOO on SWT suburban…
I expect DfT will want compensating for loss of returns from SWT suburban if it goes to TfL long term.
With so many shared assets there is plenty of room for interesting cost allocation between business units.
It would be interesting if Suburbiton passengers had to pay more for the remaining magic fast SWT services rather TFL stoppers! I’m sure SWT or successors would be very happy with the new possibilities!
There also appears to be reasonable bit of ticket less evening travel on SWT as all the gates apart from Waterloo and Clapham Junction are left open relatively early.
‘long-petitioned’ should be ‘long petitioned’.
[I have reworded it to fix this and also make it sound less American. Additionally, I have changed TfL to the singular (“TfL has petitioned”). I need to check the latter point with the London Reconnections Style Guide. PoP]
quinlet challenges the “orthodox” opinion that it is the long distance commuter trains that make the money.
I would note the theoretical points that you make, about efficient use of trains. But the widespread orthodox view is also repeated by many insiders, who have some access to internal profit calculations. So if the orthodox view is wrong, that must mean that either (a) the internal profitability calculations are wrong, or (b) there is an industry-wide cover-up, deliberate or not. Both of these strike me as improbable.
Re Greg 0918
Infrastructure spend.
There is certainly a TfL element to Windmill Bridge Junction scope to increase it above the base level for the benefit of metro routes. See the sussex articles.
Tulse Hill the platforms rather than the junction are the main issue the estimated £70m for getting to 10 car for potential 8tph to London Bridge.
In both cases it would be up to TfL to find the cash especially as the NR / DfT BCR methodology says no…
quinlet
Long Distance v Short Distance was explained by the great Dr Beeching and, in a different way, by Gerry Fiennes.
It is not long distance v short distance as such. It is about average speed and assuming that ticket costs are vaguely linearly related to distance travelled. A train full of people going a long distance without stopping at stations covers a lot of distance (= revenue) in a short time (= low staff + train costs). One could add that continually starting a train from stationary has traditionally involved more energy cost than running at a consistent reasonably high speed.
The fact that you can sometimes get two journeys out of a train in the peak when used for suburban services isn’t especially relevant as the distance covered with lots of passengers on board will still be less once you allow for the lightly used (or empty) return journey between the two that are travelling with the peak flow.
Add the artificially low fares in London and a few other factors and it can be quickly seen that it is more profitable to run long-distance limited stop services.
If you want to see a classic case then look at LTS (as it was then) up to a few years ago. A lot of the journeys were commuters from the Southend area. One train full of season ticket holders going up in the morning and back in the evening would go a long way on its own to justify the cost of the train.
Gerry Fiennes argued that you should treat people more like freight and run bulk services but, inevitably, fewer of them, so he was very keen on separate inner and outer services, the latter being very limited stop in the inner area. This provided a better ulitisation of rolling stock and staff than an all stations service but the idea has generally gone out of favour for other reasons.
ngh,
I saw some figures relatively recently (Modern Railways I think) suggesting that, even with guards, SWT had costs per mile that were lower than many other TOCs services without. Of course, this doesn’t mean they can’t be even lower without guards. And I can’t see TfL tolerating such a thing – certainly not with Crossrail 2.
Walthamstow Writer 22 January 2016 at 01:45
“However the stated desire to involve politicians from multiple authorities and bodies in setting the service spec is a potential recipe for chaos, inertia and indecision.”
I don’t think that was the experience of the arrangements for designing the new Northern and Transpennine Express franchises. That has produced some quite neat prospective changes, many of them at modest cost.
Perhaps they’ll give the Leader and Chief Executive of Manchester peerages and ask both to lead on it?
Surely, a lot of the TfL v NR/DfT is that TfL use a different methodology to calculate whether work is worth doing and trains are worth running. TfL base the calculations on door to door so new station entrances score well but to the DfT and NR they only have value if they increase revenue or are the cheapest way of providing a necessary increase in station capacity. Similarly TfL values time saving to passengers whereas the DfT and NR tend to only value this if it leads to extra revenue.
As I keep saying, a lot of this (not all) could be achieved simply by the DfT changing their contracts and the modelling that is behind them to match the TfL one.
Jordan D 22 January 2016 at 09:15
“until the point the unions decide they are unhappy when London is under one great umbrella and go on strike.”
You’ll read and hear lots about strikes, but there aren’t many actual strikes.
In particular, you’ll rarely hear of an ASLEF strike; drivers have a strong bargaining position because recruitment and training are exceptionally slow.
Jordan D. Surely that would only be the case if the whole inner suburban network was let as one concession.
@ Kate – and there was me thinking I had commented rather than “carped”. I am afraid I tend to look for the weasel words, “get out clauses” and other such things in documents like this. Yes it’s fine that there will be a consultation and I sincerely hope we get a viable, effective solution that makes all round sense. I am afraid I am just a tad sceptical given there is so little substance on the important issues. It seems JB says I shouldn’t be but I don’t have the benefit of his contacts and direct discussions.
@ John B – well I hope you are right that consultation will be highly focused and kept relevant. My concern is based on the references to Rail North and also the Croxley Rail linl as relevant examples. We obviously must see if Rail North can work but so many politicians and authorities involved with so many varying priorities across a huge region?? On Croxley then all we’ve seen there so far is delay and massive cost increases and ever receding completion dates. Yes the funding might come from several sources but look how much was needed for a pretty simple bit of railway! Let’s hope that is an example of how not to built a new bit of railway.
Anyway I’m in my usual minority of one so that’s no change! Everyone else can carry on partying and cheering. 😉
@quinlet
A lot of the costs of providing a train service are the running of the stations. And whether you travel two miles or 200 miles, you use exactly the same number of them. So the cost of conveying a passenger to Weymouth is a lot less than a hundred times the cost of conveying him to Clapham Junction.
@POP
Your explanation makes a great deal of sense re short v. long distance commuters. However, as you say, it rests on the assumption that fares are linearly related to distance travelled. This is not the case. For example, my annual season ticket for a journey of 75 miles in each direction is £5080. This equates to 15p per mile on the basis of 225 days travelled. On the other hand a zone 1-6 travelcard costs £2364 a year. This equates to 35p per mile assuming a journey from the edge of London to the centre 225 days a year. (Who says London fares are artifically low?). Therefore a train full of people travelling at 35p per mile needs to travel significantly less than half the distance of a train full of people travelling at 15p per mile before it makes a profit assuming that train operating costs do bear some passing relationship to distance travelled.
I should add that my season ticket costs virtually the same for a range of stations over about a 15 mile distance, so I buy a ticket from the far end of the range even though I don’t travel that far. But it could be said, therefore, that I get the last 15 miles for free and the income to the operator for that last 15 miles is zero. So who’s subsidising whom?
@JB – thank you for a balanced article. I do hope that all the airheads will read this carefully (and WW’s words of caution) before resuming their “Calloo,Callay” noise. The eventual deal will be about money, and what is on the table now doesn’t of itself generate more cash; whether the GLA will find more is doubtful (for the reasons discussed before) and DfT certainly won’t. This has implications for all those who see this as a golden dawn (as in Greek political parties).
As usual, the devil will be in the detail. There will be considerable difficulty and much politics in deciding where to draw the boundaries. It’s been done already for WAGN, and with CR1, but the Chiltern and WCML “inners” aren’t easily teased out (eg Tring? Berko? Northampton?). Chiltern is especially tricky as – and I fear I disagree with Old Buccaneer here- it passes through Bucks who have shown no inclination to contribute to the Met, so why should they pay anything towards”LO”? Without new money, any involvement of the Roseland counties will be mere window dressing -after all many of them can no longer afford bus subsidies,so the much greater sums involved in rail will be beyond them.
@quinlet – yes, you can get double runs and good loads from the inners but the reason why they tend to lose money compared with the outers is that they also consume a lot more, and more complex (and therefore more expensive) infrastructure. We live now in a world of fully capitalised infrastructure whose financing, maintenance and operation represents about 50% of all railway costs (Beeching and Fiennes didn’t face that calculation because they lived at a time of “free” capital).
For what it’s worth at this stage, I believe that TfL will have real difficulty in stamping a corporate image and corporate values on what has evolved into an enormous clutch of very different operations. We had great problems in NSE doing that despite have BR’s vertically integrated command structure behind us. It wasn’t just about Chris Green’s vision (and where is the next Chris to be found?) but about hard graft in dinning shared values and goals into local management and right down to the platform staff, Pick-style. This is a work of a decade or two, not just for 2020.
qunilet,
Yes it is more complicated than I suggested. As far as season tickets go the tapering cost for longer journeys is is partly historical because, I would imagine, that for really long distances a daily commute wasn’t viable. So I actually once had a London – Newcastle season ticket and two journeys a week (not necessarily going all the way to Newcastle each time) was enough to make it worthwhile.
I seem to recall, only being around 9 or 10 at the time when the Ken Livingstone Administration attempted, very half-heartedly to rebrand South London’s overground services as “Overground Network” or “ON”. The signs are still visable outside many stations albiet with the said logo splashed out. What became of this? Was it a similar plan that TfL is envisaging or just a failed PR stunt?
There is also the issue of the replacement South Western franchise. DfT tried to negotiate a Direct Award Franchise Agreement to take SWT through the HLOS Waterloo Capacity increase programme – new trains and infrastructure changes. However with SWT seen as ‘holding a gun to our head’ DfT walked away and put South Western into the franchise replacement engine.
This means four Invitations to Tender in 2016 and two of them with £1bn revenue lines (SWT, ICWC).
As a result only two operators are interested in bidding for South Western – Stagecoach and A.N Other Group. What effect will the possible 2019 break point, with the loss of the inners have on the bidding I wonder. Swamps and alligators refer.
Chamberlain/Munich analogy rather unfortunate. “I have had another talk with Herr McLoughlin …”
@quinlet
“For example, my annual season ticket for a journey of 75 miles in each direction is £5080. This equates to 15p per mile on the basis of 225 days travelled. On the other hand a zone 1-6 travelcard costs £2364 a year. This equates to 35p per mile ”
I am afraid you are comparing apples and oranges. A point to point season for the journey from a Zone 6 station (e.g Hampton) to Waterloo (15 miles in 44 minutes) cost £1800, not £2364. That’s 27p per mile
Looking at it the other way, the add-on for a travelcard on a c£5500 season is about £850 (not knowing which station your season ticket is from, I am looking at the figures for Southampton Airport to Waterloo – £5404/£6248 for about 75 miles)
And as for inner suburban services being able to squeeze two peak services in, remember that it takes longer (58 minutes) to get to Shepperton than it does to Winchester (54 minutes) ! The railway gets less revenue for the shorter journey, despite the assets being tied up for the same amount of time, not only because of the lower fares, but because although both trains are full and standing on leaving Waterloo, the first train is almost empty when it arrives at Shepperton, but the second is still full and standing at Winchester.
The station overheads at Winchester are covered by a lot more passengers than those at Shepperton too.
Re Captain Deltic
Or alternatively SWT walking away when DfT tried to hold a gun to their head…
The multitude of permutations will make bidding a bit more expensive.
The size of guarantees needed for some of these franchisees not many bidders could afford to win more than 1 of the 4.
DfT might be running low on partners still willing to tango…
I think we need to draw a distinction between London control, in which TfL get to specify the operations via a so-called concession agreement; and setting London operational standards, in which TfL specify London Overground type standards end ensure adherence thereto.
We could , in particular, have London control without standards. A future Thameslink franchise could have the operation of its inner trains specified concession-wise and its outers franchise-wise, all operating under the Thameslink logo, or not.
For other services, a scenario could arise in which TfL are strapped for each of cash, managerial skills to Overgroundise services and/or new trains. In this world, TfL could specify a service level similar to today’s, all the while requiring Evil Grubbing Franchises Corporation to use their assiduously developed Smiley-Rail brand.
@Captain Deltic/ngh – my spy in the Stagecoach bid team tells me that it was more a case of ngh’s view; there was also a certain wariness/weariness that Stagecoach had held the SWT franchise for so long that DfT would be seeking an alternative almost as a matter of course. If all this is true (and my spy would know that he would have been punished with the loss of dining rights if he got it wrong), then it’s a classic negotiating fail on DfT’s part: “If you do not give in I will walk away; damn, they have…!” As people say, however, DfT are beginning to run out of negotiating partners (remember that person who was appointed Head of Rail at DfT a few years ago and commenced her reign by saying that she would be bringing in new partners and bidders into the franchise process? Vanished without trace – and those of us who have misspent our time advising overseas governments on bidding programmes could have told her that the pool of plausible bidders is tiny.
It’s about accountability.
It’s about equalisation of the north/south fares divide (including policy on when freedom passes are available).
And even if there can’t be any more trains, it’s about improving the travelling environment – more particularly the waiting-to-travel environment.
Am I alone in thinking that fining a TOC for poor performance is counter-productive? The money should either be used to compensate the ticket holders (after all, it is they, not the taxpayer, who has been inconvenienced by them), or spent by the TOC putting things right.
Almost as silly is fining a publicly owned body like NR or TfL. Since the fine goes back into public funds, it is essentially meaningless. If the Treasury still wants NR to complete a particular project after it has been fined, it will have to increase NR’s budget by the value of the fine it has just confiscated!
What the consultation does not ask is a question about the transfer of services being a good or bad idea and for representations on that aspect? Why not – because that decision is taken, now it is merely a case of dressing it up as a consultation – but the basic question has not been asked and I can remember when it was decided not to have split services into one terminus for good reason.
This is not a consultation which is geared to enable anything other than acceptance – that is fundamentally wrong.
@Tiger Tanaka
Lord, you make me feel old! Here is a wikipedia article about the “Overground Network” branding exercise initiated by the Mayor and the south-of-the-river TOCs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overground_Network
Two things are notable about it: firstly, it was a co-operation between TfL and the (then) responsible DfT department (the Strategic Rail Authority) and the TOCs, so there are shades of the current report, albeit in an entirely different political context. Basically, it was born out of frustration with the lack of influence on such an important part of London’s transport infrastructure, in particular, the appalling state of the stations, so allowed TfL money to be raided by the TOCs (who, in my view, ought to have brought these things up to standard themselves). I’m sure the Mayor’s desire to roll out Oyster despite ITSO compatibility problems was part of his desire to stuff the TOCs objecting mouths with gold.
The second part of the Overground Network exercise that is notable is the branding element for transport branding geeks. A beautiful network map was produced, which showed the inner suburban network south of the river in grey, and all lines and stations with a ‘turn up and go’ frequency of 4 tph off-peak in a colour coded by London terminus. It’s one of the best maps of the South of the River rail network ever produced. Long obsolete, its ghost remains in some rather lovely line of route diagrams for the platforms, installed in enamel, with the lines and stations marked in black. Interestingly for design geeks, because ON was not wholly owned by any TOC, National Rail body or TFL, the typeface used was not Johnston or Rail Alphabet, but Helvetica, New York subway style, which looks at once fitting and appropriate, and also alien in context.
As a branding exercise, I loved it. I had just moved to (north) London, and was working in Hampton Court at the time, so was trying to learn my way around the unfamiliar surface rail services, which were such a contrast to the instantly recognisable Tube. Both the ON network map and the lovely platform enamels created for the customer a metro ‘feel’, so that you knew where you could and couldn’t expect a “Turn Up and Go” metro service, and navigate the system as a tourist / unfamiliar user. The way the branding felt similar enough to TfL and the tube map to make it intuitive, but distinct enough so you knew you couldn’t treat it like the tube was genius.
@timbeau: surely the main reason for fining a TOC for poor performance is to cancel out any financial incentive TOCs might otherwise have to run a poor service – at least sometimes, cancelling a train could save them money. For this purpose, where the fine money goes is irrelevant. Delay repay is an attempt to achieve something similar, with money going to the affected party, at least if they can draw a nice long straw in the paperwork lottery.
KRW: It may be “fundamentally wrong”, but most consultations by most organisations result in the organisation doing what it would have done anyway. There may be detail changes, and once in a blue moon the consultation might have a big impact, but most of them do not.
@PM
This map?
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205041455/http://www.overgroundnetwork.com/pdf/on-new-network-map.pdf
Examples of the route diagrams can be seen on the left of this picture
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/SME/html/NRE_KNG/images/photos/800/o2274-0000147.jpg
or next to the door to the platform here
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/SME/html/NRE_TED/images/photos/800/o3213-0000017.jpg
@timbeau
Yes, that’s the one. Thanks for the illustrations.
@timbeau
The distinction control / operational standards allows the various elements: fares, freedom passes, quality to be introduced at different times. It’s in effect a riff on TfL Rail. I don’t see how standardisation can ever be achieved otherwise.
@timbeau. ‘Full and standing at Winchester’. When does that ever happen? Full maybe. Some standees who prefer to lurk in the vestibules rather than exercise their rights over some strategically placed bags, maybe. At times of disruption, probably.
The adoption of TfL standards goes a long way to achieving the nirvana of a unified London Rail system. They have shown the way with some highly successful pilot schemes (ie The present Overground.) It then becomes much easier to provide an apparently unified system, even if the system isn’t even close to actually being unified. Appropriate coats of paint, modest station improvements, a quantum leap in unified information provision, and the transformation is mostly achieved. None of that costs zillions and, done well, could even pay for itself. Chris Green applied exactly that with NSE.
The tricky bit will be to get the frequencies up, but that can come later, as it did on the Overground.
@Tiger Tanaka @PM
To add a little about the Overground Network…
There was very little new money spent beyond the branding. Bear in mind that it was back in the days of the original franchises when a minimum service standard was specified. This left the operator free to introduce extra services without reference back to government should they feel it to be financially beneficial. This actually led to a lot of off peak improvements, for example in SWT land Kingston only used to have a 30 minute service which was increased to every 15 minutes. Personal opinion but I feel the culture has now changed in rail from trying to be entrepreneurial to one of just give the DfT the minimum they have specified.
The feeling was that public perception lagged behind the actual level of service offered with people not realising that many rail services were turn up and go. For example it’s not uncommon for passengers from Richmond to attempt to travel to Waterloo via underground despite the rail option being faster, more frequent and direct. The ON branding was really an attempt to sell what was already there better rather than substantially change the service itself. One of its big downfalls was that 4tph qualified a route for ON branding, in many cases this didn’t translate to 15 minute intervals so rather diluting the message.
With regards the map I would argue that ‘London Connections’ was largely better presented but at the time this was falling out of favour. Each operator was tending to produce a map of just their own routes which is possibly the least relevant way to do it in a metro area.
I’m wondering whether there might also be something otherwise hidden behind this …
The underground – which TfL is arguably best known for – makes no effort to go from everywhere to everywhere; it _requires_ people to change lines at intersections, and people are happy to do this.
The NR lines – and we’re basically talking South London here – are a mess of historical proportions where competing companies built their own lines to multiple terminii, and the present TOCs only maintain that problem. Intermediate interchange is, basically, anathema.
If there was to be a single ‘mind’ in charge of those NR lines though, might a major rationalisation of routes be possible? It wouldn’t be commercially-driven but service-driven decisions which would matter, and if you could then increase the frequencies above the sometimes pitiful level they are now, pax would end up with a far better service. And isn’t that what is needed to meet the ten million challenge?
@AlisonW: I think opinions differ over whether the sort of “rationalisation” to which you refer would actually be helpful in South London. For some reason, such schemes tend to be favoured by those of a more crayonistic tendency, typically not actually living in South London. (There are doubtless exceptions).
But you are absolutely right in the observation that if such schemes are required, then a “single mind”, and an attitude which is service driven rather than profit-for-my-TOC driven, would be essential for bringing them in.
@Starlight
Interesting, thanks. I’m really not a fan of “London Connections”. It’s really not a good piece of design. It serves the interests of the producers, and emphatically not the interests of the traveller. There’s no distinction between stations / lines with an off-peak service of 2 tph and the Tube. In 2003, (when it was appearing alongside the ON map) all the lines were still British Rail white, and when colour was introduced, this followed TOC branding, rather than helping the traveller get to where he or she wanted to go. I think that your comment about it being not uncommon for people to travel Richmond to Waterloo via the District Line is a good example of this (surely not many people could have been travelling like this?!). As far as I can see, it could only be explained by strong public awareness of tube / TfL services, and lack of understanding / confusion about surface rail services, which is why, even as a mere branding exercise, ON was a really good idea.
As for TOC-produced maps; they beggar belief. I think the very worst has to be Southern’s route map. It’s literally useless for Metro travellers.
AlisonW. The Tube works that way (relying on interchange) at least partly because it’s small trains at high frequencies. The 12 coach (or even 8 coach) ‘Full and standing’ Full-gauge monster unloading 75% of its passengers will be looking for platform capacity that doesn’t exist, and would be very difficult to provide. Clapham Junction tries to do this to some extent but no SW mainline trains stop there in the peak, because all the line capacity is needed for the packed trains that are taking people to where they want to go now.
@PM
Re: Richmond to Waterloo. As a proportion of total passengers probably not that many but more than you might think. As you’ve rightly touched on its it’s the sort of thing that effects unfamiliar users. It shows the importance of getting mapping and branding right if you’re to attract people to public transport. It’s no good providing a great service if people don’t know it’s there.
@AlisonW
While there are probably small gains the big problem as an operator is the different nature of the rail network to the tube. Most routes south of the Thames tend to be multiple lines converging on one point. This creates conflicting moves at junctions and means that your potential capacity is in effect getting no larger as you get closer to London. By contrast the tube lines are typified by larger capacity stations on either side of the centre with a uniform service running through two lines in the middle. It’s the reason same reason why the sub surface lines will always struggle to provide a service as fast, reliable and frequent as simpler lines like the Victoria and Jubilee.
This is before you consider the capacity reducing effects of running fast and slow services over the same lines. And as we’ve seen in discussions here that’s as much a political as an operating question.
Starting to read the actual consultation document, I was totally chuffed to see the hometown of ‘Basingrad’ in the short select list (with Cambridge even) of other centres served by the network.
@graham h/ngh
Given that SWT had taken the initiative in developing and driving through the CP5 HLOS Waterloo capacity enhancements for DfT this was a classic example of my adage that there is no point in being helpful to government because they can’t reciprocate even if they wanted to. And with those nasty private sector people in trade who are bound to be trying to rip us off, why should we help them anyway.
I was present when Clair Moriarty came up with her ‘pool of potential overseas bidders’ and pointed out that a) they didn’t exist and b) if they did I assumed she wanted to put the UK owning groups out of business by bringing in new franchisees. The concept of a zero sum game seemed alien.
Re Malcolm 1537 and Alison,
The problem is also that unless you do a very good job which will be expensive because of infrastructure requirements that a large number of people will be disadvantaged either by journey time being unable to get on full connecting services or having to pay extra to use the tube as they can no longer get to where they used to be able to on the train.
Unless you come up with something that has very few diadvantages you are looking at stiff opposition from existing users see the DfT decision logic that got JR’ed.
The centrebfor London / JRC Turning South London Orange attempts that but much more work would be required Nd it probably wouldn’t get thumb up on average for users of my 2 local station.
Looking at the peak hour service levels from immediately before hither green (1967) the services levels for suburban services were better then than proposed after CR2 or TSLO (and less interchange too!)
The map on page 17 of the document is very telling. It shows all lines where stopping services have a frequency of at least every 10 mins. The majority of services that fit that criterion south of the Thames are already run by TfL! The only DfT specified services that make the grade are Victoria to Balham and Waterloo to Barnes and New Maldon. I wonder if it was that actual map that persuaded DfT to play ball.
@ngh
It’s an uncomfortable fact that most services south of the Thames were once more frequent. Against a background of falling demand resignalling tended to strip out capacity to reduce cost through the 70’s and 80’s. Add in that slam door trains generally loaded quicker and that safety systems like TPWS have bigger margins for error and you can also explain why journey times have got longer. I think we need to be asking how to put that capacity back and a lot of that will probably need to come from sharper operating practice. The extended door cycle time on Desiro’s is the kind of thing that seems insignificant in isolation but can create a huge knock on in combination with other factors. A few billion for moving block signaling anyone?
It seems that we are getting Network South East Mark 2.
It’s not quite true to say interchanging in South London is ‘anathema’. On my local Southern service a minority of passengers stay all the way to Victoria (huge numbers change at CJ alone). CJ, Balham, Tulse Hill, Herne Hill, to name some examples I know of, do see people changing for a connection service. Stand on platform 15 at CJ during the evening peak and see the vast numbers waiting to board. Majority have not entered from the local area. It’s obviously not as high as on the Tube, but it’s not so rare.
On related note, communication is certainly something TfL can have as a quick win. It’s dreadful at the moment. I have never heard a Southern driver once provide info for passengers changing onto connecting services, whether it’s the Underground, SE, Thameslink or even another Southern train. Contrast that to the times I used to the Tube to commute to work, where drivers would often – but not always it has to be said – report on the status of lines as the service passed through. In the context of a delay this was rather important as it allowed me to stay on and make an alternative journey.
@farndroid
“The only DfT specified services that make the grade are Victoria to Balham and Waterloo to Barnes and New Maldon.”
Also Victoria to Clapham Junction and Lewisham to Blackheath
Actually Waterloo to New Malden is not every 10 minutes but a cycle of 9, 6 and 15.
Note that Richmond to Waterloo (or Charing Cross) is cheaper by Tube
@Alison
“If there was to be a single ‘mind’ in charge of those NR lines though, might a major rationalisation of routes be possible?”
Discussion elsewhere on the absence of suitable interchange points, where even lines built by the same company fly over and under each other without interchange, (particularly in the Streatham area) have highlighted how expensive it would be to do this.
@fandroid “Full and standing at Winchester’. When does that ever happen? ”
Not my experience, but I have seen comments on SWT’s webchats from people who say they have had to stand for the non-stop run from Winchester to Waterloo. (including some who claim to have been fined for standing in 1st Class because there was no room to do so in Second)
@anonymous 1234
“I have never heard a Southern driver once provide info for passengers changing onto connecting services, whether it’s the Underground, SE, Thameslink or even another Southern train.”
SWT guards do so, including unlikely ones like changing at Clapham Junction (from a down Shepperton train) for Staines.
It’s always “Customers for Victoria, Gatwick Airport and Kensington Olympia should change at Clapham Junction”. Customers for a railway station? Am I playing Monopoly?
timbeau
Sorry, I meant the status of the connecting service. It’s arguably more useful for rail users in South London to know that, say, the SE service at Herne Hill or the Thameslink at Tulse Hill is delayed, given the lower frequencies.
When I used to change from the Jubilee to the Central at Bond st it was pretty handy when the driver would inform passengers that the CL was having some delays, not least since I could stay on and take an alternative route via Green Park.
Re Captain Deltic and Graham H,
One gets the feeling DfT have spent everything they had left up North and need to gather every last penny down south without engaging common sense mode in anyones brain…
The golden rule for franchise bidding should surely be that the franchise should return more to the franchisee’s investors than if the potential franchisee just left the money in an interest bearing account.
(Plenty of caveats).
I believe the failed direct award failed this rule so you do have to wonder about DfT. It probably would have cost DfT more to mobilise and run DOR for the DA period than they were offering with the publicly available info on proposed margins. Bidders will not go for margins that thin unless they want to win at all costs. ( this should worry DfT on sustainability / viability grounds)
Anglia down to 2.5 bidders suggests this isn’t a one off example.
On the matter of on-train announcements, I do not favour individual staff members being encouraged to produce their own personalised selection of changing advice. Obviously if there is disruption, that’s fine (except that, if it’s the driver, they may have other priorities at such times). But if a piece of advice is worth broadcasting willy-nilly, then it should be added to the automated material, or omitted, rather than being left to driver/guard discretion. I suppose there might be cases where – if a guard has become aware of a particular batch of tourists, say, then a special message aimed at them might be appropriate.
Although they could in theory do it, nobody seems to expect spontaneous “change here for…” advice from a bus driver. So why expect it from a train driver, who has (arguably) a job requiring similar or greater concentration on matters outside the vehicle?
At the danger of heading off topic….with regards information on trains:
A lot of this comes down to different operating practices. SWT equip guards with blackberries or equivalent. They should be referring to these and then announcing any disruption at the appropriate interchanges. It’s a little patchy as the information doesn’t always filter down or may change at short notice. Also some guards are very good, others seem to have taken a monastic vow of silence.
On driver only routes like Southern using a mobile is a sackable offence so they don’t get the information to pass on. The driver can only get running information by contacting the signaller. This is why passengers are now often better informed during disruption than the driver thanks to mobile apps, Twitter etc. Since the North London Line went driver only there’s been a noticeable decline in this kind of information for that very reason.
LU is a little different as each line has one control centre which broadcasts out information to drivers who are then expected to pass it on to passengers. The TOC’s have no direct equivalent as each train runs under the control of the appropriate signaller.
Regard this as an explanation rather than excuse. I strongly believe it’s something that needs to be done better but it isn’t quite as simple as it first seems.
Fandroid 15:21
‘Full and standing at Winchester’. When does that ever happen?
According to Tim Shoveller MD of SWT it is a regular event. Of course, he may be wrong and you may be right.
Captain Deltic 16:27
Thanks for that as I have tried to argue that in the past. I do have some sympathy for SWT as they recognise there is a big problem (contrary to what some people think) and are trying to do what they can about it. But, as you say, it needs the DfT to cough up some money as there is no reason for SWT to do it given the cost, long term gains and short term franchise.
Stagecoach seem to have evolved from being enfant terrible to a company running a TOC with long term plans to sort out problems and are prepared to make the initiative and take the temporary pain but not the cost – and why should they?
@ngh – the attractiveness of a particular franchise to a particular bidder is also a function of (a) the franchise’s risk profile and (b) the appetite for risk on the part of the franchisee. DfT’s bad luck (as egged on by HMT) is to believe that franchisees just love risk. Spending even a small amount of time in the private sector would tell DfT otherwise; a handful of investment hawks apart, your average capitalist can’t stand a risk they can’t control/lay off. More, some owning groups are more interested in (steady) cash flow than others; it all depends how they are financed (eg bonds, equity, bank loans – and the terms of those). Again, these are things DfT doesn’t seem to study.
@PoP
I controversially think that SWT/Stagecoach have been one of the better operators but are hamstrung by the DfT. This is only going to be made worse by a short term direct award and the uncertainty created by these announcements and CR2. It’s inconceivable that any real progress will be made in the next few years beyond the enhancements that have already been planned. The TOC’s aren’t charities and as ngh has said expect a return on their investment, if the structure is wrong that really isn’t their fault.
Pointless speculation but I do wonder where we’d be if they’d been allowed a 20 year franchise as was mooted in the early 2000’s as that involved serious investment.
Re Fandroid,
Full and standing at Winchester – my father in law can testify to that, it happens most Mondays to Thursdays on his regular morning service.
Two comments, both have been touched on above, but I’ll make them anyway.
1. This is about TfL re-establishing the LPTB, only more so. That they are talking about an area up to the outer edges of the Country Bus area seems to confirm it. Gives TfL more power to fiddle with other people’s affairs, and disenfranchises the inhabitants of the Home Counties who see transport decisions made by staff at the HQ of the London General Omnibus Company (55 Broadway) rather than more locally. In fact it will give LPTB area taxpayers yet another levy to pay, but without representation. Maybe not as serious as 1773, but another step in that direction.
2. Any TOC can run trains and stations to “TfL standards”. Just give them the money and the instructions. Whether that money comes via TfL or direct from NR/DfT/HMTreasury is immaterial. It inevitably means that it cannot be spent elsewhere. All these grandiose schemes for London will be paid for by lower standards and less frequent services in the rest of the country. Money does not grow on trees.
@Fred
You’re quite right about standards however it’s not always as simple as there only being one limited pot of money which can be sliced in different ways. Some enhancements can be cash positive if they attract high ridership and thus more fares income.
There are also other factors for example a cost benefit decision from central government that higher subsidy is worthwhile because it brings greater economic growth. Service enhancements may also bring the possibility of levies on developers, the railway in effect shares part of the increase in land values it brings about. A slightly more arms length version of the original metroland where people other than the railway are doing the development.
The South East has the advantage that high population density often means that if you can finance the initial enhancement then operating costs can break even. Lines in rural Cornwall or Scotland may not have that luxury.
@Fred -can you explain the various references in your point 1? What, for instance, is the significance of 1773,and what is this additional levy on “LPTB taxpayers”? And who are these folk?
@Fred – Ah, the “No democratic control over the decisions” argument. To which I frequently respond “show me where there has been any meaningful local influence on what SouthEastern does.” Or any influence at all, for that matter.
Given that, what counts is how the service I receive can be improved, in the real world. Which is a place where, whilst any TOC might be able to run trains and stations to “TfL standards”, given the money and the instructions, DfT ain’t gonna do that. Ever. The Treasury won’t let them.
Minor comment on a fascinating topic: unless something has changed recently, TOCs are Train (not Transport) Operating Companies (2nd para).
[Corrected. Thanks. PoP]
I hope that this attempt to provide a proper integrated London railway system finally sticks!
Off topic but I do get fed up of ill informed assumptions. Jordan, I’d like to point that we are not perhaps as militant as you and others think. Somehow I’ve managed to get through over five years without going on strike. Maybe people might like to consider that most drivers deem themselves well paid, and put up with rather more stress and difficult conditions than you might think as a result.
As for announcements, our priority is concentrating on driving the train. We have an automatic announcer that could announce connections. Maybe if we’d kept those pesky guards we could have had someone free to devote to such activities.
If the takeover of the Enfield Town services are anything to go by, I am not sure whether any further expansion of TfL services is a good idea. I know we are due new rolling stock by 2018, but there are no signs of any improvement with the timetable both peak and off peak. Two trains an hour off peak is not ‘turn up and go’ and it’s certainly not a ‘metro’ service. Overcrowding still remains a serious issue. An object lesson in how to provide false promises, verging on the disingenuous.
@JB
I think it’s a spectacular failure of expectations management…
Call me a cynic but I have to disagree. It’s a spectacularly clever piece of political spin. An announcement that basically commits to nothing 3 months ahead of a hotly contested mayoral election. Expectations are over-inflated; Boris and the government get some political capital at no cost, Goldsmith might get a boost, but any new mayor is going to struggle to deliver anything before 2020. If Khan wins in May, which seems likely though not assured, he can subsequently be blamed for failing to follow through.
As everyone I think agrees, real improvements to these services won’t depend on what logo is on the trains, what colour the lines are on the map or even whether they’re a franchise let by the DfT or concession let by TfL. The only thing that’ll really make any difference is spending billions of pounds across the network, and even if it can be prised out of developers or a future more willing government, it’s going to take a very long time.
As an ironic contrast to this spinny vision of orange utopia, the third consultation on the Barking Riverside extension quietly closes in 48 hours, and the design put forward provides absolutely no provision for the keenly sought further extension across the river. If it’s ever done, this would have to be a DLR to Lewisham style close-for-2-years-and-rebuild-it-all.
You might want to respond now while you still can.
@golfingmad
The huge step change on the ex-Silverlink services will not be easily replicated elsewhere. The Silverlink routes were particularly run-down and had the track capacity to allow expansion in services and lengthening of trains, which is not the case on most radial routes. (The Wat-Eus line is almost unique in that the LNWR had the foresight, 100 years ago, to build a dedicated line for its inner suburban services – not quite unique, as the GCR and LTSR did it too, but those have been operated by the LPTB and its successors for nearly 100 years).
On the Overground Network maps, interesting efforts at platform-specific route diagrams remain at Elephant & Castle
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nick-weedon/24178943809/in/pool-londonreconnections/
in which the other NR routes are pastelled-out. They are good in context for seeing where you are going in relation to connections with everything else, so could be a useful model for wider use in any devolution project. As these examples stand, they are possibly not so useful those without good eyesight as the pastel is a bit too light. The entire tube is omitted, though the http://www.inat.fr/metro/london/ map would make a good base. An interesting aside is the platform map’s inclusion of Crossrail under construction – with a mystery stop at Stratford International on the Custom House branch – and GN connection to Thameslink. All in TfL type enamel.
Anonymous at 22:32 says “ The only thing that’ll really make any difference is spending billions …“.
Not quite, in my view. Money is the number one requirement for improvement, yes. But the other things, control, branding, franchise/concession status, and so on, do have some importance, in ensuring that whatever money can be found ends up actually improving matters, rather than being wasted or making some shareholders or bankers a bit richer.
@ Golfingmad – while I understand your criticisms I am not sure TfL overpromised anything at the time of takeover. They said they’d refresh the trains, paint and brand the stations, put more staff in and order new trains. Last time I looked all those things have broadly happened or are in progress. We all know new trains take years to materialise. TfL increased Sunday services on West Anglia almost immediately alongside some Greater Anglia improvements. Clearly the timetable had to change for both at the same time.
I understand TfL are negotiating with Network Rail for more off peak paths which would most likely benefit Enfield Town services. However we need to go back to what this new consultation is stressing – TfL can’t stomp round grabbing train paths to the detriment of anyone. Therefore I rather suspect that getting those new paths is proving a tad tougher than perhaps expected. Remember the Greater Anglia franchise is being retendered now so you can’t keep changing the timetable assumptions because bidders for GA will get seriously fed up with having to rework their plans. Also remember that the entire Overground concession is also being retendered and I suspect TfL are now evaluating the bids. The big issue is whether they can reach a conclusion in time for the March TfL Board otherwise they have to wait until July for the next Board because the Mayoral Election causes a stop in such meetings. Purdah also means that service changes and improvements can’t be introduced in May because they could be seen to influence the election process. The new Mayor has to be elected, appoint a new Board and may even be wanting to appoint a new Deputy Mayor for Transport and a new Commissioner. Awarding the new concession in July gives barely 4 months for mobilisation and we know a new company will take over because Arriva and MTR have dissolved LOROL and are both bidding independently. I’m not expecting any big fireworks in terms of service changes until at least December 2016 and possibly not until after that.
LOROL have also got to be certain that they can actually operate enhanced service levels. Rolling stock performance, although better, is not where it should be. I’m still seeing cancellations and short formations. Network Rail’s assets also seem to be creaking too – lost count of problems at Liverpool St, Clapton and Hackney Downs. Don’t get me wrong I’d like to see Enfield and Cheshunt have better frequencies but there are genuine issues for TfL, LOROL and Network Rail to resolve before introducing them. No point in launching with a fanfare for it all to fall flat as we saw happen back in May and June last year.
@ Nick BXN – and “Surrey Canal Road” is shown on that map as a proposed station.
Anonymous
Yes, it’s madness, nut it’s CHEAPER in the short term, isn’t it?
[Barking Riverside extension, that is ]
WW
Yes, we’ve also noted that the signalling/points problems, particularly at Hackney Downs – they thought they’d solved that one – a particularly dodgy equipment-cabinet set on the down side, between HD & the first towards-Clapton tunnel-mouth, but it seems the worms have come crawling out again ….
A previous comment suggested that the slow door cycle on Desiros could be contributing to slow trains and fewer paths. Well, possibly, but most SWT inner London services utilise the ex-BR class 455 and its clones. Desiros generally solve the door cycle problem by not stopping much within London. The Windsor line services are due to get the latest variant of the Desiro. But I doubt if anyone has timed their door operations yet.
As for Winchester, I have a love-hate relationship with the place. Barry Doe reckons that it gets really good value season prices compared wit elsewhere. Is Winchester the successor to Gerard Fiennes infamous Newbury?
Interesting that the full annex is now available regarding TSLO on the Centre for London site. I have some comments, but I will wait for feedback from Monday’s meeting.
Any TOC can run trains and stations to “TfL standards”. Just give them the money and the instructions. Whether that money comes via TfL or direct from NR/DfT/HMTreasury is immaterial. It inevitably means that it cannot be spent elsewhere. All these grandiose schemes for London will be paid for by lower standards and less frequent services in the rest of the country. Money does not grow on trees. – Fred
It’s somewhat more complex than that as the article points out. NR TOCs take considerably more operational and financial risk than a TFL contractor. Higher commercial, risk means expectation of higher profit margins to compensate that. Add to that the possible economies of scale across TFL and it’s quite probable that a certain level of service can be provided more cheaply under the TFL model than under the TOC model. Someone might have figures on that?
Such savings might finance some improvements to services or to station environments.
Customer facing TOCs disappearing in favour of behind the scenes operators will save costs on websites, customer relations and branding (I’ve no idea why Southeastern have just started repainting their trains in a new, ugly, livery) and the churn each time a franchise is renewed.
The free market doesn’t work well in transport around London, so I hope that a TfL prescriptive approach would be better than DfT allowing more leeway for TOCs to change service patterns.
But most of the enthusiasm seems to be grass-is-greener than any practical way the service can be quickly improved in South London
@ Graham H
TfL = Transport for London.
LPTB = London Passenger Transport Board, created by the 1933 nationalisation of London’s bus tram trolleybus and Underground companies, and largely run by the former employees of the London General Omnibus Company who therefore did not understand any of the other components of the system thus created. The cutting back of the Metropolitan Railway and the elimination of its goods traffic are examples of this tactic.
Country Bus area = where the green buses went (that still had London Transport on the sides and a legal owner address at 55 Broadway)
1773 = Boston Tea Party. The row about Taxation without Representation. No Home County council tax payer will have any effective say or representation in the policies of TfL, no county representative will be able to affect the “big picture” just the local trivia in his patch. But “push off back to London” will not be acceptable to those with the message “I’m from TfL, I’m here to help you”.
Additional LPTB levy: There is a TfL levy or element included in all Council Tax bills for those who live within the boundaries of the former Greater London Council. Once the LPTB is re-established, with transport sovereignty over half (or so) of each Home County, then that levy will also be imposed on the Council Tax payers of that area. This is because all the costs of TfL schemes that apply in the areas will have to be paid for (eg rail and bus subsidies). The precedents can be seen where police and fire authorities do not match county boundaries at present, and a separate element for those functions are included in the build up of the council tax bill.
Not sure if that is all the explanation you wanted.
@ MikeP
Local control over railways will always be difficult because of the British history/theory that railways are to be seen as profitable enterprises to be taxed, not social enterprises to be subsidised. Yes, the 1948 nationalisation changed the practice of subsidy but not the theory that it should not be necessary. “Privatisation” is merely a continuation of nationalisation by other means.
Once TfL gets its claws into public transport outside the boundary of the former Greater London Council, the decisions it makes will still be London centric. Only for a bigger area. For that reason it is punting the idea that the Greenford branch should not just be extended to West Ruislip, but to Gerrards Cross. Can you please show me the evidence of the unmet demand for Gerrards Cross residents to go shopping in Ealing by public transport? Thought not.
TfL gets its money from only two sources. One source is what it taxes Londoners for (its bit of the Council Tax). The other is grants from national government. If I understand the figures correctly, it already gets more from the treasury per (whatever-unit-of-measure-you-wish-to-use) than other towns and cities get for the promotion of their public transport. A TfL takeover of the entire London rail systems will only lead to demands for an even greater proportion of the entire national transport subsidy pot than it already gets.
The rest of the nation cannot afford a TfL takeover of the National Rail system in London.
@JohnB
“The free market doesn’t work well in transport around London, so I hope that a TfL prescriptive approach would be better than DfT allowing more leeway for TOCs to change service patterns.”
Does it work anywhere else in UK? Thinking buses, more journeys are made by bus in London than the whole of the rest of England put together. London ridership is increasing, elsewhere is is declining.
Trains aren’t much better and don’t get me started on the customer unfriendly ticketing arrangements virtually everywhere except in Oyster land (although I confess, due to age, not having to pay in London.)
Rant over!
Is there any evidence that TfL is attempting a land grab of “half (or so) of each Home County”. I cannot see any evidence to suggest it is planning to extend any further into Surrey or Kent than it does already into Essex, Herts and Bucks. Most of the penetration into the Home Counties is relatively minor, like Caterham, Shepperton, and Sevemoaks.
And local authority support for local train services is not entirely unknown outside London – see Centro, Metro etc. Many of these routes cross borders too.
“There is a TfL levy or element included in all Council Tax bills for those who live within the boundaries of the former Greater London Council.”
Yes, and e.g Bexley gets a lot less for its money than Barnet does!
Fred,
For that reason it is punting the idea that the Greenford branch should not just be extended to West Ruislip, but to Gerrards Cross. Can you please show me the evidence of the unmet demand for Gerrards Cross residents to go shopping in Ealing by public transport? Thought not.
So that would be a service from Gerrards Cross (lots of parking available) to West Ealing where one could pick up a Crossrail service then? A service that will probably be timed to connect with Crossrail trains at West Ealing. So an easy way to get to the centre of London and the city from North West London and beyond.
I agree I can’t show you evidence of unmet demand for Gerrards Cross residents to go shopping in Ealing by public transport but I could show you much potential demand for residents from a large area to connect with Crossrail by just having to cross the platform at West Ealing – slightly less convenient for the return journey.
@Fed – I know all that, as does the very great majority of the readers of this site but (a) what is the relevance of the administrative arrangements between 1933 and 1948 (b) no one is suggesting reestablishing LPTB (c) arguments deployed by American revolutionaries in 1773 have no relevance whatsoever to the constitution of local government in the UK in 2016, especially as (d) no one has suggested that your imaginary “LPTB” has taxing powers outside the GLA (e) there is no land grab going on – all boundaries remain where they were. Do try and get some facts right…
The direction of travel is clear, but at what speed is the question.
London needs a lot of investment and I suspect that local control will the route through which it will have to be funded. It all depends on how much more freedom London will be given to levy new taxes and/or borrow. [Snip of general and somewhat unrelated topics. LBM]
As London is important, I suspect any greater fiscal powers will come with heavy oversight from the Treasury.
Fred
CORRECTION:
The rest of the nation cannot NOT afford a TfL takeover of the National Rail system in London.
… Otherwise London’s already clogged transport system will fail & we can’t afford that.
PoP
I hope you will excuse me, but I have altered your words, very slightly …
I agree I can’t show you evidence of unmet demand for Walthamstow & Chingford residents to go shopping in Stratford by public transport but I could show you much potential demand for residents from a large area to connect with Crossrail by just having to cross the platform at Stratford.
Cough / oops /etc ….
@Fred
Surely a London centric TfL would promote a Greenford branch extension just to West Ruislip rather than to Gerrards Cross – ie the opposite of what you are suggesting?
Also is there not a third large source of TfL funds – from the fares people pay for their services?
With regard to funding of TfL from central government, the consensus here is that no new funding is on the table to support the sort of improvements that TfL no doubt wish to see, so the transfer of TOC services to TfL must surely therefore be cost-neutral in relation to government funding and therefore not adversely affect people in other parts of the country, contrary to your assertion that ‘the rest of the nation cannot afford a TfL takeover of the National Rail system in London’?
My own view is that even without additional funding a TfL takeover is almost certain to improve things, not least by bringing a focus to inner suburban services where most commentators feel the TOC’s are not that interested and do not make much money from.
One small but important example of an improvement would be that I do not think TfL would miss out crowded commuter stations (like Brockley) every time one of their trains is running a few minutes late, sometimes halving the peak hour capacity at the station as it is then mostly the TfL Overground services that remain. That sort of improvement would cost nothing surely, and yet make a major difference to the daily commute.
Ladies and gents (& Fred & Graham H in particular). Doucement, doucement. There is no reason in principle why elected politicians from outside the greater London area cannot have a “transactional relationship” with the authority responsible for providing some aspect of the transport utility which their voters rely upon to make their incomes. Governance arrangements can be designed to give them a ‘fair say’ based on the contributions (direct and indirect) of their electors.
I recently read that the MP for Woking is campaigning to have Crossrail 2 extended there. I am sorry that he didn’t get the memo explaining that Woking commuters benefit from the various branches (Hampton Court, Shepperton, …) disappearing into the hole. (See ‘A study in Sussex’ and PoP comments up-thread).
Assuming that TfL gets more influence over ‘heavy rail’ in the London region, it seems to me essential that the discussions about development of the network take place in public, including especially here.
See also John Redwood’s points about the need for the railway industry to continue to embrace & deliver technical change and customer benefits.
@Old Buccaneer
The constituents of Woking’s MP would not thank him if his campaign to get them Crossrail 2 resulted in them losing their two-stop dash into Waterloo.
@Brockley Mike
“I do not think TfL would miss out crowded commuter stations (like Brockley) every time one of their trains is running a few minutes late”
SWT do this too – a fundamental difference between TOCs’ priorities and TfL’s is that – probably because of the performance is measured – the TOCs are obsessed, with timekeeping of individual trains (even at the expense of skip-stopping, or thinning out the service to some branches to keep the rest going), whereas TfL would prefer to keep everyone moving, however slowly.
Any organisation given a set of targets will tend to game them rather than do what is ‘right’. The problem is DfT setting the wrong performance metrics. I’d hope the TfL ones are more sensible, like not allowing stop skipping, but there is no inherent reason why DfT couldn’t do the same. In a world of big data, you could design a passenger flow dataset, and extrapolate growth, then design algorithms to minimise passenger delay/annoyance within it without the crude approximations we currently have.
@Old Buccaneer – Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against an ITA for the SE, but it would be so large and have so many conflicting interests as to be unwieldy to the point of being in permanent stasis. I don’t, however, buy the idea that it should include representation based on work location, still less on “economic dependency” – these things are not easy to establish (unlike residence) and would simply divide outcounty communities. [My objection to Fred’s remarks were that they were based entirely on a heap of demonstrably wrong “facts” presented as analysis – to do that is discourteous to readers of this site].
To pick up the implications of answer=42’s remarks, it will be very difficult to find a fair funding arrangement for outcounty services based on first principles. So far, these have been treated as de minimis (the Met and Central) or been dealt with by a dowry between DfT and the GLA. Roseland authorities haven’t been involved because their ratepayers have not (with very minor exceptions) contributed to either the rail services in their area or indeed to TfL outcounty services (Fred to note). So giving them a right of veto over something they haven’t paid for is tricky
Running empty trains past full platforms, or dumping several hundred passengers at a godforsaken station simply because there is a convenient siding to park it in until it is time to take up its path on the return working, makes no sense except to the performance stats. (It may count as a cancellation, but it means the return working can run on time (albeit empty!)
I would not be impressed if Ocado turned up at my door bang on schedule, but without my shopping because they didn’t have time to pick it up, but that is essentially what the performance regime encourages.
Delivery targets for DHL, Amazon etc are based on the consignments, not the vehicles carrying them. So if it can be done for parcels, why not for people?
Oyster data can tell TfL when you have taken longer than is expected to get from A to B (and you get charged for unresolved journeys as a result). So why can’t the data be used to determine how many people (not trains) have been delayed. that f.
@Fred
According to figures on the Bromley council website, TfL levy for a Band D property is £2.21, or about 1/25th of the figure for the fire brigade and just 1.1% of the levy funding the Met police. That compares to £3.00 levied by the Lee Valley Regional Park (!) and a figure of £130.08 for Bromley’s own “Highways & Engineering Services”. I think the costs of the Freedom Pass scheme may be hidden in the latter.
GLA figures give 3.27 million households in London in the 2011 census. If the £700m TfL Operating Grant has to be made up from council tax, that would represent a levy of about £212 on each household (if they were all Band D).
@Brockley Mike @Timbeau
Does the difference in approach reflect whether TfL or Network Rail is the infrastructure provider? The latter’s performance regime usually penalises late running trains, and this would apply whether it was LO or any other TOC.
@John B – I have every sympathy for your argument, but in practice the data isn’t big enough! Counting is usually done at a point rather than continuously along a route,so it would be well nigh impossible to be clear as to how many people were delayed/abandoned case by case.
@Man of Kent
Certainly the south London lines through Brockley are NR and used by both Southern and London Overground. When there are delays, LO almost always continue to stop at all stations whilst Southern choose to skip stops. I guess a lot of the delays are down to NR issues like signal failures so presumably the operators are not then penalised by NR, but regardless, LO / TfL seem to make a choice to service their customers and Southern seem to prefer leaving their customers on the platform at such times and choosing different priorities.
At very busy more-or-less turn up and go inner suburban stations, it is better to maintain capacity than time in my view as a commuter and I am far more confident that TfL would have the same attitude.
@Graham H
“,so it would be well nigh impossible to be clear as to how many people were delayed/abandoned case by case.”
What about entry/exit data from oyster/contactless? Which, as I have already pointed out, already measures how long you took to get from A to B.
@timbeau -yes, it does, but (a) the system is neither “closed” nor universal, and (b) you cannot assume that people’s extended journey times were solely the result of delayed trains. Nor,with a high frequency service can you be sure which train a user travelled on.
@Graham H
It may not be a useful for directing compensation to the passengers, but as a measure of performance
(a) not universal, but will give a representative sample
(b) again, if one person takes longer than expected, it is probably because they decided to linger at Clapham Junction. If everyone does, then it is likely to be a problem with the service, whether the train is late, cancelled, or short-formed and too full to get on
(c) which train(s) they used is irrelevant to how long they were delayed
timbeau,
And this is what I said before. TfL measure totally different things so this helps provide a better service. TfL measure “excess journey time” i.e. the amount of time your journey took longer than it should have done. I believe that is a measure of door to door – if not, it is a measure of entrance to exit – so things such as faulty lifts, temporary closure of stations etc. are taken into account. As you say/imply this approach measures the effect on people not the effect on the train service. And, Walthamstow Writer, I will fully concede that measuring excess journey time is one of the good things to come out of PPP.
So, a lot of improvement could be made simply by measuring the right thing. You shouldn’t have to transfer services to TfL to achieve this. And, yes, Oyster and other contactless cards can provide an almost perfect way of measuring this.
At point (c) = not entirely – you might deliberately choose a slower train as I used to do when travelling from Pinner to Elephant: rather than change at Baker Street on to an already heaving train, I would see whether there was a West Hampstead starter available as I approached Finchley Road and if there was, I changed there to the slower train(the anecdote dates my trips…). A story that could be multiplied all over the system, I guess.
Graham H,
But surely this reinforces not negates timbeau’s point, You deliberately choose a slower train rather than use an already heaving train. If people deliberately choose slower trains because the quicker train is so uncomfortable – or maybe you physically can’t get on – you are measuring something sensible. On an ideal system you would either get the fastest train or at least the fastest train with the fewest changes. OK, I know on an ideal system the train would run non-stop direct but you know what I mean. So this is a measure of the system not being as it should.
@ Fred – if you’re going to give us a treatise on TfL’s funding and precepts then please get it right. I’ll list below what I believe are the sources of TfL’s funding.
– Fares income – easily the largest share of total funding.
– Charges for services like parking, congestion charge, cycle hire etc
– Third party income from property, developments, advertisting etc
– Revenue grant from government. The government have said this will be phased out from 2018 so your moans about subsidised transport in terms of fares or service levels will be wrong within 2 years. National taxpayers will contribute nothing to the operation of TfL’s network. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on that network.
– Investment grant from government. This mostly goes into the Underground with smaller sums going to buses, trams, cycle hire etc.
– Specific funding for Crossrail 1 – government funding, private sector contributions, community infrastructure levy.
– The TfL precept – this raises the grand sum of £6m from Greater London council tax payers. As I have said umpteen times on here that barely pays the TfL Directors’ bonuses. You could double it and it would make next to no difference to TfL’s finances. Therefore scaremongering about the Home Counties being precepted is nonsensical and without foundation. I rather suspect it would require primary legislation and I simply cannot see a Conservative Government openly putting through legislation to tax people who are mostly to vote for their party!
If you have read the DfT / TfL joint prospectus you will have noted that there are no proposals for extra taxation. You will also have noted that the Government expects more money to come from farepayers – this means everyone in Greater London is expected to have their fares rise to pay for this. You will also note that it is also expected that revenue surpluses and private sector contributions will be used to pay for the investment to improve services. Finally you will also note that the government will NOT allow TfL and the Mayor to do things on fares that create adverse effects for those in neighbouring authorities. Therefore your fares will go up just as much as those in London will. I trust you will be suitably delighted at that prospect.
There is also little or no suggestion in the prospectus that TfL will be allowed to run wild on its own. The whole thing is predicated on consultation and a partnership with DfT. As the Secretary of State retains the final say on all National Network matters then I just think your references to “TfL getting its claws into the Home Counties” are ridiculous.
Criticise the proposals all you like but please can we have some semblance of a relationship to what has actually been stated in the document. I have my own criticisms of it and I may have speculated too negatively for some people but at least I was working within what was actually written!
@ 100 and thirty – regrettably bus patronage in London is declining. TfL are about 30+m pass jnys under target and do not expect to claw this back by 31 March 2016 for the current financial year. The last set of national bus stats showed that London’s growth has pretty much flatlined in the last couple of years. We’ll get the bad news around May when TfL should release the detailed stats and year end numbers. The impact of road works across Greater London and increasing traffic levels are to blame for the fall in bus patronage. Would you use a bus that was going to take 20-30 mintes to crawl through Elephant and Castle each morning? Note also several routes have been diverted or cut short of Aldgate because of the works there.
Oh and for those thinking that TfL sponsored rail services don’t skip stop in times of disruption or terminate in “the middle of nowhere” then I’m afraid both LOROL and MTR Crossrail both do this on the West Anglia / Shenfield lines respectively. Many instances of it on West Anglia since LOROL took over. MTR do it less often but they’ve had dreadful problems recently meaning lots of trains cancelled, turned short or skip stopping. I assume there are contractual consequences for doing this but let’s not run away with ourselves and imagine it doesn’t happen. Far fewer instances of it on the former Silverlink Metro lines IME and from what TfL tweet about the service but others may have experienced it on those routes. I suspect there is rather less scope for it on the “original” Overground routes given the frequent stops and lack of “fast” tracks.
Surely it isn’t beyond the wit of man to combine contactless entrance/exit data and train performance data day to work out overall* passenger journey metrics for the London area on any given day?
*By combining data across hundreds / thousands of passenger journeys, you minimise the effect of any anomalous passenger journey e.g. a passenger taking longer because they decide to stop for a coffee at a platform kiosk.
@Man of Kent – Yes indeed, the annual TfL levy per househol in Band D for Southwark is also only £2.21, whilst that for the fire brigade is £50 and for the Met. Police £209. Remarkably, the total Council Tax precept for 2016-7 is unchanged for the seventh year running, whilst Government grants have been cut.
Incidentally, the Southwark website also mentions that the “Lee Valley Regional Park is a unique leisure, sports and environmental destination for all residents of London, Essex and Hertfordshire” and so we have to contribute towards that as well. I bet that most in Southwark, let alone Bromley, neither know that nor care to visit it.
London Overground don’t have much scope to skip stations during disruption as their drivers don’t sign the fast lines from New Cross Gate. They simply cut trains out until things die down. It’s not a matter of different priorities for different TOCs, they all want to keep their service as intact as possible. Just running everything late does not work, it just causes massive stock and crew disruption. Skipping stops is not something that is done lightly; it is done for the purpose of trying to recover the service. No one pretends it is a satisfactory state of affairs.
@ PoP – I may be out of date but I believe EWT for the Tube is measured from entry to exit so it does cover problems with station and train assets and how they affect entry / egress times, platform wait times and in train travel time. Each aspect is weighted – a crowded train is more uncomfortable to travel on or be delayed in than one with fewer passengers. I believe the recording and measurement of every incident that delays people and calculating lost customer hours contributes to the daily calculation of EWT. For those suggesting that daily numbers can just be churned out it is worth pointing out that human beings have to record incidents, verify the details and then find out precisely what went wrong. It takes a few days (or did) so you don’t get a reliable EWT for Monday by the end of Monday. It may take a few days for everything to be bottomed out. The full facts have to be known in order for the overall data on EWT to be of any help in developing strategies to prevent reoccurence and to direct future resource / investment decisions. The team that used to do the incident recording and data entry also did the EWT work. It may have changed since I left LU.
I’d venture to suggest that daily Oyster data is unlikely to be good enough, given the lack of route info on the tube network for many trips in / through Z1, to give accurate disruption values for stretches of the network. Other more detailed survey data will give a more static but reliable basis for line usage with better station to station numbers. It would be good to know just how Oyster / contactless data is being used by TfL to give greater insight into a range of issues across the modes.
@WW – 23 Jan 23:50 – Further to mine above and your explanation of funding, for useful background for others, here is the link to the Southwark council tax page and then click to view the pdf:
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4089/your_council_tax_201516
Pages 6-8 provide tables of income and expenditure and the GLA precept details.
I had to smile at your comment: “Would you use a bus that was going to take 20-30 minutes to crawl through Elephant and Castle each morning?” because I have oft related this sorry tale to PoP through my personal and unfortunately frequent experience, usually at night. Indeed after the last Blue Posts meet-up night, it took some 20 minutes at around midnight from seeing the 68 I was intending to catch at the Bakerloo Line exit, waiting for it to reach the bus stop and then to reach the bus stop at the Northern Line exit around “The Bend” (formerly the Northern Roundabout). With hindsight, I would have caught the 68 in front by leaving the Bakerloo train, traversing the Northern Line platform and exiting the Northern Line exit! But it is little better these days during the day. All this so-called planning and resultant disruption at the Elephant has a lot to do with cyclists so I’m told….
Re Brockley Mike,
LO (excluding WA routes taken over last summer) operate simple diagrams and due to their routes this is fairly optimal use of stock and staff. Southern (and the other TOCs south of Thames) have more complex route networks and optimise stock and staff use by using non simple diagrams in the peak. Resilience doesn’t factor highly.
A Brockley example for you…
One of the am peak Victoria to London Bridge service was previously a Horsham to Victoria via Mitcham service and the goes on to form London Bridge to Victoria shuttles till the evening peak.
The next service from Crystal Palace then goes on to form a London Bridge to West Croydon service with the preceding London Bridge to Victoria (that thne goes on to form one of the other LBG-VIC shuttles formed by one from West Croydon to LBG that previously ran VIC to West Croydon via Selhurst.
Any surprise it frequently goes wrong!
Simplifying the diagrams for resilience would require more stock and staff just as LO found with WAML to effect operate a segregated service not involving Greater Anglia or TfL rail services.
P.S. Can you imagine the scenario from the days when the South London trams were still running, when several routes split at Kennington/Oval to run (1) via Kennington Road, Westminster Bridge and one way along the Embankment to return to Kennington via Blackfriars Bridge and the Elephant and (2) vice versa (a 5½ mile loop), all trams being required to meet and rejoin their trunk routes outwards in exactly the same order at Kennington as they left them!? That was in the days when 175 trams an hour traversed the Embankment. 375 trams per hour traversed the Elephant complex serving the various central routes and termini anyway. Now imagine how that discipline could ever be achieved today because of the Elephant chaos, albeit sadly not unique.
Re. ngh at 01.15: And to add an example from another route with which ngh is familiar, at least one of the Southern Metro services runs from Victoria to West Croydon calling at all stations via Crystal Palace (usual, regular service) but then continues out to Guildford!
WW at 23.50 on 24th Jan.
I had an inkling that bus journeys in London weren’t currently meeting budget and that traffic and road works as a cause. I hate taken it as a blip in a general trend. I still think that regulating public transport by an organisation with the skills to provide a network is a good thing which was the main point I was trying to make (clearly poorly) and illustrate with the bus example.
@PoP -actually, I very much agree with you about the usefulness of the EWT metric, taking it as an aggregate, strategic measure. It doesn’t answer the (in my view, too difficult) question about why my specific train is late, but attempting to answer that together with the whole new army of delay attribution specialists employed by all parties, is a reflexion of the silly way that franchises have been specified. This is what comes of seizing on something built for one purpose and trying to use it for something else. Delay attribution had – and still has -its internal use for railway management,but as a basis for explaining, let alone compensating the travelling public and other TOCs, no. Full marks to TfL for getting it right!
@100and thirty – not a blip, alas. Taking this month’s TLB as a representative sample of changes to timetables and pvr, we find that the 135 186 187 228 302 316 209 386 54 51 and 96 all have extended running times to improve reliability, or widened headways, not to mention those routes which have been affected by roadworks. And so the sorry tale goes on from month to month.
[Note to moderators – for some reason, my laptop decided to post my stuff before it was complete. Feel free to delete earlier incompleteness. Personally,I blame Windows 8 and not operator error… but no doubt the delay attribution clerks will sort itout]. [Done]
Graham H
Similar bus-route problems in Walthamstow & Leyton, due to LBWF’s road-works & so-called “mini-holland” massive screw-ups.
I’m told that the 48 can take 40-45 minutes to get to/from Walthamstow Central to the roundabout at the W end of Lea Bridge Rd these days (!)
@Greg T – the miracle is that anyone uses buses at all these days. (having just spent 40 minutes travelling from Oxford Circus to Piccadilly – had we known in advance…)
On skipping stations to catch up: LO does do this – just last week at Hoxton a late Highbury & Islington skipped the intermediate stops, forcing a run of 3 Dalstons (one before and two after the non-stopping train) before I could get a Highbury. Fortunately, with the frequency on that part of the line I was only put out of joint by 15 minutes.
On declining bus journeys in the last couple of years, I think it could also be a due to a combination of the rollout of Oyster & contactless on NR, and LO consolidating ridership. On well served NR routes, it’s just as easy to hop on a train as a bus now, and on some non-zone 1 corridors, (e.g. Clapham – Peckham) LO offers journeys that would otherwise involve a change of bus, so effectively 4 times faster for half the price (at off peak rates). To turn this disadvantage of the bus around would require being able to do single direction trips and change without paying again, or discount combined bus-and-tube/rail single journeys before hitting the daily cap. Just like the other modes do already.
To back up NickBXN, twice I have been waiting on the northbound ELL platform at Canonbury, and a train with passengers on it has passed through without stopping heading for Highbury & Islington. BTW the ELL reliability seems to me (unscientific sample I know) to have become markedly worse since terminating SLL trains at Dalston Junction and replacing Highbury bound trains with ones originating from West Croydon. Anyone know if this is a fact or just my mistaken impression?
I would have commented on the 2050 article, but it is locked. Fred made a point about the Greenford Line being extended to Gerrard’s Cross, which is backed up by Briantist’s 2050 map. This service would be very crowded with 2-car trains. Can a 4-car service be accommodated on the stations between Greenford and West Ealing?
On the matter of the Barking Riverside extension and its lack of getting across the Thames, isn’t this the same issue as the discussion about Hayes and Waterloo on the possible Bakerloo extension? The Riverside development is planned to have such a large population that services – at least as far as Barking proper – will be overloaded from the start at only four trains an hour.
Graham H “having just spent 40 minutes traveling from Oxford Circus to Piccadilly” Somewhere around 1977 I was on a routemaster which took an hour and forty minutes to get from Marble Arch to Piccadilly Circus. It’s not just a new thing! (Back then I alighted a few times to shop in the big stores and found the same bus standing outside where I’d left it, so stayed on!)
@ 100 and thirty – I understand the wider context point you were making and that’s fine. I also don’t object too much to central planning. I’ve recently read an excellent book about “Privatising London’s Buses” which has some excellent insights and observations of what happened through the 80s and 90s. The general view there was that a planned network has advantages.
My wider concern about London these days is that I think people are being deterred because the traffic is awful, journey times longer and in some cases overcrowded routes. The lack of meaningful expansion and improvement for almost 8 years means the network is not as effective as it could be even if it is more financially efficient than it was in 2008 (i.e. less subsidy needed). I have route by route stats for the last 14 years and routes serving some parts of London (Central, inner SE London) are losing patronage and others have flatlined suggesting something’s wrong when you consider population and tube use is rising. There may well be transfers between modes as suggested by NickBXN but I still think something else is going on. If it is then I can’t see where the strategy is from TfL and the Mayor (current and future) to do something about it. Transfer tickets will simply mean more subsidy (lower revenue) unless the market is far more elastic than I think it is. The new TfL Business Plan is the thing to watch to see what the projected revenue, cost and annual kilometrate numbers are. We’ll soon see if the promise of “500 extra buses” has evaporated or not. Hopefully not but I’m not holding my breath. And just to drag thinks back to the core topic we will also need to see if the same metrics have been maintained for tube, Overground, TfL Rail and DLR. There will also be big questions for the future bus network if TfL does manage to secure control of more parts of the rail network.
@AlisonW: That is a good insight. However, one contrast between the two situations is that at Lewisham there is at least lip-service being paid to the idea that the line might be extended in the future, if something changes to make that sensible (although of course we have not yet seen the detailed Lewisham plans). Whereas at Riverside, putative extension appears to be being deliberately prevented by design of the final station.
@ Ian S – isn’t the 2050 reference to the Gerrards Cross – West Ealing service in the context of a prospective Chiltern Railways service and nothing to do with TfL or Overground? As PoP has clearly said there is some context for such a service if people wish to connect into the wider possibilities offered by Crossrail especially to Heathrow given DMUs can’t run through the tunnels (even if paths were available). I know you didn’t reintroduce the issue into this thread but all we can safely say is that it’s an idea “under consideration” by someone, somewhere. It’s hardly the end of the civilisation as we know it if Chiltern want to run to West Ealing. It would be a partial competitor to the A40 bus service run by Carousel Buses from G Cross into Heathrow. And just for the OP’s benefit, not yours, the 2050 Plan is a City Hall document not a TfL one. TfL will have assisted in its development but so will have plenty of other organisations.
On the buses, a contrast between congestion in 1977 and in 2014 is that we are supposed to have had, in the recent past, joined-up thinking between the issues of road congestion and bus service. In 1977, I think, these were the responsibility of entirely different groups of people.
It would be good to do something useful with the Greenford shuttle. It isn’t a busy line but does take up paths between Paddington and Ealing Broadway.
@Ww
“For those suggesting that daily numbers can just be churned out it is worth pointing out that human beings have to record incidents, verify the details and then find out precisely what went wrong.”
@anonymous
“done for the purpose of trying to recover the service”
Both of these comments are looking at it from the operators’ point of view. The measure of performance should surely be what was provided, not how quickly th trains were running on time again.
The client does not care whether the delay he suffered was because a particular train was cancelled, skipped his stop, missed a connection, or was too full to get on. What matters is how much later he got his destination than he had a right to expect.
Whether the train he eventually used was on time is irrelevant.
Conversely, if I turn up at 0815 to catch the 0818 and discover that both it and the 0803 are running 15mins late, I am not delayed at all.
Likewise, holding a main line train for a connection off a branch may delay several hundred people by five minutes or so. Not holding it may delay fifty people by two hours.
@Hedgehog The Greenford shuttle is planned to be cut back to West Ealing as part of Crossrail plans with work currently underway at West Ealing to build a new terminal platform. This cut back raises questions as to its long term viability unless plans are made to install platforms on through lines at Greenford which currently have semaphore signals and is mainly used by freight trains.
As to falling bus use then how much of this is due to Borisbuses which have same failing as Artics had the ability to enter by centre and rear doors without paying and thus trip not recorded ?
Of course I hold a paper Travelcard but if I enter by these doors my journey is not recorded while those with Oysters / contactless cards have choice of whether to touch in or not and while their were only 400 Artics we now have over 600 Borisbuses and rising !
@Hedgehog
“the Greenford shuttle………….does take up paths between Paddington and Ealing Broadway.”
It won’t once the bay platform at West Ealing is in use. Indeed, the need to change twice to reach the District Line, or go out to Greenford for a direct connection to the Central, are unlikely to stimulate an increase in ridership on the branch!
As for plans re transfer of rail to TFL the media seem to think this will be just like with the original Overground and nasty private companies will disappear !
However, plans could see train services still run by the same TOCs but all stations ( except mainline ) transferred to TFL to own , manage and develop a process which would a low the Mayor of London to plan upgrade and development of stations with some funding coming from private developers.
A recent example announced by TFL was plans to build flats at Northwood Station on Metropolitan Line and use income generated to fund lifts for step free access at this station.
These plans are basically similar to the setting up for Transport for The North transferring Northern and TPE to councils in Northern England or plans to transfer local services in West Midlands to Centro .
Crossrail 1 has shown how TFL and the Mayor have raised funds through development of sites and Section 106 payments from developers has raised a large part of the cost of the scheme thus needing less government funding .
While for Crossrail 2 George Osbourne has offered to cover half the costs if TFL could find the rest. a deal former TFL boss Sir Peter Hendy thought was a fair deal.
WW
losing patronage and others have flatlined suggesting something’s wrong
Yes, vast road-works, road-humps causing pain to the “halt, the blind & the lame” & in fact anyone, even of NOT “disabled” status – & then claiming that its all “for the cyclists” & wondering why bus-patronage is dropping.
timbeau says: “…holding a main line train for a connection off a branch may delay several hundred people by five minutes or so. Not holding it may delay fifty people by two hours.
This “choice” is often quoted, typically with the subtext that the formerly frequent practice (of holding) is better for passengers-in-general than the now-more-frequent practice (of not holding). So it may be, but the comparison also shows up several weaknesses of crudely accumulating passenger delay minutes.
One is that a five minute delay is unlikely to seriously disrupt anyone’s overall activities (unless it happens to cause them to miss another infrequent train elsewhere), whereas a two-hour delay is a serious disruption by anyone’s standards.
But another weakness in the “accumulation” approach pulls in the opposite direction. If there is insufficient recovery time available, the 5-minute delay directly experienced by passengers on the held train may be far from the end of the story, as passengers miles away and hours later may be delayed by knocked-on effects – it is very difficult to include these in the calculation, let alone the breakdowns which might (occasionally) arise as a result of missed train maintenance slots.
This is not to say that total delay-passenger-minute statistics are completely useless. But they are sometimes a rather crude measure.
@Melvyn -however dislikeable the Borismeisters may be, they represent only about 7% of the buses in use in London,so I don’t think their introduction will have had a material effect on bus useage generally.
@timbeau – crayonistas (and Castlebar!) have long regretted that the Central wasn’t extended to Greenford via West Ealing but I can’t imagine the business case these days. Still…
Graham H
As with New Cross to Grove Park, there is a bottleneck between Ealing Bdy and West Ealing preventing easy joining-up of a TfL service and an under-used branch line. In both cases, if more capacity were built though that bottleneck (e.g bakerloo to Lewisham) via there are better potential uses for it
@timbeau -yes, I knew that (having lived in the area for many years) – you’d need to cut back the embankment on the north side at the cost of substantial property acquisition – hence my reference to crayonistas and the improbable business case.
Time for an article on mini-Hollands to clear the air???
Otherwise, I fear we’re going to get a drip drip of moans from motorists, disguised as concern for pedestrians!
If we’re tunnelling under Ealing Broadway and connecting at West Ealing, there would be a better business case to make it the District Line that goes to Greenford. After all, the Central Line already goes there.
I suppose it could be funded by new housing. The stations along that line have, in theory, very good connections to Ealing Broadway and all the jobs there, not to mention the connection to Crossrail. They are hampered by lack of train services. Improve the services and there will be demand for decent apartments by young professionals.
Problem is Timbeau, as ngh pointed out, is that the stock is needed for its next trip. By running fast or turning back earlier it may make the return trip on time and more importantly, its next trip which may be on a different route. It could be a balance between inconveniencing the 25 still on the train rather than the 100 waiting for its return. There are also working time regs for the crew and the crew’s diagrams to be factored in. This is not just a simple matter of being nice to the driver. If the driver cannot reach his next working on time, that train may be blocking a line by being stuck at a platform; and if he can’t get to his break on time, his next train may have to be cancelled because he cannot ignore the rules and not take a break.
As Anonymous said it’s far from ideal and no one does it lightly. But what is the solution? Your idea that performance of what was provided rather than end to end timings should be the measure does not solve the fundamental problem of trains and drivers being in the wrong places at the wrong time. It’s a bit of a myth that TOCs run fast to improve their PPM figures. Every stop missed counts as a cancellation with the resultant fine. It’s done to try to stop the entire day’s schedules unravelling. Yes, that is from the point of view of the operator. But that is also to the advantage of passengers waiting for later trains who may face a cancellation otherwise. It affects a minority of services, and I know that’s no help when it’s your train that’s affected, but the operator has to take a wider view, like it or not. I have also known extra stops be inserted to trains to make up for such skip stops and early turn backs, so the passenger is not entirely forgotten.
If stock stayed on one route all day, and crews were stationed in more places to step in as needed, then the problem would be lessened. But then there are issues of how much the extra stock costs to build, maintain and stable, how much it would affect platform occupancy at termini reducing overall line capacity, how much it costs to have large numbers of drivers idle just in case etc etc. It can’t be the economics of a private operator, and even if TFL takes the hit, it would be irresponsible to use public money thus. The only solution is to make timetables and infrastructure as bullet proof as possible but even then there are still so many unpredictable events to respond to.
@Hedgehog – my comments were designed to discourage crayonism of that sort.
@Graham H
Yes, it’s crayonism. But that doesn’t make my second paragraph wrong. West Ealing will provide a connection to Crossrail but it’s still a crying shame that stations so close to Ealing Broadway have infrequent services there now and will need to change trains at West Ealing in future.
@hedgehog
“stations so close to Ealing Broadway have infrequent services there”
Bus services from that area to Ealing Bdy are quite comprehensive, go closer to more people’s houses, and are more frequent. Over the distance involved, that will, for many people, more than compensate for the slower journey.
Indeed, even if you ran a train every fifteen minutes, you could walk from Castlebar Park to Ealing Broadway in the time between one train and the next!
@GTR Driver
“It could be a balance between inconveniencing the 25 still on the train rather than the 100 waiting for its return.”
Indeed, but what happens too often is that it also inconveniences the 500 people on the platform that it sails past in the peak direction, just so it can get to London in time to run its counterpeak return leg on time. Or terminating two stops short of the junction with the main line, dumping 1000 peak flow passengers there with no onward connection until the next branch train (which is already full!) and sitting there (an expensive asset not being used) for an hour or so waiting for its scheduled return path to catch up with it, when it sets off back to the outer suburbs, completely empty because the people who would have used it had no way of getting any closer to it than the junction two stops away.
I do appreciate that drivers hours and stock displacement matter, but other essential industries manage to arrange cover for such disruption – they have to, given that many of their staff can’t rely on the trains to get them to work on time.
timbeau,
I can’t speak for South West Trains but, in my opinion, Southern seem to do this quite intelligently from what I can see. Mind you I have heard stories from ngh about London Bridge and also ones from Graham Feakins that suggest the opposite.
The worst culprit and frequent occurrence, I am told, is terminating short at Birkbeck instead of Beckenham Junction. This should not be a problem as one can use the tram to get from Birkbeck from Beckenham Junction if one has allowed enough time. However I am told that the train just comes up as “Cancelled” at Beckenham Junction. If it came up as “starts from Birkbeck at xx.xx” and “Use tram to get to Birkbeck” it would not be so bad.
I can’t vouch for what happens nowadays at Beckenham Junction but when I worked there, many years ago, staff showed very little interest in what happened on the line to Crystal Palace. I expect, if anything, it is worse now as they are Southern trains and the station is run by Southeastern. So I don’t imagine there will be any helpful announcements.
@ timbeau – I’m sorry but I don’t understand your apparent grouse with my comments. As I was describing an internal process then of course it is the operator’s view. However the bit you choose to miss is that LU measures the impact on passengers of every single recordable delay / failure and then the aggregate impact on excess journey time. It was certainly the case that individual incidents and delays were fully investigated to identify what had gone and why. Despite the public not knowing the timetable the fact that LU tracks and records the movement (or not) of trains means incidents can be / were played back subsequently and see how things went against the working timetable. Perhaps I’m just a deluded old tube passenger but it always struck me that the management teams and engineers were analysing the right things and then went on to tackle them. There was also further analysis in amongst the “noise” of shorter duration incidents to try to refine performance further. As you will appreciate this sort of thing is vital if you trying to run more than 30tph. As a user of the Victoria Line for over 30 years I’d certainly say today’s operation is vastly sharper and more focussed than it was before. The renewed assets obviously help but we don’t have the dreaded 5 minute crew changes at Seven Sisters anymore.
Aside from the fact that all industries will have limits as to how much work they can afford to cover, they do generally not bear comparison with the operational side of the railway anyway. A hospital ward will still function with staff sickness, the other staff end up working harder. An office can cope when someone goes on leave, the non vital work piles up and someone else picks up the slack. A train needs stock and a crew, without either of these, it’s cancelled. There is little slack in the fleet as a proportion of it is always in maintenance. Spare drivers are primarily designed to cover leave and sickness, and there are rarely any left to cover those stuck in the back of beyond on another train. Other industries can cover slack by reallocating existing staff or hiring in temps. These options are not open to the railway so sometimes it has to take regrettable actions to maximise stock and crew availability.
@WW
“your apparent grouse with my comments. As I was describing an internal process then of course it is the operator’s view. ”
Not intended as a grouse. TfL have it right in this regard – what matters is the net delay to the package/passenger. The internal processes are of course necessary to track down why it happened, and how to stop it happening again.
TOCs, with their regulator-driven obsession with punctuality of trains rather than people, seem more concerned with getting the trains back in order than how many people are on them.
@Malcolm
“One is that a five minute delay is unlikely to seriously disrupt anyone’s overall activities”
And there may well be sufficient recovery time to make this five minutes up anyway. I have had the misfortune to miss a connection (doors shut in the faces of fifty would be passengers) only to see on the National rail website that the train that “didn’t have time to wait” actually arrived at the terminus – without us – seven minutes early!
Of course, there is another incentive not to maintain connections: the compensation due to those passengers is paid by the TOC operating the late incoming connection, even though if the outgoing one caused 95% of the delay by not honouring the advertised connection. So it hits your competitor’s bottom line.
@GTR driver
“Spare drivers are primarily designed to cover leave and sickness, and there are rarely any left to cover those stuck in the back of beyond on another train.”
Perhaps there should be. Other industries do. The railways used to.
@ Melvyn 1838 – we all know you don’t like NB4Ls but please try to stay grounded. Sales of paper travelcards are declining. Their use is probably not remotely material when producing route level patronage stats. TfL doesn’t rely solely on Oyster / CPC touch ins when it comes to estimating route level patronage. There are surveys and other checks.
Furthermore there is no demonstrable pattern as to patronage changes on routes that are run with NB4Ls. Some routes have had increases, others decreases and it is frankly impossible, using aggregated annual data, to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion as to what is going on with routes unless there are significant frequency or route changes. These tend to have marked impacts but changes to bus type rarely do. Interestingly, given your comments about people not touching in on bendy buses and NB4Ls, there are marked *increases* in usage on bendy bus routes after their introduction and falls on some routes when they were converted back to double deckers. Now there may be other reasons for those changes but it doesn’t quite square with the “folk lore” of everyone dodging their fare on open boarding buses. I rather suspect quite a lot of it was down to population changes and economic growth but it’s hard to go back to the mid noughties to find out.
I have looked at the published data in quite a lot of detail across a vast range of routes trying to find reasons for changes in the numbers. In creating my big database of numbers and other info / calculations I have to be honest and say my “reasons” for changes are simply supposition on my part. I have zero proof as to why usage of any route went up or down although it’s reasonably well known and documented that frequency increases will typically drive up patronage for about 2-3 years. Ditto a route extension that creates new links. However you can’t ignore the effect of the economy plus a myriad of local factors like housing, shopping, healthcare and leisure facilities changes which also alter patronage. Ditto for roadworks having short term impacts. There’s just no way that an amateur like me can ever have good enough knowledge to understand how these factors have altered in any part of London. I’d even be slightly doubtful as to how much TfL themselves know – more than I ever could certainly but do they have locally based bus route usage intelligence gathering sources across London? I doubt it.
@timbeau
Financial incentives can’t explain the regular practice at Ashford whereby a connecting service (run by SouthEastern) will shut its doors and leave on time, just as a late running incoming connecting service (also run by South Eastern) is opening its doors at the adjacent platform. Nothing apart from right time statistics would appear to explain that.
A great review. As a now retired director in London local government, having come from the private sector, I have over a decade of experience of interfacing with TfL.
Lots of talk, all skills reliant on bought-in consultants and all at the London tax-payer expense. This TfL transport pipe dream appears once-again to be based on naive expectation of public sector apparatchiks with zero commercial experience.
A disaster in the making, head-in-the-sky hopes, no apparent delivery capability and limited hands-on experience of railway operations (please don’t cite the DLR as it is all run from a computer in Poplar) with us poor Londoners having to foot the bill. Keep away please TfL.
Quinlet. South Eastern is not alone. More than once I have caught a Saturday night HST from Paddington intending to catch the timetabled connecting last train from Reading to Newbury only to find that the HST is running late and the Turbo has left without me (and a dozen or two others). Result? Only one late train in the stats instead of two and a lot of unhappy passengers standing about in the cold while the station staff try to rustle up taxis. What makes this practice even more indefensible is that the last train is timetabled to set down only at all stops so it is not as though there are passengers waiting to be picked up. (Of course all the stations are unmanned so people *could* get on but that is another matter).
Although I do understand that stops are skipped for perfect valid reasons, and that is what happens on the majority of occasions, I’m sure that sometimes it is due to some ill-conceived operating rule, or just blind panic. If there’s a problem on the Quarry they’ll try to squeeze everything through Redhill, and skip Coulsdon South and Merstham, and sometimes Purley too. The consequence in the evening peak is as inevitable as bindweed in a poorly tended garden. There’s a cavalcade of trains pausing at every signal post before queuing for what seems forever to pass through Redhill. The resultant transit time between East Croydon and Redhill is such that every train, Gatwick Expresses included, could call all stations. All that is achieved is that Coulsdon and Merstham passengers are abandoned to find their own way home, and Southern’s reputation with these good people plumbs new depths.
@PoP 24/1 22:27 – I have certainly witnessed that one first hand. Even stranger when it happens on an (already truncated) service starting from South Bermondsey, as in the pm peak…
Great analysis, only comment I would make is the following (triple negative?) may benefit from rewording:
“it is hard not to suspect that the current government may not have felt that taking some wind out of those particular sails wasn’t something of a potential bonus.”
[Wasn’t me. It was John Bull. I looked at the report and couldn’t think of much to write about. Which shows how two people can read the same thing and have completely different perceptions. I will leave it to him to unravel the triple negative. PoP]
@PoP
“The worst culprit and frequent occurrence, I am told, is terminating short at Birkbeck instead of Beckenham Junction. This should not be a problem as one can use the tram to get from Birkbeck from Beckenham Junction if one has allowed enough time.”
That does make some sense, as long as time is allowed to get from Becky J to Birkbeck.
But starting a Shepperton train from Kingston (two stops along the branch) almost guarantees it will run empty, as there is no way to get to Kingston from anywhere further “upstream” in order to join it. It would be as pointless as a shuttle service to Tattenham Corner from Woodmansterne (rather than from Purley)
Re Tim,
Or even South Bermondsey to Palace with reversal in P2 when really desperate to get things back on schedule (have only seen this twice).
I attended the Centre for London “Turning South London Orange” meeting today at 1 Plough Place this morning.
The meeting was attended by Steven Norris (Conservative candidate for Mayor of London in 2000 and 2004 and former MP) who has been heading up the TSLO and Isabel Dedring the Deputy Mayor for Transport.
A show of hands in the room showed over 99% support from those attending for TSLO, which you might expect. There was a little concern from a Sutton (Surrey) councilor about service out in Zone 5.
After a presentation of the report, the questions to the panel were generally sensible (aside from a misunderstanding of “freight path” for “disused railway”!)
Isabel Dedring did confirm that the plan was to “use orange” for the new stations (subject to consultation).
There was much technical discussion about the provision of capital funding and signaling system upgrades.
Also, it was apparent that the TfL-DfT agreement was based on the understanding of no loss to outside-the-GLA stations.
Battersea Bark
Also worthy of note is the following document that contains the much-needed “ANNEX: TSLO discussion paper on new stations and interchanges” mentioned in the report:
http://centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Passenger-demand-proposed-main-schemes-and-new-stations-interchanges.docx
It gives the 6 new station locations as:
Battersea ‘Bark’ (51°28′43.53″N, 000°08′39.30″W);
Beddington (51°21′49.50″N, 000°07′56.32″W) – re-opening of long-lost Bandon Halt;
Camberwell (51°28′26.97″N, 000°05′50.66″W) Thameslink not Overground;
Lewisham ‘South’ interchange (51°27′37.67″N, 000°00′55.97″W)
Clapham East/South Battersea (51°28′11.31″N, 000°09′23.57″W)
Tooting St Georges (51°25′22.87″N, 000°10′25.66″W) for the hospital
And four interchanges:
Brixton town Centre station (51°27′47.83″N, 000°06′50.85″W)
Brockley Interchange (51°27′54.32″N, 000°02′15.17″W)
Penge interchange (51°25′03.26″N, 000°03′39.02″W)
Streatham interchange (51°25′15.85″N, 000°08′16.18″W)
Additional facilities at existing stations:
Imperial Wharf south bank entrance;
Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road extra plaforms;
Balham, Clapham Junction, East Croydon and Norwood Junction operational platforms possibly required.
Is now an opportune movement to suggest freeing up paths etc by resurrecting the plan to extend Tramlink to Crystal Palace (station)? Thereby double the Tramlink line all the way through to BJ, and the BJ-CP route could be a discrete entity and possibly allow increases in tph on the Overground route from CP?
Tim,
Problem is that with the increase in usage already predicted it is going to be a struggle (politically) to run at least 26 trams per hour (tph) east of East Croydon with the effect it would have on road capacity. Another 6tph, or more realistically 8tph to fit in between future trams on other routes, would be a really hard sell.
Anyway, in terms of freeing up paths, what would that achieve that a shuttle between Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction (either tram or train) wouldn’t?
@Briantist Is the lack of concern from Sutton (Surrey) because it’s Sutton (London Borough of) so the Mayor is accountable and TfL already run most of the services (non heavy rail)? And the borough would like TfL to provide more…
I notice in that discussion paper the titbit: “We have noted and support the TfL proposal to double the Thameslink loop services via Streatham, Wimbledon and Sutton, from 2tph to 4 tph each way. TfL considers that this additional frequency should be feasible with the extra trains starting and ending their journey at Blackfriars.” – so using the bays as intended. A sign of things to come, perhaps?
Also, until I read the paper I thought “Battersea Bark” was a typo … :O
@Walthamstow Writer (22 January 23.44). I understand the points raised, indeed these issues were discussed along similar lines in another article last year. However I think you really hit the ‘nail on the head’ with regard to cancellations and short formations. There is no excuse for this. A significant improvement in services would be achieved if these issues were addressed. As you know, the problems in this regard with the Enfield Town and Cheshunt services are well documented.
With regard to this article, it would be unfortunate if the chaos on the Enfield/Cheshunt services were replicated elsewhere in the expanding Overground network. The passengers on the Lea valley lines may be treated with contempt by TfL staff, but I rather doubt the residents of Dulwich or Sydenham would let them get away with it. Or indeed any of the other leafy South London suburbs that may be served in future by the lurid orange logos of London Overground.
[Condescending language has been removed. Yellow card. There is no place for such language on this website. We realise transport can be an emotional subject, but we really strive to keep LR a fact based discussion, not an emotional one. LBM]
I assume “Lewisham South” would only be used by the services running via Hither Green, so more services can bypass Lewisham (“North”?), simplifying the patterns. Presumably, the DLR (and Bakerloo) would also be extended to the new station, otherwise it won’t be much of an “interchange”, as you can just as easily change between the Dartford Loop and Tonbridge routes back at Hither Green.
*
The Penge East/West interchange is also an interesting choice. I’m curious as to the rationale for this one. I can understand the desire to encourage more orbital journeys, but I’m not convinced the Overground’s timetable and short trains will interface well with the flows generated by the Chatham route’s much longer, but not that much less frequent, trains.
Also, while the two routes do cross directly above the Penge Tunnel’s southern portal, the ideal “T”-shaped interchange station one would like to see here isn’t an option given the track layout. (See the bottom photo and its caption for details.)
A roughly “L”-shaped station complex seems plausible, with a bit of a walk between the two; effectively replacing Penge West with a new station on the opposite side of the bridge over the A234, while Penge East is re-sited a couple of hundred yards closer to the Penge Tunnel portal. Unfortunately, this also means both stations will be even further away from the centre of Penge itself, which isn’t going to win many friends.
(Perhaps there’d be some justification for re-siting Kent House a little closer to Penge at the same time, so that the latter gains a much more convenient station just round the corner from the town centre. A site with entrances on both Kent House Road and Green Lane would be a good fit for this.)
@Joe-curly-hair. A number of TfL-related matters that you obviously didn’t quick up in your decade’s interfacing with them:
1. The TfL capital and operating grants come from Central Government, ie UK taxpayers, not just London taxpayers. The operating grant is, incidentally, being removed completely.
2. “limited hands-on experience of railway operations”. I think you’ve forgotten London Underground.
3. TfL wouldn’t directly operate the much-extended London Overground.
Hope that sets a few thing straight for you.
@Steve – to which one might add that TfL London Rail was staffed at least at its senior levels by ex-BR operating managers but it seems Joe-curly-hair may not have met them.
So, to reiterate, since the word “election” doesn’t appear nearly as much in these comments as it probably should: –
– Today is 100 days to the mayoral election. Not long, but it’s neatly just before the campaign really gets going and the electoral lockdown when politically-sensitive announcements come with extra rules.
– Khan is favourite to win but Goldsmith is in with a shot.
– Last week’s announcement seems positive but lacks substance. It doesn’t really commit anyone to anything, but it does bathe Boris and the government in a positive (orange) glow.
Personally I am of the view that last week’s announcement was 99% politics, 1% transport. This is setting up Boris to take credit for future London rail improvements but to be able to blame failures on his successor(s). This is setting up the Conservatives as favourable towards public transport and in touch with long-suffering commuters to boost Goldsmith.
[As usual, the caveat about being careful when straying into politics applies. Most of this is acceptable although not encouraged but one rather nebulous unsubstantiated line giving an opinion deleted and another straying on to other non-transport potential election issues also deleted.
As just one guideline, if a comment makes it clear what your political preference is then it is probably unacceptable. PoP]
@ Golfingmad – well my sense of things, given I don’t see the detailed stats, is that West Anglia started off very badly then improved and then during Autumn there seemed to a dip down but not as bad in the immediate period after transfer. There was a mix of Network Rail and TOC issues and depending on the week it was more one than the other. Since Christmas it *seems* to have calmed down somewhat. This suggests NR have found and fixed whatever was causing repeated failures. I suspect the programme to deal with the rolling stock woes is continuing but with old stock you never know when the next nasty might emerge – especially on the ex Stansted stuff which was laid up for months. They’re pretty horrible to travel on if you have to stand – I had the grave misfortune of having to squeeze into one at Clapton in the PM peak. Ugh.
I don’t think TfL is treating anyone with contempt. The relevant people have been dragged in front of the Transport Committee to explain what’s gone on, questions have been asked of and answered by the Mayor and there are regular Twitter sessions to ask questions. There are also quarterly TfL reports where summary performance is reported. I’ve asked Mike Stubbs (Head of Overground) loads of questions via Twitter about what’s gone on. I always get an answer. Can’t recall any of that happening with Greater Anglia or One or WAGN. I doubt you will agree with what I’ve said and that’s fine – we clearly have different experiences and opinions.
I’m genuinely disappointed that LOROL had such a bad start on West Anglia but it’s not the same now as it was back then. I also think TfL had quite a shock and a wake up call and that lessons will have been learnt. They can’t afford a repeat in future. However being realistic it is possible that it may because any existing TOC facing a transfer away of services may well not be keen to spend any money in the dying months on rolling stock. There’s an obvious risk there and it will be interesting to see how DfT and TfL (in their new partnership mode) work to prevent such poor behaviour. There may also be a role for the ROSCOs here given TfL could become a very big customer for them in future.
@WW – Regarding the West Anglia aspect, I wasn’t confident that LOROL was sparkling when it took over the South London Line and I made an FOI enquiry to ascertain just how many times the route had been closed between takeover in 2012 and Jan 2014 (usually because of NR engineering works). My enquiry and answer to it can be read here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lorol_engineering_works_surrey_q
As an aside, note the comment within the reply: “However please note that Network Rail are not subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and therefore are not obliged to provide the information you require.”
However, are they now, since NR have effectively been brought back onto the Govt. books?
@AlisonW – “…support the TfL proposal to double the Thameslink loop services via Streatham, Wimbledon and Sutton, from 2tph to 4 tph each way. TfL considers that this additional frequency should be feasible with the extra trains starting and ending their journey at Blackfriars.” – so using the bays as intended” – Well, that is precisely what I have been suggesting all along; so, 2tph terminating at Blackfriars plus 2tph running through.
For one reason or another, however, I have found that my suggestion was either ignored (mainly on LR) or I was told that it was not feasible. I wonder what has changed and I wonder whether that will satisfy the ‘anti-Wimbledon Loop through services group’.
Re. the divergent discussion above on buses and bus/Freedom passes, this July 2015 House of Commons Briefing Paper on the topic may be of use to study:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01499/SN01499.pdf
There is a section covering London.
Re Graham 2346,
That assumes that the terminating platforms haven’t been filled with other services before then…
Re ngh – See what I mean? Tee-hee.
Graham Feakins,
For one reason or another, however, I have found that my suggestion was either ignored (mainly on LR) or I was told that it was not feasible. I wonder what has changed and I wonder whether that will satisfy the ‘anti-Wimbledon Loop through services group’.
Well not me for one. I find it highly amusing that TfL make so much of simplifying routes in South London and getting rid of things that cause problems yet they haven’t got the guts to suggest this on the one route where I suspect the greatest benefit for the least cost (in terms of number of passengers adversely affected) lies. This makes me wonder if they ever would face up to the political storm of trying to do this on other lines.
I for one wish they would hold back on the extra two trains an hour and use it as a bargaining chip to only be played on the condition the other two trains per hour don’t go through the centre either.
I think one of the problems when you suggested this before was you suggested this was a compromise. But it isn’t that. It is an addition that both sides are in favour of. A compromise is where both sides sacrifice something they want but the other side doesn’t in order to reach agreement. Nothing is being sacrificed here by those that want through trains.
@PoP – The through services would be sacrificed if all were to terminate at Blackfriars. However, if the original desire for all the increased service were to run through then there would be a compromise if only half do.
However, I erred in my comment at 23:46. AlisonW was correct in referring to increasing the service from 2tph to 4tph *around the Loop* but that of course adds up to today’s 4tph running through Blackfriars, plus another 4tph terminating there should the loop service be increased to 4tph in each direction, resulting in 8tph running between Streatham and Blackfriars and not what I stated.
We have been through this bit before but surely two terminating platforms at Blackfriars can cope with 4tph arriving and departing between them, plus a few other services requiring to terminate and depart from there.
You: “I find it highly amusing that TfL make so much of simplifying routes in South London…” – and so do I, especially as several termini each with effectively a single operator today would have to share with TfL in the future!
Graham Feakins,
Now having 4tph in both directions around the loop going through the centre in one direction and terminating in the bays in the other would be a massive outbreak of sanity and a true compromise. You have the same number going through the centre, you have additional services and you have also done the vital thing of decoupling one journey through the centre from the next one although recovery time is limited unless there are one or two critical turnback locations – either existing or can be created. Wimbledon station, being a single track, must be one turnback location but you need others.
I suspect that this is what TfL really meant but it was reported second hand and the significance of this subtle but critical difference was lost. As far as I am aware this is not what you previously proposed and you were adamant the existing service should be unaltered – “No sacrifice” (Ian Paisley style).
@PoP – The original proposal did not envisage an increased service around the loop but we were led to believe that what there was would remain as through services and thus the existing service would be unaltered. That is common ground.
However, the increased service proposed around the loop is one I suggested because there was a perceived demand for it, along with calls for doing similar with the 2tph Catford Loop services.
What you now propose is one I hadn’t considered but in a way reflects what was done in pre-Thameslink days but at the country end, when there wasn’t actually a Wimbledon loop service as such. In those days, there were two services (ignoring the Victoria ones), one running Holborn Viaduct to West Croydon via Streatham, Tooting, Wimbledon and Sutton, and the other running London Bridge via Streatham and Mitcham Junction to Sutton, with connections between the two services available at Streatham and Tulse Hill.
Re: discussions about delay attribution, PPM, etc.
I think a one-liner I heard once from (IIRC) an expert in performance management who is convinced everything we do at present is wrong-headed is especially relevant here, much as it is in performance management in the NHS:
“Once you turn a measure into a target, it becomes useless for either purpose”
Braintist
Any hope of translating those geo-coordinates into National Grid References?
Much easier to find, often.
Alison W
Yes, IF people on “the loop” in Wimbledon (etc) want 4 tph, they can have them if & only if they terminate at Blackfriars – would probably do wonders for overall reliability, too!
Golfingmad
Not “contempt” – much more likely to be either ignorance ( Kept in the dark by management, as in “Mushroom Management”) or bad training & instructions.
I have encountered both, more than once.
And it’s not fair on the TfL platform staff, either, because they are getting it from both sides.
Anonymous
Mayoral Election
Y’all recommended to look at Diamond Geezer’s post of today ….
A neat table of supposed promises is set out for your delectation – with a lot of “transport” in it.
Pedantic of Purley 26 January 2016 at 01:25
” – “No sacrifice” (Ian Paisley style).”
reminds me of the reason he was alleged to travel by air and rail.
“All roads lead to Rome”.
Re: the Wimbledon loop 4 trains to Blackfriars, 4 trains through the centre idea – YES PLEASE.
Re Graham F,
The problem is that swapping services between the eastern and western pairs of tracks between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars eats into the total capacity available. If you assume that paths through the core will be maximised this then reduces paths into the Blackfriars bays. So when allocating the other reduced available capacity why should other routes (including not Thameslink or Blackfriars ones due to the interconnected ness of the network) potentially suffer because the Wimbledon loop users made a (bad) choice?
The original NR aim seemed to be as many through platform services from Catford Loop and as many terminating platform services via Herne Hill thus helping maximise capacity at Brixton Junction and Herne Hill as well as between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars.
If you now want 4tph through and 4tph terminating at Blackfriars then SE passengers lose out so possibly they should be asked about what they think with the ability to make suggestions about how overall capacity could be optimised by Wimbledon Loop services not going through the core without informing anyone on the loop about the consultation or consequences? 😉
If you want to maximise capacity into Blackfriars, Victoria (SE) and London Bridge via South Bermondsey then the Loop services have to terminate in the bay platforms at Blackfriars the question is who going to try to make that change first?
ngh,
I had forgotten that the trains would still be on the wrong side of the tracks. I suppose the issue is whether this would actually reduce capacity or just reliability. I suspect having only two terminating platforms at Blackfriars would be a bigger issue so, although illogical to swap the loop services from one side to another (and consequentially have to swap an equivalent number of Catford loop services as well) I wonder if this is just one of those things that has to be “lived with”.
More back on topic, this avoiding this unnecessary swapping of tracks is precisely the sort of thing that everyone seems to be in favour of to improve reliability, capacity etc – until it affects their service.
Re PoP,
The consequences also include increased weekend closures for maintenance of the switched crossings.
“(and consequentially have to swap an equivalent number of Catford loop services as well)”
But you can’t as you reduced the capacity so a smaller rather than equivalent number would be swapped back. The most logical thing is then more SE services via Herne Hill (stopping or semifast) and more fast Victoria services via Catford Loop which then destroys plenty of potential for many of the cheaper / easier TSLO gains but the analysis boundary didn’t take into account SE in detail only SC including some TL and only looked at current rather than 2018 timetable (which TfL may not have fully grasped yet)
Changes to the Wimbledon Loop decision now effectively involves consequences for SE and burghers of Kent as proposed for formalisation late last week so good luck…
@PoP – yes that is what I think I meant (but not put particularly eloquently)
Was thinking along the lines of taking over the branch entirely and thus trying to extend Tramlink actually into the NR station at Crystal Palace, but have had a look at the carto.metro map and this would seem a bit silly if not impossible given the station layout and the knockon effect on Gipsy Hill services at least?
Perhaps it is just better to keep the NR service as a (higher frequency) shuttle between the three stations as you say.
Objective being to my mind, to improve Beckenham Junction passengers’ access to the London Bridge line, rather than improve access to Crystal Palace per se. Any regular trains via the Beckenham spur seem to be ruled out indefinitely given the longstanding issues at Lewisham.
Seems a pity that the Norwood Spur was removed, otherwise it may have been possible to utilise this for a Tramlink (or heavy rail) terminus, running into the disused platform.
@Graham Feakins: Network Rail became a public authority for FOI purposes on 24th March last year.
I haven’t seen any mention of the VIC-LBG route. Is there any scope to improve this service, as a great suburb to suburb connection? Or is it more likely to get cut back for route rationalisation?
@PoP
“More back on topic, this avoiding this unnecessary swapping of tracks is precisely the sort of thing that everyone seems to be in favour of to improve reliability, capacity etc – until it affects their service.”
There are two solutions to the swapping of tracks problem, both of them currently being demonstrated in the Bermondsey area.
The Greenwich Line solution – don’t send anything to Charing Cross.
The Brighton Line solution – spend billions of pounds build a diveunder to allow the tracks to be swapped over without conflict.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to send the Brighton trains to Charing Cross and the SEML ones to Blackfriars?
@Anonymous
“I haven’t seen any mention of the VIC-LBG route”
Do you mean the old South London Line? Now diverted at both ends. Recent platform extensions at Battersea Park would prevent it running to Victoria again, and the reduced number of terminal platforms at London Bridge would make it an unwelcome guest there.
Direct services Vic – Peckham Rye and Peckham Rye – London Bridge are still possible. End to end is quicker by changing at Westminster. And Clapham Junction is a more useful interchange than Battersea Park
Key to the problem with running Wimbledon loop services through the Thameslink core is that Blackfriars was rebuilt on the assumption that Wimbledon loop services would be terminating in the bay platforms. A key driver of this being that the Wimbledon loop cannot take 12-coach trains, whereas maximising capacity through the Thameslink core means as many trains as possible being 12-coach. It’s very difficult to find a detailed service plan Thameslink post-2018, but all indications are that the peak hour stoppers on the north side will see no increase in the number of services, so any capacity increase can only achieved by lengthening trains – if half of them can’t be lengthened because they are destined for the Wimbledon loop then I foresee a service recast once the trains can be lengthened.
Re timbeau,
Anon could be taking about the current VIC-LBG via Palace service as they appear to be talking about a current service if so the TSLO proposal is to dismember it on simplification grounds – probably as it take lots of passengers where they want to go without changing.
The problem with TSLO is that there are probably too many passengers who loose out as the alternative offering is not as good as the current situation.
Re Tim,
The Crystal Palace Tram proposals didn’t use NR infrastructure in the Palace area.
timbeau,
Wouldn’t it have been easier to send the Brighton trains to Charing Cross and the SEML ones to Blackfriars?
You have suggested this before so I will give the same answer I gave to you before. Yes it would be easier but what would it really achieve?
From South London we already have good access to the West End with Victoria and good connections onwards. Giving us Charing Cross as well isn’t really a great deal and when we lost our direct off-peak trains to Charing Cross from Tattenham Corner and Caterham (2010?) I don’t think anyone was bothered that much.
On the other hand South East London really needs Charing Cross to get to the West End as, unless you are going via Chislehurst Junction, there is no realistic alternative (I don’t regard via Lewisham – Victoria as a major route and relatively few people use the trains that do run on it). Of course Crossrail would help some of them in future.
The track and signalling (and bridges) from London Bridge to Bermondsey needed replacing anyway so the additional cost is not that great in railway terms. The disruption has been awful but for three years disruption we do get a far better mix with a decent east-west and north-south route instead of a south-west and east-north route.
Recent platform extensions at Battersea Park would prevent it running to Victoria again
No, it wouldn’t. All that does is stop it calling at Battersea Park as part of a through route to Victoria. It could still go via Stewarts Lane, for example (and it could even call at Battersea Bark).
Greg Tingey at 08:19 “Any hope of translating those geo-coordinates into National Grid References? Much easier to find, often.”
Highlight the lat and long on your screen. Right-click and search on Google. Select “map” in the results and you get a map with a handy arrow.
@pop
Exactly – where there’s a will……
I was highlighting that overcoming the capacity constraints caused by swapping of tracks (as on Wimbledon/Thameslink core services, or indeed Greenwich/Charing Cross) would be very expensive. If you want Wimbledon trains to run through the core you either have to accept the capacity constraints or build a “Camberwell Diveunder”. The money was found to do it at Bermondsey. As it was (by building the flydown) to allow Lewisham trains to get to Charing Cross.
It is after all, far cheaper to let people switch from one line to another on foot than to build a grade-separated junction to let the trains do it for them.
@PoP
“a through route to Victoria… could still go via Stewarts Lane, for example (and it could even call at Battersea Bark).”
So it could!
Re ngh
Yes I was referring to the VIC-LBG via crystal palace route. Thanks for your thoughts.
Re Anon,
The alternative replacement service proposed for Crystal Palace is :
Victoria – Norwood Junction 4tph (reverse in P7 which is currently out of use)
Victoria – Crystal Palace 2 tph (reverse in P2)
London Bridge – Tulse Hill – Palace – West Croydon 4tph.
Overground Palace – Highbury and Islington / Dalston 6 tph
So plenty of footbridge use at Palace…
The major losses:
London Bridge via New Cross Gate (the VIC-LBG route) being replaced by LBG to East Croydon 6tph (assumes more capacity available at East Croydon than NR are planning post early 2020s rebuild) to replace all southern slow services via New Cross Gate.
No Beckenham Junction or Birkbeck, you would have to change at Norwood Junction.
@Broiantist
“It gives the 6 new station locations as:
Battersea ‘Bark’ (51°28′43.53″N, 000°08′39.30″W);
”
That’s where Battersea Park station is. I had understood the proposed station to be on the “Ludgate” line between Clapham Junction and Wandsworth Road, but it seems to be proposed for the Chatham lines.
“Clapham East/South Battersea ”
That location is more than a mile WEST of the centre of Clapham!
….. and I thought that you couldn’t top Battersea Bark as a silly name.
@Greg Tingey
“Any hope of translating those geo-coordinates into National Grid References?”
The NGRs (the new number-only sort) are in the document:
Battersea ‘Bark’ (OS 528968, 177166), Beddington (OS 530123, 164398), Camberwell (OS 532234, 176738), Clapham East/South Battersea (OS 528139, 176149) , Lewisham ‘South’ interchange (OS 537960, 175366), Tooting St Georges (OS 527071, 170916); Brixton town centre station (OS 531104, 175499), Brockley Interchange (OS 536418, 175839), Penge interchange (OS 534940, 170512), Streatham interchange (OS 529577, 170762)
The lat, long I posted can be pasted into Google Maps (other mapping software is available).
Interesting that London Midland doesn’t feature in the franchises – considering LM franchise is due to expire in 2017, the time may be ripe for a TfL grab on the St Albans Abbey Line.
Also worth noting that Southern, now subsumed into the Thameslink/Great Northern monster, runs north as far as Milton Keynes. Now that Gatwick airport has been brought within the Oyster zones, can we hope for a TfL-managed cross-London MK-Gatwick route?
Another thought – if the (possibly overenthusiastic) Evening Standard headlines do come true, and the entire network turns orange, how do TfL propose to differentiate London Overground lines? With Underground-style names (North London Line etc)? Or, given that it might be a stretch to come up with punchy names, will they start using New York MTA-style numbers/letters – take the A train to Richmond?
Re Disappointed Kitten,
The pre-tender consultation on the LM franchise is already underway so too late for anything orange to happen on LM soon, ditto C2C. Anything orange on LM is likely to align with HS2 phase 1 opening.
Hints that TfL might want to cut back the Southern WLL MK service to Watford.
@Walthamstow Writer. Thank you for your comment and additional information you have provided.
Although my contribution has been heavily revised with words substituted such as the word ‘contempt’, this was not the intended flavour of my prose (although I would agree the original words chosen should have been more carefully selected). I readily accept that there tend to be problems and issues with a new service. We are all hopeful that, with the new rolling stock from 2018, things will rapidly improve.
To LBM. Thank you for the injudicious substitution of words in my previous comment. The yellow card is unnecessary. I will not be commenting on this blog again.
DK/ ngh:
I think the question of the Southern-WLL-MK service has been raised before and the key issues were:
– it uses the slow lines from Croydon to Clapham Junction and the West London Line – not one but two lines that are (a) congested, (b) used for passengers almost (?) exclusively by all-stops services and (c) whose passenger services would be entirely under TfL if the Southern services including the WLL service were transferred; and therefore appears a logical fit with a transfer to TfL.
– it is not possible to divert it on to the fast lines due to the track layout at Clapham Junction
– IIRC, it would be difficult to switch to the fast lines south of Croydon in order to serve Gatwick
– currently has a logical southern terminus for transfer to TfL, but the same cannot be said of its northern destination
So there would seem to be more of a logic, both in operational synergy and definition of what kind of train service it actually is, in favour of transfer to TfL and curtailment in the north, than tending towards extension south under either TfL or DfT oversight.
Obviously that doesn’t help anyone in MK wating to get to Thornton Heath without changing, or in Norbury wanting a direct service to Gatwick.
And of course I could be wrong.
I don’t see the present LM services as being of any interest to TfL, because they already have the two tracks of the six track WCML that they need for the inner suburban all stations stoppers.
Watford to St Albans is completely outside the GL area of responsibility. Why would they want that?
Those two points alone probably account for LM not being mentioned at all.
@Disappointed Kitten. I was forced to wait the full 15 mins between Clapham Junction trains at Denmark Hill last night. I was pleasantly surprised to see that GTR had numbered all its services on the route map where I was waiting. IIRC it was 1 to 8. Perhaps they will take the giant step and use the numbers in announcements and on train indicators (I won’t hold my breath).
That Centre for London document had some seriously bold (and expensive) proposals. They even picked up on one of our regular’s notion of putting the fast trains in tunnels to avoid massive underground station costs. Even so, we’re talking billions here.
However, if a series of big spend proposals can be wrapped up in an ‘exciting’ and apparently unified plan, then it’s always possible that it will fly if the backers keep up the pressure (like Crossrails 1 & 2 ?).
Apropos the Croydon-MK service, I think we should focus not on what the operator wants – so very 1980’s(!) – but on the customers who seem to value this service very highly. If you don’t believe me, try travelling on a peak service!
I think this should instead be treated as a test case for the TfL/DfT partnership to ensure that customers who use such services that do not sit neatly within one or the other domain don’t get treated badly.
@ 130 19:51 ISTM there are *two* members if the TfL Board with *specific* responsibilities for this. You might want to contact them directly, with specific facts. Just sayin’.
I am inclined to agree with the basic sentiment of Golfingmad. The TfL takeover of the services from Liverpool Street through Seven Sisters has been abysmal for the many and varied reasons that Walthamstow Writer touches upon. This includes not just the disimproved service but the lack of commensurate communications either online or locally at the relevant station. I also fear the much heralded, new rolling stock in 2018 will strip out the bulk of the seating, leaving many commuters with 30+ minute standing journeys. It is unfortunate that London Overground is still trading on an old reputation earned, somewhat justifiably, by turning around the moribund Silverlink line and that the media do not compare the facts on the ground against the glowing press releases.
I occasionally take the South Croydon – Milton Keynes service from Clapham Junction to Shepherd’s Bush. It is very crowded there but a lot of people get on and off at the same time I do. I don’t know how many continue north of Watford Junction.
@disappointed Kitten
LM is not considered for the same reason that C2C and Chiltern are not – the local services in London on the WCML, LTS and Chiltern lines have been operated by TfL and its predecessors on separate tracks since 1915, 1932 and 1889 (in the latter case before the main line was there!).
Why would the GLA want to operate the Abbey Flyer? What next, the Marlow Donkey?
@ timbeau
The people of Sudbury and Rainham would like to point out that TfL don’t run their local services but the TOC does. The Chiltern route that is shared with TfL has one stop between zone 7 and zone 1.
c2c is exalted as an example of how to run a railway, and Chiltern’s omission seems to be the same.
London Midland’s omission is twofold (and striking given the Overground to MK due to the Southern service): first is the one you mention of Overground already running the inner service. The second is the Crossrail to Tring plan.
Re Si,
When is Chiltern due for refranchising again?
Hint – after the new mayor is possibly no longer mayor…
C2C and Chiltern have the longest outstanding terms so there is not much point in doing anything yet and TfL will struggle to improve on both without major effort.
Re Hedgehog,
Exactly lots of passengers are Clapham – Bush at most and cutting back might make it significantly more reliable.
Any way they can’t cut it back as they will incur the wrath of Mumsnet Whitgift Branch but Southern don’t seem to have forwarded that memo!
@SteveL – “Key to the problem with running Wimbledon loop services through the Thameslink core is that Blackfriars was rebuilt on the assumption that Wimbledon loop service…. A key driver of this being that the Wimbledon loop cannot take 12-coach trains, whereas maximising capacity through the Thameslink core means as many trains as possible being 12-coach.”
Except that there will be 60 8-car and only 55 12-car Class 700 trains for Thameslink services and somehow I can’t see the Wimbledon loop services taking up that many of those 8-car sets, even considering the stations served by Wimbledon loop trains north of the river.
In any case, the bay platforms at Blackfriars can also take 12-car trains, so whatever happens, one may see more 8-car sets passing through Blackfriars than 12-car ones.
@Pop (and ngh) – “I had forgotten that the trains would still be on the wrong side of the tracks. I suppose the issue is whether this would actually reduce capacity or just reliability. I suspect having only two terminating platforms at Blackfriars would be a bigger issue so, although illogical to swap the loop services from one side to another (and consequentially have to swap an equivalent number of Catford loop services as well)”
Quite frankly, I wouldn’t be concerned about that because it happens all the time at the moment. Just go to:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/
and enter Elephant & Castle for a weekday morning at 0700, go to the detailed view and discover services via Denmark Hill using the western pair of tracks and Wimbledon loop/Croydon services via Herne Hill using the eastern pair almost indiscriminately. Reason? Flexibility provided by the multiple sets of crossovers between Loughborough Junction and Blackfriars.
If that has long been accepted practice, which I know from travelling the route over many years it is, then why not use the switches provided for the purpose for which they were intended?
Indeed, I am mystified by ngh’s subsequent comment “The consequences also include increased weekend closures for maintenance of the switched crossings”, since there are hundreds of switches all over the place and they can be maintained without weekend closures. If what ngh says is true, we’d never see trains running at weekends. Oh, hold on… Moreover, I was always taught that the life of any particular switch could be increased by evening out the use in each divergent or convergent direction, thus to use them for their intended purpose would actually reduce rail wear and thus maintenance.
Re Graham F,
In brief – The need for switched (moving frog diamond) crossings on the route to increase speed limits when swapping between the pairs of tracks. These require more maintenance than points or fixed diamond crossings. NR really hate them and avoid using them if they can…
Todays timetable is not the late 2018 one.
You also effectively lose the efficient use of 2 of the 3 crossing points once you have ATO and non ATO stock and 16tph via LBG and ideally need the ATO stock to be on the Eastern pair before they get to Elephant going north (or cross at Southwark Bridge Jn but with a clear run ahead on the western pair.)
ngh,
Any way they can’t cut it back as they will incur the wrath of Mumsnet Whitgift Branch but Southern don’t seem to have forwarded that memo!
But they did that last December. No Watford Junction/Milton Keynes services terminate at South Croydon any more. Does make you wonder if they really needed to do the track and signalling changes a few years ago. There is still a solitary one that terminates at Purley (as opposed to East Croydon) towards the tail end of the evening peak.
I don’t think mumsnet cared about those particular trains. It was the gap in the service to South Croydon than encountered their wrath. Easily sorted out with the annual timetable change but more difficult to fix with the timetable already in place and already amended to try and sort out London Bridge issues.
Graham Feakins,
In any case, the bay platforms at Blackfriars can also take 12-car trains
True, but unfortunately Elephant & Castle can only take 8-car trains (maybe ultimately 10-car trains with SDO). Although probably sensible to build 12-car platforms for failed Thameslink trains etc. I do wonder how often we will see a 12-car train in them.
I understand that extending platforms at Elephant & Castle is one of those cases where it would be almost impossible to do without spending hundreds of millions of pounds.
PoP
Yes
If you look at a bird’s eye view of E&C, like HERE, & you can see that you would have to significantly widen the viaduct at one end or the other, & thereby demolish quite a bot of property. It’s quite a tight squeeze at present.
@Si
TfL is concentrating on routes which are substantially within the GLA area.
Having TfL take over C2C just because of Rainham, or Chiltern just because of Northolt Park and its neighbours, would be very much a case of the tail wagging the dog – the same way as it would be to EXCLUDE the Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines just because of Dartford. There are certainly difficult borderline cases – notably the Weybridge via Hounslow and the Hertford East via the Lea Valley line, but the Wycombe and Shoeburyness lines are just as firmly on one side of it as Caterham and Hampton Court are on the other. That is not to say that TfL shouldn’t work with the operators on improvements to station facilities and services to those stations (as, conversely, local councils already do to some extent with TfL on its services which stray beyond the 1965 borders), but taking over the whole operation would probably be a step too far.
PoP and Greg,
E&C is technically a very short 8 car (1 platform is only 7) as the length of platform with a permitted minimum working width platform are ~3m “shorter” than an 8 car unit. Hence bigger works than you might at first think but…
Using 100% of stock with in cab DOO monitors would be big win as the current DOO monitors make large lengths of platform at each end too narrow to use (for example 25m of the current middle island at the southern end). If the bridges were replaced at either end you could get 11 or 11.5 cars on each side platform with very limited demolition platform. Without DOO Monitors you could get an extra 35m to the north of the centre island easily.
Graham Feakins,
Examining the current split of 8-car vs 12-car of the new Thameslink stock is a red herring – the numbers were modified following the decision to keep the Wimbledon loop services routed through the Thameslink core.
Yes, I do have a bee in my bonnet about that decision – the Wimbledon loop users staged a campaign and got the result that they wanted without users on the north side even knowing that there was a campaign, else we could have staged a counter-campaign. This is why I would like TfL to be given responsibility for these services, even if Thameslink slow services remain part of the Thameslink franchise, I see no reason why TfL can’t take responsibility for specifying the services, effectively deciding which services use the fixed number of paths through the core.
Re Steve L,
You presumably know that 4tph through London Bridge (hence nothing to do with the loop) will be 8 car as opposed to the maximum 12car lengths so only 12tph of 12 car and 12tph of 8 car through the core?
Platform lengthening at some stations would be needed on both ECML and MML routes to increase services from 8 car the problems aren’t just south of the river.
One does suspect they were hoping to see if they could leave it for a while after 2018 before having to do anything but given the growth in users lately they might have to bite the bullet rather sooner if TL fills up very quickly.
@timbeau
Absolutely the geography on the LM route would be a reason for its omission, but I don’t think it was the reason as the reasoning for other, similar, routes doesn’t take it as a factor.
c2c’s omission was its excellent record, rather than geography (Grays is barely outside the border), and Chiltern’s seems to be the same (franchise length is probably the main factor, but that’s linked to performance). Wycombe and Pitsea (ditto Tring) are no further out than Dorking, are as far out as Amersham and Chesham, and are closer in than Reading or Milton Keynes – geography isn’t the driving factor with these routes.
The omission of the GWR and the line through Tottenham Hale is clearly due to future Crossrail operation along them, rather than geography. The lack of proposed Orange roundels at Tring (ignoring the MK – WLL service that are exactly that) is therefore most likely due to the proposal for Purple roundels.
As ngh suggests, TFL would be on a hiding to nothing taking on C2C or Chiltern in the near term. On the other hand, Southern’s recent performances suggests that quick improvements (and therefore good PR) would be easy on Southern.
@timbeau 13:00 – “….EXCLUDING the Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines just because of Dartford would be a case of the tail wagging the dog.”
Unfortunately (potentially), for Dartford and other commuters, the tail is already being quite vocal. I can only assume he missed the memo from KCC. And my letter from mid-2014.
…..and in any case Dartford’s fast services (that come from the Medway towns) are unlikely to be included. (cf other outer suburban stations with fast services, both within the GLA and without, such as Surbiton and Sevenoaks)
Very interesting and informative comments as ever! Probably about to break that mould now but….
If the Thameslink station now under consideration at Camberwell Station Road is re-opened, which trains would stop there – via Wimbledon loop or would it be flexible? Perhaps as part of a deal to get extra trains on the loop, putting up with this extra stop might be a bargaining chip as well as terminating these trains at Blackfriars.
Also wondering if the much-needed extra trains via Crofton Park could route to Blackfriars from Bellingham (rather than to Victoria) and also stop at this new station? No doubt passengers on existing services into Blackfriars would not be happy with this extra stop, so it would suit being combined with new services.
Generally I still think, having read the comments, that even if TfL may not or would not be able to create massive improvements, they would still be able to have a far more joined-up approach than the current regime delivers, thus they might consider the points above in an overall network context.
I know people have said DfT / Network Rail / TOCS could do the same, and that should be true logically, but is the evidence there to indicate that their focus lies in that direction?
timbeau: “Wouldn’t it have been easier… – Shush! Next someone will be telling us to put our collective crayons away.
Disappointed Kitten: Why would TfL want to take control of the Abbey line? Entirely in Hertfordshire, needs lots of money before even a small improvement could be made. Waste of time and effort, I’d suggest.
Golfingmad: “The yellow card is unnecessary. I will not be commenting on this blog again.” Your choice, but we _all_ follow the same guidelines here and don’t flounce off when we get a comment deleted or ‘adapted’.
100andthirty: Sadly there was no Croydon – MK service in the 80s; I’d have been a daily user if there had been! Instead it was train-tube-train via Euston and Victoria.
@MikeP – “the tail is already being quite vocal.” not sure I find that simile pleasant…
@Alison W – concerning Watford S Albans, apparently Herts have a through service to Euston in mind (which might, I suppose, attract TfL interest), although NR’s initial proposal came in at rather more than £25m just to rebuild Bricket Wood and install a loop. The problem there is the usual compliance issue: so long as it’s a short single platform, it has grandfather rights, but extend it and put in another platform for the loop. and immediately the access costs kick in – lifts would be needed to both platforms, there being no interaccess via a road/ramps available. Nor can the loop be moved except at the cost of major land acquisition and civils, alas. (My frivolous suggestions over the Christmas madeira for treating the two platforms as being separate stations(N and S) or arranging the platforms as successive stations along the loop merely led to my glass being refilled…)
I still struggle to understand the situation of the Wimbledon loop. Billions spent on the whole TL programme, millions (i’m assuming hundreds) on moving the terminating bays to the others side of Blackfriars, and yet no one from the DfT, Network Rail or the Thameslink Programme bothered to defend terminating at Blackfriars in the media or elsewhere. I went to a meeting about it at Sutton Civic Centre and nobody from any organisation turned up. The only protest was secondhand from a councillor who recalled a discussion with a NR engineer saying ‘it is physically impossible [to have loop trains cross the tracks at Blackfriars and do 28tph through the core]’. How can you make such an expensive, important and complex commitment and not even defend it?
The service as it stands is infrequent, slow and unreliable with no sign of getting better even after 2018. Why even bother having it in the Thameslink programme at all? The only plus seems to be new trains.
Re Brockley Mike,
Very good questions…
Camberwell would need to be as many services as possible given they would already be fairly full. Many would probably be SE services given SE effectively have the use of the bay platforms from 2018 so 8tph of SE services some fast/semifast so Camberwell could get 4 Thameslink and 4 stopping SE?
The Wimbledon Loop decision effectively limits the number that can go to Blackfriars from the Catford Loop (already discussed elsewhere several times in detail see Bakerloo thread recently) as you would need to get as many terminating services to the Bays using the Western pair of tracks with the minimum number of swaps between the east and west pairs which would otherwise reduce capacity further, hence expect to see more SE services via Herne Hill (straight replacement for 4 via Croydon TL services north from Herne Hill) in preference to Catford loop stopping services as there is an extra tph TL fast via the loop in 2018 further reducing current capacity, though I suspect you might be able to get 2 Catford Loop stopping services but these are possibly the most marginal likely gain due to being the trickiest to path.
@ Mike P – oh dear. What is about the MPs who have / do represent Dartford? Are they wired differently so they talk garbage about rail services whenever they open their mouth? Doesn’t he know Dartford is now in the zonal area? Doesn’t he know DfT have to “sign off” TfL’s fares increases to stop TfL playing tricks? Doesn’t he know DfT have TfL over a barrel about fares near zonal boundaries? Another pompous loon who likes the sound of his voice and is somehow worried that he won’t be preach in the House about his constituents to the SoS for Transport if there’s a TfL takeover of South Eastern’s suburban services.
It is quite interesting isn’t it that people are all “enthused” about a TfL takeover because they think services will be more directly accountable and yet we have 20+ posts here (and many more elsewhere) about the “stupidity” of a politically driven decision about Thameslink trains on the Wimbledon loop. Surely that was a form of political accountability too given voters in S London lobbied to keep their through trains albeit at the cost of no future frequency increases? Do we only like political accountability when it gives us the answer we want? I rather suspect we’re all hypocrites when it comes to that particular thorny issue.
RE WW,
Political accountability – Simple install some stocks outside any Wimbledon Loop station (or any other station whose service or potential service has been effected by this) along with a stall to purchase rotting fruit from.
Everyone enthused? I’m not that keen unless I see the cash they have to make the changes first and I’m not the only one, I was talking to well seasoned partner at a city law firm slightly earlier this evening his comment on TfL taking over SE was along the lines of “Thankfully I intend to be retired before TfL take over SE and screw it up” (the original comment contained a few unusable words on LR!)
Accountability: there’s a Social Market Foundation paper out about reform of the railways by Nigel Keohane which plays into this theme.
http://www.smf.co.uk
In a summary I have read, the author makes much of the superior TfL outcomes and attributes this to better public accountability.
I think that TfL culture and structure are probably more important.
@WW – There was a petition over the chaos that the new road layout at the Dartford Tunnel has caused. It was quite clear that it was a review of how we got here and what can be done to ameliorate the problems that the petitioners were after.
So he got the debate. And spent 90% of his time advocating for the easterly option for the proposed new crossing, and made hardly a comment about the problem in hand.
I can only assume this latest statement is an attempt at diverting attention from that…..
@ngh
Political accountability occurs when a decision is made between alternatives in an open manner, consulting with those affected. The decision maker can be identified.
Political influence occurs when someone with access to power sneaks in and whispers the decision to be made without having to bear the consequences. Some of those affected are not consulted.
Imagine a student flat when its time to decide the communal dinner. With the first method, an informed and noisy decision can be made between vegitarian bolognese and vegitarian chili. Think TfL and Bakerloo. With the second, the result is bolognese with added radishes and no-one knows why. Think Wimbledon / DfT.
Graham H
…& if the Abbey flyer goes TRAM , then you don’t need lifts or the other “access” expenses, do you, & you put semi-auto tram points in _ & a lot cheaper.
However the dismal example of the Rotherham Tram-train, where DfT have dragged their feet & wasted millions on something that could & should have been operational at least 5 years ago, does not inspire confidence, shall we say.
Enough, since all of this is … errr … outside London.
Greg Tingey,
Regarding Abbey flyer:
Except that they tried to do that but it came bogged down in all sorts of legal and other difficulties meaning that it was becoming ridiculously expensive and and it would be cheaper and easier just to put in the passing loop and buy a new train. Converting to trams at great cost would not have added much revenue without additional street running – and we are quickly learning that street running of trams is ludicrously expensive.
And let’s not forget it would be cheaper still to run it exactly as it is run currently.
Try building in London be it an extension to a house or a massive office block. You quickly learn that the cost of construction is just one factor and you can’t naively just look at construction costs. For starters there are also “disruption costs”.
Next you will be telling me that they should divert the Metropolitan line over the disused Croxley Branch because it is an obvious thing to do and it can’t possibly cost much money – £15 million ought to do it.
@allcomments
The proposition that Tfl should be the SPECIFIYING body for
rail services outside of the LONDON political boundary raises an
issue that I have previously advanced in connection with the Marylebone wrangles of the 1980s.
The answer is clear : a dreaded PTE (actually, more precisely a PTA.)
It has always been the case that the notion of the Dft specifying
and funding train services that are essentially local in character
is quite inappropriate, undemocratic and compromises the
development of proper transport integration.
Under EU regulations (but not compulsorily enforced) local transport is supposed to be specified and funded by EU Regions.
(as per MEP constituencies). In the case of large conurbations,
a wider ranging transport authority can be established to ensure
co-ordination with reference to the major urban centre.
The PTEs established in the UK were set up in conformity with
EU legislation, but only selectively. It was always a travesty that London was excluded. Other strange omissions are;-
South Wales, East Midlands, Edinburgh/Fife (and a few more
possibilities such as Solent, Avon).
Whilst the transfer of responsibilities to Tfl might be popular,
and might result in some worthwhile innovations, the thorny question of support and investment funding will remain.
Obviously, it may well be operationally undesirable to split current
TOC’s into an “Inner” and “Outer” business division. The PTE model
can cope with this. The essential feature is that there needs to be
political representation from ALL of the Local authorities outside
the Greater London, (i.e. London Mayor’s) constituency.
Nevertheless, this does raise questions re the appropriateness
of current TOC definitions, Great Western would need to be divided
into an Inter City and Thames valley, as was the case at privatisation.
Similarly, The South Western long distance services to Weymouth
and Exeter might be regarded as Long distance Inter City for
Dft management.
There are doubtless other candidates.
Consider just the Southern. It is difficult to see how Tfl is an
appropriate body to specify services along the Sussex coast.
Similar consideration supply to East Kent etc.
The “Greater Paris” authority (Transilien) provides a good actual example of this principle in action.
I anticipate that my suggestions will provoke accusations of
“Etatisme” from Graham H.
Correct, that is exactly what it is,
@Alan Robinson – no, I have always rather liked the idea of a SE PTe but it would be too big for politicians of all stripes to stomach. I don’t think you are quite right when you say (a) that the PTEs were set up in accordance with EU regulations; they weren’t (and at the time they were planned we weren’t even a member of the EEC), or (b) that the EU regulations require PSO setting by regions. This again is simply not the case; the PSO regulations apply to all public bodies indifferently: were my parish council to set a PSO for the local bus services (which we could but won’t, despite the agitation about the withdrawal of the 503…) , it would be covered by the regulations: for many EU countries “regions” simply don’t exist anyway.
A number of areas besides those you mention were considered for PTEs amongst others, Cleveland), on the backs of the National Framework for Planning and its plans to store the surplus population (sorry I meant of course to provide growth and employment opportunities for the future workforce) on the major estuaries – an idea whose time may come again soon… These inchoate PTEs failed, as did Avon and Clleveland because of incessant political bickering between the constituent authorities. So would a SE PTE, particularly as on any likely geographic basis it would be a case of London versus the rest. Visit to Kent anyone?
@Alan Robinson “local transport is supposed to be specified and funded by EU Regions. (as per MEP constituencies). ………..strange omissions are. South Wales, ……… Edinburgh/Fife”
In those two examples, the services are specified and funded by the respective EU regions, namely the national governments of Wales and Scotland (both of which are EU regions)
@Graham H and timbeau
Thanks for observations. As PTE finance manager for BRB in the 1980s
I can state definitively that PTEs are provided for in EEC (as was)
regulation 1169. There is no incumbent duty to set up one of course.
The key thing is the existence of a conurbation. The basic idea is that
a specifying body should be under the general direction of the
constituent local government structure, that is the PTA.
The more general specifying role of local government (assumed to
be regional, which in our case, we have not got) is supplementary to
this . In the case of Paris , trains running through to and from Paris
terminals are specified by Transilien, those not serving Paris are
specified by the Region (with further involvement by the Conseil
General of the constituent departments). I make frequent journeys
to Orleans . Trains from Paris are either Inter City (national) running
through to Limoges, Toulouse, or Bourges/Montlucon, or Transilien,
terminating at Orleans, and in some cases running through to Tours.
TheTransilien trains are up to 14 car loco hauled running mostly
non-stop Paris – Les Aubrais (2km short of Orleans terminus).
The individual train sets used all have the appropriate insignia, e.g
InterCities, Transilien or Region du centre (DMU and EMU stock).
A British equivalent might be (say) London – Oxford (Greater London
PTE) London – Hereford (GW InterCity) Reading – Oxford (Cross Country InterCity) Other bits , regional etc.
In the early 1970s (before the UK joined the EEC), British Railways
meticulously carved the accounting classifications for revenue and
train service costs into GRANT GROUPS , precisely reflecting the
EEC directive, in anticipation of joining! (How subversive, some
might say).
The initial PTEs were formed in advance of EEC membership, but
mindful of the requirements. Later ones (post 1974) followed the
EEC regulations.
I do accept Graham’s point that the formation of a PTE is likely to
be acrimonious if there are local government of differing political
complexions and aspirations . This is one good reason for adopting
the REGION as the most appropriate instrument for delivery of services (Big enough to transcend local obstreperousness, and also
achieve economies of scale).
With regard to prospect of Tfl specifying services remote from Central London;-
As this article is in a 1938 mode;-
These remote distant parts are “far off counties of which we know nothing” .
Timbeau is correct in identifying that Scotland and Wales are now
a sponsoring and specifying body, but that does not preclude the
validity of a PTE for specific urban conurbations, as is the case for
Strathclyde PTE. A South Wales PTE should be a “no brainer”.
Incidentally, I have written to my MP complaining of how the TOTAL National Passenger support requirement is quoted by the Dft
as justification for continuing fare increases , when (by my calculation) over half is incurred by Scotland and Wales, and most of
the rest by Northern England.
@Alan Robinson – don’t get hung up on the regional aspects. 1191/69 works /worked perfectly well whether a country has no regions (Ireland, Estonia) or is entirely covered by specifying regions and indeed whether those are “regions” (eg the German Laender) or even just parishes. “Region” is just a name for a tier of local government which may or may not exist.
The 1968 Transport Act was driven not by anticipation of joining the EU or not, but by the final admission by Ministers that the post 1962 settlement in the wake of dismantling the BTC wasn’t sustainable financially – you will have seen the correspondence on this site about the pursuit of “the profitable railway” under Beeching. So far as the then Labour government was concerned, the added bonus was being able to tie in to local government reform*, egged on by the Treasury which saw a golden opportunity to offload transport spend somewhere else (as it did with the GLC). These things would have happened, EC or no EC. As Richard Marsh (but my memory may be failing me) remarked a propos the implementation of 1191/69 “It is time to put a stop to the nonsense where a battery of clerks in BR HQ played a battery of clerks in the Department, arguing over how individual services should be costed and funded.”
*And Mrs Castle had other agendas, too, about leaning on the PTEs in relation to bus procurement .
For some reason I have now become a mysterious entity known to the moderators as “u”; rest assured, I intend to continue to trade under my normal nom de plume…
@ Graham H/ U
Perhaps Graham your identity as the all-knowing transport overlord “U” has been revealed! As your alternate title Lord Dawlish was previously…
LBM beat me to it, but the simple moniker “u” surely befits the noble Lord Dawlish. I picture it handwritten at the bottom of a great many memoranda of national importance. In green ink.
At least it is better than being “non-U”!
I’ll get my coat …
@Graham
I have “cracked” the “u” appellation!
Didn’t someone of note once declare ;-
U turn if you want to;——
@Alan and everyone else – Lord Dawlish stoops to send you an emoticon 🙂
Until I read farther down, there was me wondering how Graham H would answer the comments of “u”!
The real u was a little-known Symbolist-dadaist Romanian poet c1926. However did the mods know that?
@NickBXN & 1956 – 24th Jan re skipped stations and timetable changes on the ELL:
Yes there have been some issues and these don’t stem from West Croydon originating services continuing on to Highbury & Islington as such, but more due to some of the unrealistic turnaround times scheduled at Dalston Junction for the Clapham Junction and New Cross services. As far as I’m aware the new timetables were brought in to reduce delays caused by pathing conflicts caused by late running services run by other operators on the Sydenham corridor affected by the London Bridge works. In places some of these issues have been resolved most of the time. In my experience we are held less frequently at Norward Junction waiting for a delayed Thameslink service to cross our path, but on other occasions LO services continue to experience delay either being held in the turnback at West Croydon or at Crystal Palace Station.
Turnaround times at both Crystal Palace and Dalston Junction have been reduced to a ‘paper’ 6 mins – this is assumes that services run on time. 5 car trains take marginally longer to set up the cab and the minimum times agreed with the union for an ‘in passenger service’ turnaround are 6 minutes. Even in good running I estimate that by the times trains are fully at a stand at the buffers there are less than 5 minutes available for this. Run late by a few minutes and chances are something else will be given the path and it is easy then to see delays spiral. As the issue at Dalston Junction is now evident I suspect that Clapham Junction and New Cross services are given the priority over WC and CP originating services in order to stop these late turnarounds blocking the platforms and therefore the whole core route. On occasion this has indeed led to the odd service running fast from Shoreditch High Street or Hoxton if there is perhaps a 4 minute gap opened up ahead as there is little other option for service recovery. Only if a Highbury service is running closer to 15 minutes late may it be terminated over on platform 4 at Dalston so it can pick up its return working. The whole issue of trying to maintain return services as close to timetable is, I’m afraid, more important than keeping some passengers waiting an extra 10 minutes or so for a Highbury & Islington service. I have long said that what is really needed is another turnback facility somewhere between Whitechapel and Dalston so that a really late running service could be terminated short with minimal disruption.
There is another angle to these reduced turnaround times however. Drivers working a very intense route are on the go constantly. Toilet facilities cannot reasonably be accessed during a 6 minute (or less) turnaround, although of course we are told that needs must. But it is then a choice of potentially causing an arriving services to be detained on the up ELL while it waits for a free platform. The stations where we do have 10 minute turnaround (Highbury & New Cross) are often the places where we may end up having reduced turnaround time because of the very fact that it can be absorbed into the drivers 10 mins – so late running of 4 mins still permits 6 mins for a turnaround. The diagrams fall within the ‘Blue Book’ guidelines that underpin safe working. Whether however the intensity of the ELL and the fact that in working practice a driver may be in the seat for 4 hrs and then have a 30 minute break followed by another 4 hrs with turnarounds that minimal leaves many of us feeling that the Blue Book is not suited to our particular experience.
It is not in the interests of drivers for us to run late. It makes our driving more challenging and the trains get busier. It reduces our ability to recover from fatigue and it can literally strip our break times to the minimum legally permitted. There are flaws in the new timetable and I believe these will be addressed, more because performance is being affected than anything else. If drivers have a reasonable timetable that works on most occasions then we will normally try to do that bit extra to get things running smoothly if things go a little wrong. However, if late running and stripped bare turnarounds become the norm, drivers are forced to a degree of self preservation or else there is the potential for incidents to result either through fatigue or through rushing and omitting a vital procedural check.
Finally, just to echo a point made by GTR driver, most drivers really do recognise that our pay is among the best and despite an erosion of many working conditions any move towards industrial action is normally down to genuine concerns over safety or issues that affect fatigue. The issue of fatigue is extremely important as is the ability to maintain high levels of concentration during the peak rush hour when you have been awake since 3am. It’s the management of that fatigue by both company and driver that can avert a life changing disaster. The timetables (and therefore the driver diagrams) will need to change in the interests of both passengers and drivers, so I am sure they will.
I hope you will permit the above (rather lengthy) response that I had been stifling for a few days, but more in keeping with the topic I do think there will be benefits to more London metro services coming under TfL control. It will be much easier to resolve pathing issues and integrate timetables better and I hope this would improve punctuality. I am also under no illusions about how difficult the challenge may be. It is pretty much an open secret that LO were handed the most fault prone rolling stock on taking over the Lea Valley routes. The environmental, station and access improvements generally happen pretty promptly but reliability and punctuality improvements will be much more noticeable when new rolling stock is eventually delivered.
I do normally post under a recognised username but felt it better to remain that little more anonymous on this occasion.
Anonymous 14:34
Thank you very much in going into this level of detail which really helps understanding of the issues involved. I have always believed that being a driver on the East London Line is probably much harder than most routes despite being quite short and only having five carriages. This just reinforces the belief.
I do think that ATO of some of the ELL is really important if only to reduce fatigue for the the reasons you state. There must be few jobs where you just don’t get a moment to relax for many hours.
Could I second PoP’s thanks to the anonymous driver. Normally a comment of that length is deprecated, but there is so much there which it is very useful to know.
The juxtaposition of PoP’s last two sentences is accidentally unfortunate. ATO would be an importance advance, but the one thing I suspect it does not, cannot and should not do is give an opportunity for a driver to relax. (Please correct me if my suspicion is mistaken).
@Malcolm – well, it shouldn’t give an opportunity to relax, but a colleague recalls cabbing a Eurostar. These are fitted with TVM430 which whilst not automatic does leave much that be can done by the signalling/train interface – on this particular trip, the (French, of course) driver said “I have every confidence in the system, swung his chair away from the console and let the train pass through a crossover at 186 mph without bothering to look – but then, no doubt, there was a Gallic shrug to all this…
I agree that Anonymous 1434 has given a very good assessment of the challenges on high intensity services. At some point it might be good to outline some of the things LU has to do to deliver the turnaround times required to illustrate some of the things the suburban operation might have to adopt if it is genuinely to provide a Metro style service
As an example (perhaps extreme), at Brixton, when the 36tph service starts, trains will have to depart at 100sec intervals. This means that each of the two platforms has just 200sec following wheel start of the first train to wheel start of the next but one train. In that time:
The train must arrive and open its doors.
The driver must shut down the arriving cab, exit close the door
The other end must be set up and made ready to go
Doors closed and start buttons pressed.
The trains are some 30m longer than the 5-car class 378. Clearly there is not enough time for the driver to walk from one end to the other in the time available. Like described above there are agreements for walk time from end to end – it is not a competition for the 130m sprint! Form many years the Victoria line operated “stepping back” – the driver of train “N” would board train “N+1”. Then there were issues with toilets and so on. LU provide a small mess room and toilets on Brixton platforms. As frequencies increased double stepping back was introduced (leaving train “N” and boarding train “N+2”). it is entirely possible that triple stepping back might be necessary as the service north of Seven Sisters is stepped up. All of these things were done to try and eliminate the real risks of delays and variability as described by Anonymous 14.34. They apply to a number of locations on LU and , and there is absolutely no reason apart from cost why these shouldn’t be done on the Overground and other Metro style suburban lines. It is things like this that contribute very positively to a reliable service and should be put in place following a forensic investigation into the root causes of delays.
Graham H: there is a video out there somewhere of a cab ride on the first LGV where the driver pulls the sun blinds down to the driver’s desk for a minute whilst at 270kph.
Re the ELL and ATO; it is an obvious next step, although one suspects TfL are waiting to see how the ATO on Thameslink works, which would be similar principles. I do hope that ASLE&F take a pragmatic view on the introduction of ATO: a system that improves safety, reduces workload, and with no loss of working hours or pay.
@130
“200sec following wheel start of the first train to wheel start of the next but one train. In that time:
The train must arrive and open its doors.
The driver must shut down the arriving cab, exit close the door
The other end must be set up and made ready to go
Doors closed and start buttons pressed.”
The driver has less time than that, because the 200 seconds also includes the time taken for the train to depart across the scissors crossing, the points to switch behind it, and the next train roll in across them. Watching the painfully slow progress of the (4-car!) trains on the Drain negotiating the scissors at Bank, this seems to take far longer than the actual dwell time at the terminus, which is no more than the time needed to empty the train.
Running round a terminal loop would almost certainly be a quicker way to turn round. There have been suggestions such a loop should include a station at Herne Hill, but that depends: it would providen a better interchange with Thameslink, but it is doubtful the line could cope with any extra traffic (as discussed elsewere), but most people using HH would be amongst those currently railheading to Brixton, so there would be littlo extra revenue. It might relieve the pressure on Brixton station, but only by transferring it to HH. It is over thirty years since I lived in the area. Are the buses between HH and Brixton as busy as ever?
Timbeau. Thanks for clarifying my ‘train must arrive’ as it makes it clear that it is not a matter of a second or two, more like 45 to 60 sec.
The Hearne Hill loop has been analysed to death over the years and whilst it might offer an improvement in the throughput, it offers nothing in terms of recovery or flexibility in case of needing to lose a train or two in case of trouble. Believe it or not, there is a tiny amount of recovery time in the 200 sec. It is firmly in the reject bin although it regurgitates occasionally.
100+30
I think, but can’t be certain, that some of the Chingford/Enfield Town services are stepped back at Liverpool; St.
They have turnaround of well under 10 minutes, some of them & they will be 8-car sets.
Can someone please give a definite answer to this?
There are some step backs in ELL diagrams now as well as greater utilisation of Dalston Junction as a rest break locationalong with some passing up to Dalston to commence duties. Even this is not enough however. Really NXG depot is not at full compliment but even with a full trainee programme going through I suspect this will only maintain the status quo at best as a fair few drivers are leaving (or actively looking elsewhere) due to the tougher work schedules.
Really the depot compliment needs to be increased but there is something of a mismatch because The Blue Book suggests we should be able to cover the work with existing driver numbers and of course more drivers means increased costs to the company – costs which would not have been factored in when the concession was renewed. There is a need yo have greater analysis over the fatigue issue for this to be looked at satisfactorily. Driving the ELL is very different to what it was even 5 years ago and I’m sure a scientific psychological study analysing concentration levels and other aspects of driver behaviour would be beneficial in advancing a refreshed look at workload and how driver hours are utilised, especially with regard to what is ‘reasonable’ in this safety critical environment.
@Greg, I don’t know about the LOROL services at Liverpool St, but I know of plenty of operators in south London with 6-7 minute turnarounds where the driver stays with the train, and no stepping back.
@Greg, the Ebbw Vale – Cardiff line has one or two minute turnarounds at both ends for much of Sunday. Since the service is two-hourly I very much doubt they are stepping back, although I can’t rule out double-ending.
The Sevenoaks Chronicle is reporting that they understand “the changes will see Sevenoaks and Dunton Green put into Zone 7.” Even if going into zone 8 (using Dartford as an example) the price will be a reduction from £3,320 a year to £3,020. Who is going to pay for this? It won’t be DfT, and why should TfL pay for it?
Interestingly the same report said that the paper had spoken to Geoff Hobbs, TfL’s head of transport planning so they might have got it right.
Can’t see that going down well with people in Redhill they feel picked on already without Sevenoaks similarly outside the M25 getting a price reduction.
@Purley Dweller. For the poor folk of Redhill the answer is easy: put them in Zone 8 also. I’m sure they would welcome joining the TFL system and simpler ticketing. And the 12% rise in the annual season ticket price to £3020.
Anonymous 18:39
Interestingly the same report said that the paper had spoken to Geoff Hobbs, TfL’s head of transport planning so they might have got it right.
Not very interestingly Geoff Hobbs isn’t TfL’s head of transport planning so if they have got that wrong I would take anything else they have written with the usual dose of scepticism.
Geoff Hobbs is Head of Transport Planning at London Rail. London Rail, aka RfL, is part of TfL but he is not the TfL head transport planning honcho. Close but no banana.
You have to be careful with hearsay comments like this. Even if someone like Geoff Hobbs did say something like this and recommends something it would need the TfL board to approve it so that it can be put to the mayor. There is a mayoral election almost imminent. There is no way anyone at TfL can announce future policy that would require the mayor’s approval as a definite happening.
@SFD Unless they have a travelcard which is rather more expensive. Just stick with Southern Fares for London Terminals. It’s £500 cheaper from Purley no reason it wouldn’t be from Redhill. Anyway it’s all academic because Sevenoaks probably won’t get Zone 7 although as Dartford is Zone 8 there’s no reason that Sevenoaks shouldn’t be (nor Redhill but no chance while the Government takes the revenue risk).
@Edmonton ‘Eadcase
The Ebbw Vale trains are only two coaches (class 143 or 150) – and the working timetable shows arrival times at least 2 mins ahead of the public time. (And the weekend service runs to Newport until Easter, with 20 min turnrounds). I think we can be fairly confident that the same driver operates both arrival and departure – if only because there are no (staff) facilities at Ebbw Vale Town.
I’m not sure of the current position, but it used to be a minimum of “one minute per carriage” for turnround purposes – meaning that a 2 car 165/171/466 etc can be turned round faster than a longer train anyway.
Indeed SFD, I am frequently on a 6-7 minute turnaround at Victoria or London Bridge, so if I come in more than about 3 mins late the timetable is already lost (as we all know a common occurrence). Factor in crowds, a ten car train, or the need for a toilet break and multiply that by every train and it’s not surprising the whole thing is skipping stops or turning back early after a few hours. The odd staff toilet on the platforms would help but this seems to be beyond the wit of the TOC or Network Rail.
@ Anon 1839 – I struggle to believe that Mr Hobbs would create a hostage to fortune over fares if he spoke to the press. It strikes me there is rather a lot of “wishful thinking” going on in the Sevenoaks area. They seem to believe a TfL takeover means a fare reduction, overcrowding being banished and trains running spot on time. Meanwhile back in the real world …..
@ Anon 1017 – surely it is the case that the Overground concession has yet to be renewed? The new concession starts Nov 2016 and we have 4 new companies bidding (Arriva and MTR are bidding separately). This means LOROL are in their final year and I suspect there is great pressure to squeeze as much money out of the contract before LOROL as a company ceases to exist. While I am sure TfL want to see better performance it looks to me like LOROL are trying to minimise their costs as much as possible while trying to earn bonuses / avoid abatements under the performance regime. I suspect it is “batten down the hatches mode” for LOROL in their final 9 months of operation.
You are correct regarding the renewal WW. I was referring to the extension clause that brought us up to the present. I should have been more clear though. I understand the financial pressures you describe and it is worth noting that whilst I personally prefer the concession model to a franchise agreement, companies still have to make profits for their shareholders. I would hope however that TfL recognise some of the pressures I described earlier as we move towards a new concession.
When London Bridge is finished maybe everything will run well again and driver diagrams will be less intense, but if not, I do think we need more drivers. It would be a false economy to carry things forward as they are as there will be something of a ‘revolving door’ situation meaning extra costs for the recruitment and training of new drivers to replace those who leave. Although some of may earlier posts may imply some criticism, to LOROL’s credit they are continuing to recruit trainees at capacity in spite of the concession award being announced in the next few months. Many TOC’s would not do the same.
@SFD & @PurleyDweller
Getting a London Terminals ticket is fine for travellers who only go to the terminals. However 68% of tickets from Redhill in 2014 were Travelcards as people generally need to travel on from the Terminals.
Thus a Zone 6 at £2,344 or Zone 7 at £2,566 or Zone 8 at £3,036 are all considerable saving on the Redhill annual Travelcard’s at £3,464.
The argument at Redhill is that Caterham, Couldson and Tadworth all within 5 miles are Zone 6 at £2,344 being a £1,164 annual saving.
Whilst we don’t expect the same price the differential is unacceptable, especially where there are cheaper tickets from Three Bridges at £3,272 that are specifically not valid via Redhill, but 10 miles further out from London than Redhill.
@ Anon – fair comment about the extension to the concession term. I wonder if TfL are in some way “underwriting” the driver training cost so as to avoid cancellations and delays when the concession operator changes. There always seems to be a problem with operator changes where drivers decide to change companies because they don’t like what they see with the incoming operator. If TfL were to experience what has happened with TSGN and driver recruitment and retention then they’d be “hung drawn and quartered” by passengers and politicians. Further it would create huge damage to TfL’s reputation at the time it is seeking to convince stakeholders it’s a “safe pair of hands” for more rail routes in Greater London and beyond. Clearly it can’t afford that sort of risk materialising.
I am a tiny bit sceptical that all will be wonderful post Thameslink completion. That’s purely on the basis that there will be enormous pressure to restore services to what they were before or add more. I just think expectations will run a long way ahead of what the railway can realistically do without creating a timetabling mess. We already know Thameslink’s operation will be a challenge even if the trains and supporting kit all work flawlessly. I know there will be a slow build up in services through London Bridge which is sensible but I think there will need to be some good “expectations management” about how South Eastern, Southern and Thameslink services will develop once the major works are complete and drivers, signallers and station staff get comfortable with the end state.
@T33. Some of us live closer to London than Redhill on a GTR line, with Zone 6 a few miles away, and yet we pay £4168 for an annual Travelcard.
I’m sure that almost every single person paying that would rather it were cheaper, and look enviously at those Zone 6 Travelcard holders two stops up the line, but the market appears to be bearing it, given that the trains routinely leave people behind that are unable to board.
Just be thankful we’re not in BR days of pricing, when in the 10 years before privatisation annual increases of 3-5% ahead of RPI were used to quell demand.
I was looking at the consultation exercise for the SW franchise, and noticed that none of the meetings are in SWT’s suburban area. Ryde, Salisbury, Southampton, Portsmouth, Basingstoke, Guildford and – Docklands. Not even one at Waterloo.
Is the lack of consultation with SWT’s inner suburban passengers a sign that no-one cares what we think, or a straw in the wind for devolution to TfL sooner rather than later?
SFD
Epsom?
timbeau
Both?
Re Greg,
Epsom is mostly SWT services…
Epsom is about 70/30 SWT/Southern isn’t it?
@ngh/Greg/ngh
“Epsom is mostly SWT services”
Epsom is indeed also on a GTR line, and is managed by Southern. The timetable shows 50/50 waterloo and Victoria services, with the odd one to London Bridge tipping the balance. It is however only one stop from Zone 6, and the season-plus-travelcard fare quoted on the NR website is a lot less than £4168 (about £40% less in fact).
Indeed, I am mystified as to the station he refers to, as I am unable to find any station of Southern with an AST+Z1-6 much in excess of £3000 and only two stops from Zone 6.
I’ve looked across GTR and Sevenoaks and St Albans are likely candidates because they are more expensive but are 33 and 25 miles from London compared to Redhill’s 20.
In any case the subsidy that happens in London as a natural outcome of Zonal Fares plus the volume of customers is unfair to travellers just outside London.
For us just outside London our fares have to be higher to cover the costs of providing services along hardly used routes a long way out of London. This will get worse if TfL get their way to run the Metro Networks as the metro services provide a volume of passengers and income far in excess of say West Coastway. Thus passengers in outer suburban routes will need to pay a higher burden of their fares, so their fares will increase rapidly whilst TfL gaining the larger fare pot will be able to increase services and cut fares
And the winner is T33…
Epsom – it is quicker to take SWT services and many will effectively over take the previous southern service if going to Clapham Junction for example.
@T33 -I’m not sure I understand your arguments at all. Is it that fares within the TfL-influenced area are lower compared outside that area because they are more heavily subsidised? Or is it that the percentage of costs recovered from fares between “TfL” and non-TfL services is different? Or is it that passengers on non-TfL services from stations adjacent to the TfL area are cross-subsidising the punters from even further out?
Re Graham H,
I think T33 is annoyed that both those further out (e.g. Three Bridges) can pay less with those further in paying quite a lot less combined with the use of ticketing loop holes this has artificially suppressed Redhill demand on paper hence them taking the hit on service cuts during the London Bridge works resulting in the feeling of paying more for a lesser service
The TSGN solution (or rather DfT franchise obligation) is the abolition of the Thameslink via Quarry lines cheaper fares that T33 has highlighted amongst other items.
So even more 3 Bridges / Haywards area passengers piling on the Uckfields for the cheaper fares when the BML fares (Southern / TL) are equalised?
@ngh – quite possibly that’s what he does mean; if so, does he/you mean “less than” as in less per mile than somewhere else or less absolutely?
Re Graham H,
Less in absolute terms the TL fares can be 30% less than the compatible Southern ones hence a TL fare from quite a bit further out is still cheaper than Redhill with Southern only service (till 2018 by which time the fare differential will have gone).
As soon as there is disruption the restrictions are lifted at the moment…
re Graham H
There are now any number of examples on SouthEastern where returns are cheaper than singles and where fares from further out are cheaper than fares from further in – and this is not even taking into account any limited special offers. I am sure that the same is true on some other companies’ lines.
@ngh
“it is quicker to take SWT services and many will effectively over take the previous southern service ”
Off peak service to Clapham Junction every hour is:
four all-stations via Wimbledon (26 minutes),
five via Sutton, two taking 28 minutes (fast from Sutton), two taking 34 minutes (all-stations via Mitcham Junction), and one via Norbury taking 52 minutes. Only this last is overtaken, by three later trains, including the fast Southern one.
T33. St Albans. Which is 19miles 71 chains from St Pancras.
@T33
By foot, so the shortest route, the distances to London are
Sevenoaks 24 miles
Redhill 20
St Albans 22
(rail miles and different termini will change that a bit)
As Sevenoaks travellers will be using the non-TfL fasts, not sure why TSLO would affect them unless we have differential pricing, which is a can of worms
@ T33 / Graham H – I am struggling with the concept of TfL rail fares being subsidised. All TfL subsidy will be gone in two years. LU earns a massive surplus which funds investment. DLR and Overground are close to break even. West Anglia and Shenfield routes are priced higher than the rest of TfL rail fares at the DfT’s insistence. Crossrail has to work on that basis. A future TfL takeover of any rail service will not bring reduced fares as the joint Dft / TfL makes clear – there are constraints in place and harmonisation is years away. Bus fares clearly are subsidised but it remains to be seen how TfL will “remove” this subsidy and it’s outside of scope for a rail fares discussion.
I understand the complaints but that’s the problem with market based pricing – it’s inevitable that there will be perceived winners and losers. Given government policy is to force passengers to pay a greater share of costs there will be no change to all the inconsistencies. If London ends up with a fares freeze policy post Mayoral Election then things will get massively worse as time goes on forcing a huge and unwelcome adjustment in 2020/21. I actually don’t believe government will allow the Mayor to freeze fares for 4 years anyway and it is noticeable that rail fares are specifically excluded from a certain candidate’s proposals. That will simply increase the perceived / actual unfairness over fares within London (and possibly outside it). It will also mean that any transfer of rail services to TfL could become bogged down in discussions over what happens to fares. I simply can’t see fares on a transferred service being cut to match the “frozen” fares – where on earth would the money come from to fund it when surely the immediate demand will be for investment in more service volume, accessible stations, more capacity etc and operating costs will rise if there are more staff at stations? There’s no easy answer here and again I don’t see government splashing any investment cash if the Mayor insists on reducing the revenue base by cutting fares. Interesting times ahead for everyone I feel.
@WW
“A future TfL takeover of any rail service will not bring reduced fares ”
As I recall TfL fares used to be avalable only as far as Stratford and the Victoria Line interchange stations – beyond that TOC fares used to apply, but the Overground/TfL Rail takeover of the West Anglia lines and GEML resulted in TfL rather than TOC rate fares being charged all the way to the GLA boundary.
Are you suggesting that south of the river we would still have to pay TOC fares after TfL takes over services there?
Re John B,
But much of the near term growth in passengers on the Sevenoaks line will probably come from the redevelopment of the DSTL Fort Halstead site which could add a train or 2 of passengers alone in the rush hours but using Knockholt Station (which is in LB Bromley and Zone 6), which will cause a few capacity issues there with peak 3tph stopping + 11 nonstop! Those in Dunton Green and Sevenoaks the next stations out will be wondering why they can’ t even get into zone 9 let alone 7 or 8 (Dartford in a similar situation is in 8).
It probably wouldn’t cause too many problems to add 3 extra stops per hour (post London Bridge timetable) in the peak period at Knockholt.
Chelsfield normally has 6tph of which three stopped previously at Knockholt. If you arranged for the 3tph trains following the ones stoppling at Chelsfield but not Knockholt to stop at Knockholt but not Chelsfield then capacity should be maintained so long as the dwell time at Knockholt is not greater than the dwell time at Chelsfield – and it would have to be substantial for that to be the case. Not trivial though and it would probably involve a complete timetable rewrite to get the trains to pass/leave Orpington and Sevenoaks in the correct sequence with the necessary spacing.
@ Timbeau – it resulted in a variant of TfL fares being charged. The fares on West Anglia and the Shenfield line did NOT fall to match those elsewhere. This is because of an agreement that is in the Crossrail Act and which was extended to cover West Anglia. It is true that some fares did reduce, largely by removing the Z1 surcharge, but off peak fares certainly do NOT match TfL ones. Please read the attachment below and especially Annex B.
TfL Fares Advice May 2015 [bad Link PoP See later post at 23:30 for a working link Malcolm]
I don’t want to get into a “angels on a pin head” type of debate here over fares. I am deeply sceptical that the transfer of rail services to TfL control will mean they match those on the tube and DLR. They clearly don’t on West Anglia nor do they on TfL Rail and won’t on Crossrail. Given the guarantees demanded from neighbouring authorities about no adverse effects on fares or people driving to “cheap” stations inside an expanded zonal area I just don’t see a fares panacea arriving. Some people may gain something in terms of more affordable fares but please let’s not kid ourselves that the DfT is the champion of cheap rail fares in London. It clearly isn’t. The next Mayor is effectively hamstrung by cuts to Council Tax and the removal of TfL’s revenue support grant.
Until we see some detailed published numbers I am afraid I really don’t believe anyone who says they can make substantive changes to fares through “efficiencies” or “savings”. Everything is interconnected – if you cut the numbers of engineers in TfL how do you ensure safety is maintained and projects are not compromised by resource or skill shortages? Ditto if you cut all the consultants and agency staff. An awful lot of unjustified agency staff use was taken out 5 years ago and I doubt the process to employ them has got any easier. It used to require MD sign off! You employ people on flexible terms or with specific skills for a reason – usually a project or a clearly defined piece of work. At the end you let them go which is as it should be. If you sack lots of staff and the tube becomes more threatening to use then you lose passengers, lose revenue and have increased costs to repair damage and vandalism. You may struggle to keep ticket gates in operation for the full day thereby encouraging fraudulent travel. There are genuine constraints to any policy initiative regardless of the politics behind it. I am struggling to detect any realisation from Mayoral candidates that these connections and limits exist. I just fear there are too many wild sweeping statements being made that will fall apart when they collide with the reality and complexity of managing London’s transport network. As I believe another London themed website said long ago what we need is a “boring” Mayor who can do the hard work to understand what has to be done and who is “boring” enough to get on and do it. That will lay the foundations for the future even if it might not be wholly obvious to voters at the end of a 4 year term. And yes I know the political calculation there doesn’t add up but one can dream ! 😉 To get the transfer of rail services under TfL control to work properly with high service standards, a good and affordable level of investment and with stakeholder and passenger buy in will take a lot of “boring” effort from a lot of people (and the Mayor) to get everything in a row. There is no point making a mad dash – it has to be done properly or else you will never get beyond the first transfer if that falls flat on its face and people go “TfL can’t organise the proverbial in a brewing establishment”. We’ve had a flavour of that over the last 8 months and we don’t need any more of it.
@quinlet – I am forcibly reminded of the IOMSP case some years ago where they had ended up with a similar ticketing nonsense that it was cheaper to buy return from Douglas to Heysham (?) than a single. The operator then attempted to prosecute passengers for not using the return half – the judge threw it out with much accompanying laughter… [Cue midnight visits by IOMSP revenue inspectors to boarding houses in Heysham to drag away sleeping passengers and place them on the next steamer… G4S anyone].
“The fares on West Anglia and the Shenfield line …………off peak fares certainly do NOT match TfL ones. ”
Strange then that the TfL fare finder says they do: it gives the following Oyster fares (all from Zone 6 to Zone 1) :
To main line termini
Epping (LU) to Liverpool Street Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Hatch End (old LO) to Euston Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Turkey Street (new LO) to L’pool St Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Harold Wood (TfL rail) to Liv St Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Rainham (C2C) Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Slade Green (SET) to Cannon Street Peak £6.10, off peak £3.80
Elstree& Borehamwood (TL) to StP Peak £6.10, off peak £3.80
Continuing To Oxford Circus (last leg by Tube)
Epping (LU) Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Hatch End (old LO) Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Turkey Street (new LO) Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Harold Wood (TfL rail) Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Rainham (C2C) Peak £5.10, off peak £3.10
Erith (SET) Peak £7.70, off peak £5.30
Elstree& B’wood (TL) Peak £7.70, off peak £5.30
Look again at the Rainham and Erith off peak prices – that’s a 70% premium just for being the wrong side of the river ! (It takes 75% longer too)
As far as I recall, TOC rates only used to apply on West Anglia beyond the LU interchanges at Walthamstow Central/ Tottenham Hale/ Seven Sisters, as they still do on Thameslink beyond West Hampstead and the Elephant. (But inconsistently curiously TOC rates apply on SWT from Waterloo to Wimbledon/Richmond, Southern to Balham, and SET to New Cross)
@Graham H
“cheaper to buy return from Douglas to Heysham (?) than a single. The operator then attempted to prosecute passengers for not using the return half ”
Since when did a ticket become a contractual obligation to travel rather than simply permission to do so? There is a reasonable probability that some of those return halves were not used because their purchasers had expired before the tickets did. (think of Emily Davison).
Would they prosecute someone for buying a ticket and then not using it at all?
I am reminded of someone, buying an advance ticket from York to Edinburgh but, because of some hiatus, had to join the train at Darlington instead. He was made to pay the whole Darlington- Edinburgh anytime fare (not even just the difference!) .
If you’ve already paid in advance for the set menu, but decided not to have a starter, why should you have to pay again, at a la carte rates, for the courses you do have?
It is ridiculous and it is high time the operators were shamed into not hiding behind the Ts & Cs but applying some common sense and fairness.
After all, they are quite happy to shunt you onto a different train from the one you booked on when it suits them to do so (e.g to avoid having to hold a connection).
Timbeau/Graham H
Presumably that’s why the cases were thrown out?
I’ll admit to never having been on an IOMSPCo’s ferry,but suspect they calculated that they made more money from the sale of “on-board refreshments” than from tickets…hence their (in the event) impotent rage at having been outsmarted by their own customers.
timbeau, Graham H,
In principle, it is perfectly legal and reasonable under the Law of Contract to require passengers to make the entire journey or the return journey so long as it is made clear as part of the contract (booking) that this is the case. Hiding T&Cs in the small print is not good enough as anything that would not be reasonably expected must be drawn to the attention of a consumer.
Usual caveat: if we are talking about rail tickets what matters is the Conditions of Carriage not the Law of Contract. Since the Conditions of Carriage have nothing in them about being required to make the entire journey nor have they anything about making the return journey then such a claim will almost certainly fail and a TOC should have been smart enough to realise that – but clearly, if Slugabed is correct, they weren’t.
A private operator is absolutely mad to try to prosecute for not using the return half. What they should have done is ensure there is a financial incentive to return put on the customer.
If take your car on Eurotunnel to go for a day trip to the continent they will give you a far cheaper price as a day return than for a single. However, it is made perfectly clear that you must pay by credit/debit card and if you fail to return then the full single price is payable and the difference between what you have paid and what you should have paid is deducted from your card.
The point about making more money from refreshments than the fare on a ferry is also a valid point and similarly can apply to a hotel booking where you are given a substantial discount for occupying a room and the hotel is relying on you having breakfast/evening meal or drinks to turn a loss into a profit – of course, they cannot make you use either the bar or the dining room. Again, it must be made absolutely clear at the time of booking that your card will be debited if you breach these conditions.
Law books are full of this stuff. People who return things unduly early (so the storage costs are encountered by the lender), anchor stores who pay the rent but close down (thus reducing the attractiveness of the shopping centre), an employer who pays his employee but does not provide work for the employee in the employee’s professional capacity (so depriving the employee of career development), prestigious contracts cancelled and any loss of profit was paid in compensation (where the contractor was relying on the contact to boost his reputation). The list goes on.
@ Timbeau – please just read the Mayoral Decision document. It explains and highlights the issues and differences. All the examples you quote are to Zone 1. Not everyone travels to / from / via Zone 1. I suggest we leave it there as it’s all in black and white and people can make their own minds up. If a TOC doesn’t want to / cannot sign up to the adoption of TfL farescales on “parallel” routes for whatever reason we’re not going to fix it here. People need to go and make life “hell” for the politicians if they care enough about the issue. Otherwise I think we’ve flogged the issue to death and endless argumentative posts don’t help anyone.
@WW
“please just read the Mayoral Decision document. It explains and highlights the issues and differences. ”
I’ll have to take your word for it as your link refuses to open on any computer to which I have access. But at least to Z1 it seems that former NR routes now have parity with TfL. Not to do the same south of the river would be political suicide.
timbeau, Walthamstow Writer
Unfortunately that is a bad link and all the information has been stripped off meaning I can’t even guess at what it was supposed to be. I tried a few searches on the description but nothing came up that was plausible and had an Annex B.
If I am given the web address I will update the original comment.
PoP / Timbeau – sorry for the broken link. Hopefully this is better. The relevant document is Appendix 1 at the bottom of the MD1485 page. This assumes the Mayoral website plays ball – it was temperamental when I was trying to get this far.
https://www.london.gov.uk/decisions/md1485-may-2015-fare-changes
@Walthamstow Writer 1st Feb
The subsidy question is very convoluted. The basic unit of measuring
passenger rail business performance is the support or premium built
in to the TOC franchise over the given period. The TOC support/premium element is compromised by the “gaming” which
forms basis of franchise bids.
BUT : There is something much more indeterminate, the “hidden”
subsidy represented by the Network Grant. Over the years, track access charges have increasingly failed to recover Network Rail’s
total P & L. This is currently at about £4.0billion, but there is a
Network Rail operating profit of approx £1.0b. The Dft has indicated
that Network Rail should move towards eliminating the “Network Profit” and fully exhaust its P & L in revised track access charges.
This is about the ultimate financial minefield.
Nobody has yet (to best of my knowledge) presented a convincing
analysis of where and how the Network Grant is incurred.
The ORR has published an allocation, which on inspection turns
out to be no more than a spread “pro rata” to track access for all TOCs.
The demonstrable elimination of support for train services transferred from Dft responsibility to Tfl would need to encompass
a “true and fair” allocation of Network Grant. Should a TOC be split,
then will be a “challenging task” for a young keen and fit railway
accountant!
In the words of a long forgotten vaudeville song;-
“That’s a fine job for somebody, Somebody ELSE;– Not ME!! ”
This is a very important topic. It really is essential to be able to demonstrate a true support (or profit) requirement for a specific transport service specified by government.
I am sometimes cynically inclined to believe that the gradual creation of a nebulous and mysterious Network Grant is very much favoured
by anonymous civil servants.
As long as there is a “general” subsidy element to the UK railway
system in total, there will always be a clamour to increase (all)
regulated fares to “make THE passengers pay a high proportion of
the costs of THEIR trains”. (Which passengers, WHICH trains ?)
I sometimes think that the last year that the UK’s were properly
managed was 1914. With 25 or so major railway companies, quite
self contained, financially there could be no imperative to increase
fares on (say) the L&SW just because the Great North of Scotland was
struggling (etc etc).
However, it is to be hoped that Tfl stewardship of an increasing
proportion of London’s trains might rescue passengers from the
perpetual fare rise horror.
It need to be appreciated that, even if all of the UK’s railways boomed
and boomed so that all main lines and London services were propelled into indisputable viability, the chronic and irredeemable
unviability of railways in Scotland , Wales and Northern England
would perpetuate an ongoing support requirement, which would always provoke even more fare rises.
One of the reasons I was so enthusiastic about PTEs was that I could
observe how PTE train passengers were spared the annual fare hike.
(as are passengers on Northern Ireland Railways, UK but quite separate).
Alan R – your posts are fascinating, but very difficult to read because of the varied line lengths. It looks as if you may be creating new lines as you type, but the lines created are not the same length as the lines on the Web. If that’s the case, not bothering with creating new lines (except for new paragraphs) should make it simpler for you and easier for us!
Given the above posts re Sevenoaks, may I be indulged in veering (slightly?) off topic in observing that I was a little taken aback whilst waiting at Denmark Hill yesterday morning for a rare Clapham work trip to see one of the new-ish 387s operating a Sevenoaks-bound Catford Loop stopping service.
First time I had ever seen this – was it a cock-up on the carriage side PIS or is this to be a more usual practice pending the new stock (and given the now atrocious reliability of the venerable 319s…?)
In this mornings post on Rail magazine they said that 387/2 were being used to give drivers experience as they were very similar to the 387/1. It would seem likely that they will be used this way until the end of the month when GX services with them start. Incidentally there was a picture of a unit in GX branding in today’s WNXX.com. It consists of the Capital letters GX in white across the windows.
@the printer – “across the windows” – apart from being so ’80ish,why is that transport operators want to stop people looking out of the windows so?
Graham H
It was only a small illustration, but, I got the impression that the lettering was cut away over the glass. I agree with you that putting graphics over them is a nuisance. Once on a Rhine tour we traveled in a coach from Dover covered in vinyls for a week until we returned to Dover and thence back in a normal coach to Bournemouth. It kept the sun off, but, destroyed the view. I’m glad that both SWT and Southern avoid this.
@Graham H
This is an increasing trend:
– first came tinted windows
– then came lighting so bright that except on the sunniest of days it is impossible to make out anything through the windows (try working out what station you are passing through at night!)
– next, with airconditoining, came smaller windows (mark 2d onwards)
– then came seat pitches which bore no relationship to where the windows are (or simply not bothering to fit a window when you remove the toilet)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ljIMVeppGoA/VMt0-Y85W4I/AAAAAAAACJw/QAEQp8ekxwM/s1600/P1090837.JPG
– now comes contravision
Maybe the CSLR was just ahead of its time:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wrightfamilyarchives/5254606277
Branson once suggested that making trains more like aircraft would make them more glamorous and attract more people (as he owns an airline, he presumably never travels in steerage!) Unfortunately, many train designers and operators are following his suggestion.
@timbeau – 🙂 I had hoped that this rail industry love affair with air travel would vanish – the air industry has very little to teach us about commercial and operational matters, let alone aesthetics (it seems to have forgotten that air travel is no longer by Hannibal class aircraft for a leisurely trip to the Far East, but instead, we are herded – even 1st class punters through multiple queues, obstacle courses and unpleasant encounters with minor jobsworths only to travel in crush loaded conditions subjected to a disciplinary regime (especially in Virgin Transatlantic) that would bring shame to the average prison …
@Alan Robinson – it’s interesting, isn’t it, how the fashion for grant-aiding NR directly comes and goes? When Railtrack was privatised, the arguments for channelling the money via TOCs were twofold – the public one that this would give TOCs more control over NR activities and the unspoken one that RT couldn’t be seen to be dependent on grant like any old nationalised industry. The downside was, of course, that every TOC ceased to be profitable because they couldn’t fund their access charges without grant. Nationalise NR and the arguments flip; move NR towards privatisation (ho ho) and the position flips back again. I see the move to channel the grant via the TOCs as a preliminary to that (and a tacit recognition that most TOCs will stay in grant for ever with or without having to fund access charges).
Although, the industry costs what it costs, and hanging a different label round the grant element of its income makes no difference at all to its cost performance or management effectiveness, I expect to hear soon a repetition of the DfT cant about giving TOCs more control over NR performance (as if they had a choice, the ability or the skills to do that!) coupled with a bland refusal to acknowledge the reasons for the collapse of the WT/Wessex deep alliancing project.
timbeau
Careful now, you’ll be joining me & Alan Walmsley of Modern Railways, complaining about lack of seat-comfort & that gets you the snip …..
I think Greg may be teasing, but it gives me the opportunity to remind everyone that no specific issue gets snipped. Even proposals to extend the Waterloo and City were at first tolerated. It is over-repeated returns to the same bonnet-bee that we don’t like. Say what you like (subject to other well-known rules like courtesy), but don’t say it over and over and over again. (I will try not to say this too many times…)
@Graham H
Thank you again for a very incisive analysis. I agree with your assertions
in general, bur, there is one very important feature of UK Rail privatisation that had a major bearing on outcomes, which I tend to
think, is an example of the “law of unintended consequences”.
Or : ” Be careful what you wish for;———- ” ha ha.
British Railways was required to exhaust its infrastructure expenditure over business activities. Before sectorisation, there was just one BR bottom line, which of course proved to be much to complex and opaque to manage properly. (true, this is exactly as
Bob Reid Mk 1 spelled it out at a Lecture at 222 Matylebone Road
(about 1982/3).
Sectorisation required total exhaustion of whole of Infrastructure departments P & L to business sectors (and eventually to subsectors,
being the initial definition of TOCs (mostly) in 1996. This was in
accordance with both PSO principles and procedures, and European
regulation 1191/69 (? think I’ve got it right) which specified most
clearly that there must be no unsupported losses incurred by a
European Member state’s state railway system. e.g. No “Bits over”.
Railway infrastructure costing (sometimes described as the blackest of black arts) evolved over about 100 years, and involved an
international effort. British Railways took thinking to “new heights” in the 1980s, with the identificiation of a “hierarchy” of infrastructure
requirement. (rather than a simple average cost division over all users). With an “average cost attribution, i.e. by train km, tonneage
etc, profitable sectors are lightly charged, but the less viable sectors
are pressurised to abandon, but with little or no cost savings, thus
precipitating a domino effect, i.e. the incredible shrinking railway.
Br instituted a revolution in thought whereby costs were identified to
fixed and variable , the fixed costs to be borne by the profitable sectors, but on a specific line of route basis. This specific line of route
accounting was not a practical proposition (too labour intensive)
before the advances in computers in the 1980s.
Under BR accounting, the sector business results formed were integral with Annual report and Accounts for BR in total and included
real actual costs for infrastructure (and everything else).
Under the 1993 Act privatisation model , this was no longer possible
on two counts;-
(I) the franchise model implied FIXED track access contracts over the period of the franchise.
(2) Open access operations (and freight) implied “equitable pricing,
i.e. on an impartial basis to all operators. This implied total abandonment of the hierarchical principal.
Track Access charges were obtainedby using BR Infarstructrue
costs as a base, then inflating for: (i) Notional capital costs ,
reintroduction of “proper” capitalisation of assets, which BR was
statutorily prevented from doing. (Don’t ask about the methodology
employed to do this!) (ii) PROFIT !!! Yes Filthy dirty disgusting profits, built in to the Track Access charge (about 10% uplift) so that
Railtrack would be able to pay huge dividends. In addition, the
contracts (already installed on an internal basis) between Railtrack
and the Infrastructure companies (maintenance and renewal, separately) were also inflated by about 10% to make sure that they
could make filthy profits too!
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG ???
This is , as they say, history. Suffice to say that retrieving fully allocated infrastructure costs has proved to be a Humpty Dumpty
that just can’t be put back together again.
[ I have experimentally reformatted Alan’s comment from here on: see my following comment. Malcolm]
I don’t agree that eliminating the Network grant and pushing it back to TOC direct responsibility will ensure that they will al necessarily be plunged into unviability. Obviously deeply (hopeless basket cases) such as Scotrail , Wales, and most of Northern England will become even more unviable , and possibly unpopularly so (I have written to my MP pointing out that devolution of rail specifying to the Scottish and Welsh assemblies should result in over half the Network Grant being devolved too, thus revealing most of the ENGLISH rail network to be support free. Much depends on the quality of the accounting on a lime of route basis. At present, Network Rail financing costs seem to be reported on a national total basis. They really need to be built into accounts by line of route and incorporated into track access charges.
The fashion for NR grant to “come and go” is I think a reflection of the desperation that sent in when it became clear that following the Railtrack debacle (and massive backlog of basis renewals and maintenance) Network Rail was going to have to be given (almost) a blank cheque to cash in for money to throw. The terrifying rising cost represented in NR’s spending binge produced Network Grants up in the £7Billion range at worst (2002?) With this sort of appalling disconnect with totally inadequate track access charges, it was just much too difficult and deranging to try and put right , but now that things have settled down a bit, it’s back on the agenda.
The basic failure of UK railways(as I see it) is that basic costs (operations maintenance admin etc) seem to have multiplied by about 40% in unit cost real terms since early 1990s, and the McNulty report drew attention to this cost escalation, but without specifically blaming it on privatisation of course. If the UKs railways could be delivered at BR’s unit costs in real terms, not only would there have been no need for above inflation fare increases, Profits on Inter City TOCs would have been off the scale with the public demanding reductions.
Only the other day I met up with a former head of department from BRB finance (i.e. my onetime BOSS) and enquired;-
If that nice Mr Corbyn gets to be PM and renationalises the railways;-
then;- “Can I have my job back? ”
He replied;-
That’s depends, If I GET MY JOB BACK, you can forget about getting yours !11 (Too Cruel, I thought, just because of a few little trivial failings back in 1985,—–).
@Alan: Following a comment from a reader, I have taken the liberty of modifying part of your recent comment (see my italicised note inserted into it). This is intended to make it easier to read on screens which do not happen to have the same width as yours. I hope you are not offended. It is not appropriate (nor possible) to provide this as a regular service; as a general rule we expect readers to see comments exactly as contributors originated them.
Please do not let this interfere with your wonderful, if somewhat unusual, insight. If you appreciate what I am getting at, and can omit line-breaks from future messages, that would be great. If you do not agree, or do not find it convenient to follow this suggestion, that will be quite OK – we would much rather see your comments, even with line-breaks, than not. Long may the competition between you and Graham (for LR’s local “National Treasure” award) continue!
@AR – the blackest of black arts indeed. One very important reason why this is so is that the allocation of *all* costs to activities is, ineluctably, arbitrary. In the case of NR, 1/3 of all costs cannot be allocated below company level – these are made up of such things as the costs of borrowing, and various central services; another 1/3 cannot be allocated below Route level (a rising proportion these days as signalling schemes get bigger); and the remaining 1/3 can, with some qualifications, be allocated to at least service groups. Allocating the top two categories (as required by EU regulations*, as you say) can be done only on a “bob a mile” type formula. I have argued with the relevant Commission figures (mainly on behalf of the Irish) but really couldn’t get them to understand; they really did/do believe that there must be a “right” way of splitting up these costs. The lessons for avoiding cross-subsidy – or not – are equally obvious.
And yes, the formulae – any and all formulae – have unintended consequences. [In the Irish case, applying any plausible formula for access charges caused a major political row, as prior to their introduction the Enterprise service had been provided jointly with NIR and costs and revenues had simply been allowed to lie where they fell. Unfortunately, IE provided 3 sets and NIR two, so with the introduction of access charges, IE started paying more, with the implied transfer of money north of the Border…]
*1370/2008 these days – but just as strong on principle and just as weak on practicality
BTW – not sure I wish to be classified as a National Treasure (apart from not deserving it, it usually seems to be applied to someone “approaching the end of retirement” to use the Chancellor’s so sympathetic phrase). I intend to do down the BR pension fund for a bit longer…
@Malcolm
It’s OK not offended at all. Thanks for your appreciative comment.
There’s something going on. Being of small brain, I do not understand.
When I type things I do try and run up to the edge to use the space all
nice and regular but it seems to shift when I post it . Just don’t know.
Weird (sorry, I remember, weird is banned).
AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGH! It’s done it again. Look above, I
originally typed this right up to the right edge, ( “I do not understand”)and then : It shifted !!!!
It does it AFTER I scroll on down, so the displacement is concealed
(very cunning).
Rest assured I will take care to try and repair the damage before finally officially posting in future.
@Malcolm
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGH!!!! Now it’s dome something different.
This time I left the displacement in place (to illustrate). Now;-
I found that it HAS CORRECTED ITSELF ON POSTING!!!
Is this a portent of the beginning of the end of the world?
@Graham H
With respect, don’t entirely agree this time.
“Pure” admin (sometimes defined as the top HQ cost lines) is indeed
impossible to allocate on anything other than any arbitrary basis,
(eg the Office Cat’s pussyfood etc). BUT Just about everything else is
potentially a LONG tern (or at least Medium Tern) variable. Even
with “second tier” admin, if an industry is reduced in scope (size)
it will be necessary to downsize the admin. The whole thrust of
Railway Infrastructure accounting under BR in the 1970s – 90s was to
devise consistent and logical methodologies that would be in the best
overall interest on the business. I had the (possibly unenviable) task
of “selling” (and I do mean selling, I got them to pay a higher price )
new infrastructure costing methodologies to the PTEs. I could only
do (not without a lot of effort and heartache) by being able to demonstrate a very convincing logic and lack of abitraryness.
“Formula” is not a term I would use. Essentially , it was a logic
based upon a “judgment of Solomon, (sort of). That is , if they scream
for something, then it’s theirs, therefore they pay for it. (Simple ).
Totally unworkable in a supposedly competitive railway with need
for equitable pricing for infrastructure (in effect tolls).
This tolling principle is now putting the “coup de grace” to European
International overnight services. The same fate would befall the
Caledonian Sleeper if the UK applied the same principles.
The basic problem is : Tolling only works if you have a huge number
of customers, as in a toll road. When there is only two or three
customers, it becomes too volatile and unpredictable,
The appalling SNCF local Regional networks display the effects of this syndrome, and could well be entering a terminal phase.
@Alan: I will continue the formatting conversation in a private eMail (which may have to wait a few hours). Meanwhile conversation about things far more interesting than line-breaks can continue here…
@Graham: yes, you are quite right, the whole concept of National Treasure is deeply flawed for the reasons you mention, and others. I’m sorry I let the appellation, even in jest, get anywhere near you! (The concept is also sent extremely up in Private Eye, as you may have noticed.)
@AR – you are effectively describing the much-loved OfQ methodology in which all infrastructure costs (as visible to BR management) were eventually allocated to all the sectors. That approach (which I, and most UK regulators, believe to be as good an approach as you could get) depended on amongst other things, a hierarchy of sectors, with the prime user taking the first hit on costs. Unfortunately, in the privatised world no such thing exists (except as between franchised passenger, open access and freight generically, but that’s a different issue). All operators have to be treated equally. Moreover, RT/NR has a whole range of costs not previously on BR’s books (the result of recapitalising the industry) and it is these which have to be recovered somehow. Whether you do it by formula or tossing a coin, it still has to be done – and it’s done these days not by the volume of screaming (indeed the exact opposite – no one wants to pay for any infrastructure but pay they have to because every last penny has to be charged out and that on a fair and equitable basis).
I don’t believe there is any right formula for cost allocation – at least no one has ever managed to demonstrate it yet, but I do agree some formulae are much less stable than others. In particular, the policy of charging open access as a short run marginal cost will cause serious trouble if the volume of open access operation ever becomes a major feature on a particular route. This is because there is no guarantee that these open access operators will continue in business so any contribution they may make may be extremely volatile – given the longterm nature of infrastructure costs that places an enormous risk on the infrastructure manager.
BTW I think it is important to distinguish between the question of cost allocation and the quite separate question as to whether costs are short or long run variable or fixed. Some fixed costs can be allocated to a specific level of activity, just as some short run variable costs can’t. As usual, it depends on the question you are trying to answer. What is annoying (to put it mildly ) is that the inhabitants of DG TREN actually believe there is somewhere out there an absolute definitive way of allocating costs. I’ve never believed that neo-Platonic nonsense.
Allocation of costs is indeed difficult to do accurately and precisely. Take the old Red Star parcels service. If you assess how much it would cost to run such a service, in customer facing staff, accommodation, vehicles, and logistics support (deciding which trains a parcel should be taken on, and preparing an itinerary for it), it would have been quite uneconomic – as it proved when they tried to sell it off. But in fact most of the assets used to provide the service were already paid for – spare space in guards’ vans, station staff filling in time between trains, etc. Except at the busiest offices, which needed dedicated staff, I suspect the main cost was the stationery.
@Graham H
This is good stuff. You have perfectly described the essential “Achilles heel” of the entire 1993 Privatisation philosophy, and why therefore, it failed. Either you run a multiple sector railway under one overall management control (i.e. HQ is a sort of referee, but devises the rule book to achieve a pre-ordained result to best corporate advantage of the industry) or ;– It is bust up, and competing business slog it out as to who can obtain scarce slots to use limited infrastructure.
If the whole railway was a genuinely profitable business (all the sectors capable of generating profits) then Government could just sell it off, pass act to prevent the infrastructure owner from operating trains and, sit back watch the fun as battle commences. The outcome would be market determined, the amount of scarce slots obtained would be in accordance with anticipated profits. This is (almost) what is supposed to happen with airports. But the Rail business is just not like this. There is a public demand to demand continuation of services on a “status quo” basis, which may well involve scarce public finance in support. There is a public interest in fares charged and quality standards. Just about everything to do with the passenger rail business is a political football, sometimes an exploding one. There is also the very difficult (and unresolveable question of financing of major investments) These are the ultimate long term investment, but business prospects just don’t stretch far enough. Therefore , the state steps in and “takes a long term view”. All perfectly in accordance with the observations of one Adam Smith of Kirkcaldy back abut 1790!
Therefore, the competitive model (competing trains owned by different commercial enterprises) is NO GOOD, WON’T WORK etc etc ad nauseam.
There is a definitive way of allocating costs. That which achieves the best possible outcome, in terms of the business results of the railway. For a private railway (pre-1914 say) then this is literally, the Railway’s own business. For a publicly owned railway, then it gets more subtle.
It is possible for the perceived business objectives of a publicly owned railway to be in conflict with perceived national public interest. (Hence Beeching, and post Beeching objections to closures).
I do appreciate where “you are coming from”. As a civil servant, you might well be frustrated by being unable to identify a “perfect” costing methodology. As a railway finance manager, my quest was much simpler, one that WORKS. I thought BR had got it about as good as it could get. I had a “certain amount to do with development of infrastructure costing at BRHQ, worked with Don Box (the great BR infrastructure cost titan) on sole user costing (pre Ofq). We were certainly global leaders.
And all this was junked on privatisation. Track Access costs were virtually fixed, pickled in aspic, set in tablets of stone etc. All the systems and procedures devised to continue and update the methodology was junked, vital computer systems switched off.
This is why I left the industry in 1996, totally disillusioned and burnt out. I vowed never to have anything to do with railways ever again (except for swanning around having fun). I have broken my vow by getting mixed up with this lunatic London Reconnections business. Ah well, hopefully I will retain most of my sanity. (not that there was much left by 1996). I did however hold an epic leaving do at a hostelry near Euston station much fueled by alcohol (I could drink as much as I liked as I was already technically gone) when I forecast the bankruptcy of Railtrack within five years. I was wrong by six months. My leaving do was March 1996.
All I hope for now is that some of the quality of thinking and practice of BR finance in the 1980s and 1990s might be rehabilitated, and even restored to grace.
Alan Robinson
Good to see you back and in fine form.
If ONLY airports were run in the way they were “supposed” to….this might well solve a lot of the issues concerning capacity etc by letting the chill breeze of the free market blow through what is,in fact,a relatively cosy cartel in which “slots” are allocated on an arcane basis of “grandfather rights” some of which date back to the days of BOAC.
We can live in hope…
@Slugabed
I am not at all expert on Airports, you obviously know more than me and I am intrigues by your description of the reality that Airports are actually a cosy cartel, involving grandfather rights etc.
Of course, of course, this is how human society actually works, Railways are no different. Genuine free market conditions are actually very rare indeed. The norm is the “cosy cartel” which occasionally breaks down leading to period of chaos, then resumption of normality. You can only get a demonstration of real market forces when the number of suppliers and consumers is effectively infinite, or in practice , big enough to suffice. In the wonderful world of the “free market” enthusiasts, the market place (quite literally, the original classical economist really did see it as a physical market place. i.e. in a town square) has no limit on the number of stalls that can be set up, no limit on number of consumers that could access them, total uniformity of knowledge of market conditions, no “secret” knowledge etc etc. In thesecases the “unseen hand” of the market achieves a perfect allocation of resources to demand. But as with Airports, it just isn’t like this. Those advocating “more competition needed” such as Tony Lodge (Telegraph article) in recent times are proposing the release of TWO privatised swallows in January so they can pretend it’s a free enterprise summer.
Also, Free markets (or as near as you can get to them) inevitably transmogrify into nasty cartels eventually , unless carefully regulated to prevent this happening, or at least bring them to heel. This is what the 1930 transport act sought to do. The 1985 Act was instituted by those either unaware of or deliberately scathing of the reasons for the 1930 Act. We live and DON’T learn, BUT What goes round comes round (a Circle line train?).
@AR – no, I totally agree, there is no perfect system of costing, just horses for courses. Anyone I know who has worked in the industry at even a moderately senior level all agree that OfQ was about as good as you could get. (And of course, it can’t work on a dis-integrated railway). Amusingly, I was having lunch on Monday with some ex-BR (and ex-ORR and ex-civil service*) senior colleagues and we couldn’t help speculating whether there were enough people left who could actually run an integrated industry (and were willing to abandon their beekeeping to do so). The answer we concluded was no more than a couple of tablesfull.
*these were a clutch of the same people who had trodden the same variegated path that I had… You’d be surprised how many exited DTp for BR…
@Graham H
;—– whether enough people left who could actually run an integrated industry. Very interesting, I don’t keep bees. (Although I did at one time rather fancy myself as the Sherlock Holmes of BR and even conducted on site investigations in disguise (sometimes). Rural Herefordshire isn’t quite the Sussex coast either. Could be open to offers (must write off to Mr Corbyn) but, I suspect my chances are going to be sunk by the enduring disgrace of the 1982 disk formatting episode. Perhaps computers are a bit less vulnerable to incompetent idiots these days. (haven’t been in an office since March 1996).
Regarding infrastructure costing methodologies, once you have eliminated the impossible, you are left with the possible. the truth. Did you know that Sherlock Holmes continued a later career in the
1920s as a railway accountant?
Hence: It’s an LM entry my dear Watson. (that might get me a life ban from LR).
@ Alan R, Graham H
Reading your stories of rail privatisation (and the potential reprise of Santayana’s axiom) reminds me of my time as a junior grunt at a transport consultancy whose well-known founder worked with the civil servants on drafting the 1993 Railways Act. On being shown the finally-approved privatised model for inclusion in the legislation, I remarked to my then boss that something so complex and with more leaks than a sieve was never going to deliver the politicians’ ambitions.
After chiding me for my impudence, he replied that the senior civil servant who signed off the draft wording (I name no names but he later trousered a ‘K’ for his troubles) had convinced the PM of three things: that the PM’s own preference for a return to the ‘Big Four’ was unworkable, that rail was a market in its own right rather than just one competing mode in the transport marketplace, and that his method of privatisation was going to make the railways self-sustaining. After my telling-off I didn’t dare ask my superior for his thoughts but I’d like to think that he felt something similar to me.
Even as a young fella, and without your experience or expertise, I could see flaws in the model adopted and it saddens me that successive governments of both stripes have just tinkered at the margins rather than addressing the structural and financial issues that still to varying degrees undermine the network and industry today. Anyway, I digress, but in so doing must thank you both for continuing to educate and enlighten us with your stories and insight.
THC
@THC -interesting. As one who was intimately involved in privatisation’s implementation (Don’t shoot, I was only the pianist), my abiding impression was one of DTp’s advisers making it up as they went along. To be sure, as you say, they had their small core of beliefs, but they really had no idea how to do what they wanted or anything other than a theoretical understanding of how the industry worked. New problems confronted them on a daily basis and their usual response was brute force. When challenged,the Department’s advisers always resorted to cliches. I particularly despised one ex-RR manager who had taken PwC’s (?) money and whenever he was faced with a problem of structural conflicts of interest (say in giving priority to one service in preference to another at a junction) resorted to recommending a prior bidding process. He should have known better but then he had taken the consultancy shilling. As BR2 sadly remarked when he retired, we won all the battles but lost the war.
Their chosen instruments to staff up OPRAF were naive in the extreme. Somewhat later, when I was a consultant, my firm was approached by a privatisation specialist consultancy who were peddling Roger Salmon as someone the TOCs would love to have advising them; they seemed puzzled when the words “toxic” and “damaged goods” were used.
Why has nothing been done ? The – wrong – assumption is that it would be expensive. However,just as privatisation doubled the cost base of the industry, re-nationalisation would have the opposite effect – the thing is symmetrical. Too difficult for politicians to understand and HMT (who probably do understand in private) having expelled the bolus from the public sector will fight like cats to avoid getting it back again.
@THC
Yes, the competition thing really is a mirage. I can only identify two instances of genuine comparable competition of a significant nature on the present day UK Railway. I mean here, comparable trains, schedules and fares and timetables by more than one TOC between the same two places.
(1) Scotland : London-Glasgow/Edinburgh (and a few more Scottish destinations).
(2) Southend : C2C to Fenchurch St or Greater Anglia to Liverpool St,
Not much in it, but only applies to those commencing their journeys in Southend centre.
Others don’t really make the grade, eg Paddington-Exeter, Waterloo-Exeter , Chiltern or Virgin to Birmingham etc.
I am amazed that the “open access” operators have got away with it so long. They are not paying “fair” equitable access charges to abstract traffic from the main franchise. Probably a few other hidden subsidies too.
Are there any others? Not sure if Cross Country counts.
The real competition is Rail against the dreaded Motor Car, and the public has a vested interest in rail succeeding.
@Alan Robinson
London-Oxford perhaps, and Southern and SWT compete to Epsom/Leatherhead/Dorking .
I’m not sure even London-Scotland counts – Euston for Clydeside and Kings Cross for everywhere else – hanging stations in Glasgow is a nuisance – and are there any direct services from Euston to north of Glasgow other than the sleepers?
It always surprised me that where there was opportunity for competition, between the ex-LCDR lines and the ex-SER lines, with substantially separate routes to Ashford, Bromley, Catford, Canterbury, Dover, Lewisham, Medway, Orpington, Ramsgate, Sevenoaks, and Thanet still surviving after over 90 years of joint management, they put them all under one franchise.
timbeau : the one franchise in Kent does not surprise me at all. As I understand the history, the competition in the nineteenth century between SER and LCDR had more or less successfully prevented either from making a profit, and things only started pulling round when they started to co-operate. The last area which the privatisation wonks would want as a showcase for their nostrums was one where “competition” had already adequately demonstrated its incompatibility with railways. Use some other lucky area as a “blank sheet” – Kent had already been scribbled on.
@Timbeau:
“It always surprised me that where there was opportunity for competition, between the ex-LCDR lines and the ex-SER lines…”
There wasn’t. Neither company ever made a lot of money, and they frequently teetered on the edge of bankruptcy — occasionally falling right into it and having to be bailed out in some way.
Some of the duplication occurred because Edward Watkin and James Staats Forbes (the respective managers) really, really hated each other, and were quite happy to stoop to building ‘spoiler’ lines to annoy their rivals and grab some crumbs of traffic for themselves.
Another reason for it is that the networks were effectively limited to a very small area, which couldn’t provide any long-distance inter-city traffic. Channel port traffic aside, there really isn’t much in Kent aside from agricultural produce. Covering as much of Kent as possible was therefore a perfectly valid business strategy at the time as railways had a monopoly for decades, and London needed that produce.
The rise of the automobile made this approach dangerously obsolete almost overnight, which is why these two networks are such a financial basket-case today.
London-Cambridge has some competition – the GN route is faster, but the GE route gets you closer to the City and has some cheaper fares. They were initially privatised under one franchise – WAGN.
@Malcolm
The SER and LC&DR had the highest fares and most ancient rolling stock. The transformation wrought by the 1899 amalgamation was most wondrous. Not only were the rationalised services a great improvement fares were moderated and totally lunatic bits of railway eliminated. A massive build of state of art locos and carriages too. (Strood-Chatham cent, Thanet). A bad example for adherents of the benefits of competition indeed. The principles raised are still current.
@AR _ I suspect that London-Exeter is more heavily competed these days thanks to FGW’s policy of ever slower trains, and Chiltern seems to have found a competitive niche with its less restricted booking arrangements at less than outrageous walk up fares – Chiltern management also believe that there is a distinct “West Midlands suburbs” market.
The only serious example of rail/rail competition in this country seems to have been the Welsh coal trade, with each valley supporting two competing routes to matching competing ports. There are interesting examples from the US, particularly with a number of mainlines shadowed by interurbans, although it has to be said that the interurbans eventually collapsed when it became time to renew the assets.
@GrahamH – your story of mandarins being surprised when a conflict of interest pops up that should have been obvious given the structure being set up surprises me not one bit.
Exactly the same happened when GPs first sat on commissioning bodies in the NHS (PCG days, I think it was). GPs were providers as well as sitting on commissioning bodies. No-one had thought out how that would work and avoid a conflict of interest.
And, lo and behold, MikeP – since 2013 the GPs now run the successor clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) lock, stock, the bloomin’ lot. Santayana’s axiom made it to the Department of Health. But that’s *so* far off topic I’ll say no more for fear of the chop.
THC
@Graham H
The most important point re competition is that it has never (anywhere?) been the case that a significant portion of each railways business has been “under competition”. The USA provides many examples of prestigious competitive operations in the past (20th century limited v Broadway, and a less prestigious effort by the Erie.
Chicago – Twin Cities, Hiawathas (Milwaukee Road) V 400’s C & NW etc. But the ticket sales for even these substantial operations would have hardly registered in the accounts of the NYC Pennsy etc.
In fact the only long distance competitive operation in UK was the GC extension to Marylebone (failure). You are correct about S Wales Coal, but there were some similar examples elsewhere, especially E Midlands. and Scotland (Lowlands) Caledonian and NB were at each other’s throats just about everywhere, passenger and freight.
We are really getting wildly off topic (snip coming soon?). Perhaps we can steer back to the actual present day prospects for Tfl takeover of TOC services, and implications of support and level of service fares etc. Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be anyway.
@Graham H
“London-Exeter is more heavily competed these days thanks to FGW’s policy of ever slower trains,”
Even from Clapham Junction the timing via Paddington to Exeter is similar to the direct trains, and the idea of spending three and a half hours sitting on top of 400 Cummins finest horses does not really appeal, when the alternative is a mark 3. (we’ll have to see what the IEPs are like) Even when the off peak fare from waterloo is a third of the off peak fare from Paddington (and is less even than most advance fares!)ne of a .
@timbeau – whilst I share your views on dmus, which personally I avoid like the plague if I can, for the hardup, things are different. Certainly, the SWT management see the Exeter market as worth competing for .
@Graham H
Indeed, although the LSWR line has always cultivated custom from intermediate stations as well – Andover, Salisbury, Yeovil, Honiton have a much more frequent service than Newbury or Taunton, for example.
Indeed, GWR seem to have raised no objection to SWT muscling in on their territory recently, in the Westbury/Frome/Castle Cary area.
How this relates to devolution of London services? Well, I think the operators recognise that any optional travel that brings in money (as distinct from optional travel made by season ticket holders, which brings in no extra revenue at all) is to be made on the longer distances. Within London, they already have most of the traffic on offer, and are having to invest heavily to cope with it – probably more than they can hope to get in return from any additional revenue generated from the improvements. (To paraphrase Yerkes, there is no profit in letting the straphangers have a seat). Or, it’s difficult to grow (or indeed lose) market share when you have a monopoly, so why bother spending money on it?
The TOCs do of course enjoy a steady and reliable income from suburbia, but I would expect that most of them would be happy to let the suburban services go, provided they were adequately compensated for that loss of income – the only issue being how much is “adequate”!
A bigger issue would be pathing – when all services are under one operator they can decide for themselves whether to prioritise a service to Dover or one to Dartford. With two or more operators, the decision has to be made by a neutral party, who will not always come to the same decision. And we have already seen the first pre-emptive strikes in the land grab for any extra capacity that might be found.
The interesting implication in what Graham H said (that the IC125s are not dmus)reminded me of the observation that squirrels are just rats with better PR.
Presumably the mark 3 coaches are the equivalent of the bushy tails?
@ Alan R – I am aware of the intracacies of subsidy or not. The irony is that I was really talking about TfL’s finances not TOC ones. While there will always be issues in allocating costs in a “sensible” way LU largely escapes the nonsenses and complexity of what happens on NR. Obviously they do need track access agreements to run on NR metals and one TOCs has to pay LU something to run on their tracks. TfL are clearly caught up with NR issues where they are funding concession contracts but there is no grant paid by DfT in respect of West Anglia and I don’t think anything is paid for the Shenfield line. There is a some support grant paid for the former Silverlink Metro services but I suspect that will die when the concession is retendered this year. Obviously the Network Grant issue looms in the background regardless for those concession operations but TfL have generally been pretty good at shoving up ridership and revenue thus pushing those operations to the point where the revenue exceeds the contracted cost of operation. Crossrail *has* to generate a massive surplus every year to help pay back an element of the project’s funding. It will be interesting to see if it manages to do so and how quickly the operation generates a basic “profit” (please, no lectures about how real or otherwise it will be!).
@ Graham H – your remarks about the “thought” and “solution” process employed by consultations on BR privatisation ring a number of bells over LU PPP. 😉
@WW – though if Network Grant is to be replaced by a reversion to giving the cash to TOCs instead, presumably TfL would be entitled to some in the future?
Not surprised the tube PPP sounded familiar – many of the consultancy (and Treasury) faces I met re-appeared there…
@RonnieB – well at least with the HSTs, the power was all in a separate end vehicle. Like timbeau, I just don’t love that underfloor thrum. We are in Good Company – some years ago, when I was discussing with courtiers replacement of the Royal Train, thoughts turned to the use of some form of existing new build (there were really only 168s and 17xs at the time) – “Huh. I can’t really imagine the Royal DMU” was the response. EMUs, I note, don’t seem to cause the same problem.
The HST is technically a dmu, but only because it was decided that the “hotel power” in the carriages should be supplied from the locomotives’ alternators rather than on each coach. But it is not what most people think of as a dmu. It is the noise of an underfloor engine that palls after three hours.
It was noticeable that in first generation dmus the First Class accommodation was usually put in a trailer or driving trailer.
@Walthamstow Writer
It is not a simple case of just “allocating” Network Grant. A proper
accounting system would be able to identify all NR costs to P& L
on a route basis , i.e. junction to junction (or boundary).
The present disconnect (shortfall) is simply not known (and I am sure
that any attempt to just “offload” this on an arbitrary basis could be challenged, (probably successfully). It should be possible for NR to
identify certain costs accurately, routine track maintenance etc,
but the biggest problem seems to be capital expenditure. Normal
like for like renewals are (theoretically) encompassed in access charges, or, at least, they were back in 1996! New or enhanced assets
are a different matter. Each asset (in theory) should have an additional capital account, with user(s) identified and appropriately charged (depreciation and interest), this forming part of the track access. This is effectively what BR was able to do in the last years.
Railtrack just didn’t inherit the procedures, and eschewed all
attempts to reinstate full located costing. (much too difficult).
This is very important as capital charges have loomed ever larger in
NR accounts, indeed CAPITAL indebtedness has now reached dizzy
heights north of 60billion at last examination, interestingly half of
it funded by Japanese banks! (so much for increasing fares to pay for
investment, the Japanese are doing it for us!). As you correctly observe the NR Grant does need “sorting out” if there is going to be
any major re-casting of funding responsibilities, which is why I raised
the issue .
Ronnie MB
IC 125 are not DMU’s in the sense that the power-cars are entirely separate & you don’t have however many MW/HP of diesel-engine throbbing away underneath or even right next to you.
The travel in the coaches is (almost) as silent & commfortable as in an electrically-hauled vehicle.
Which is the point
Clearly an HST is not a DMU. It is a DU – a diesel unit.
DMUs (the middle word is multiple) is strictly speaking a train that that consists of multiple units capable of running independently. In practice it always included a train consisting of a single unit (but multiple carriages) and nowadays people often refer to the single unit as “a DMU”.
There is a problem that you can have 125mph true DMUs with underfloor motors but they are not the general perception of what a DMU is.
As suggested in some of the original comments above DfT may be having issues re-franchising the SW franchise – And so it has come to pass that there are only 2 short listed bidders Stagecoach and First.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/two-companies-shortlisted-to-compete-for-the-next-south-western-rail-franchise
Have there ever been this few short-listed for re-franchising? (e.g. since 2000)
ngh,
I like the “two companies shortlisted” as if the DfT chose them from the long list that they had”. In reality I suspect two companies applied. There was probably no “shortlisting” in any meaningful sense.
I can’t imagine the DfT is very happy. Two companies that have form for walking away if terms are not good enough. Indeed, are they permitted to withdraw at this stage and what if both did so? What then? And having First Group and SWT you can hardly talk about “bringing innovation” or “a fresh perception” or any of the twaddle that ministers like to bring out to tell us how wonderful this all is.
@Ngh – I can already hear Timbeau screaming at the prospect of gaining First Group or retaining Stagecoach as operator of his local trains. 😉 One upside is that just two bidders should speed up the procurement if the bids are of sufficient quality to keep both “in play”. No need for shortlisting down to two.
@PoP – “And having First Group and SWT you can hardly talk about “bringing innovation” or “a fresh perception” or any of the twaddle that ministers like to bring out to tell us how wonderful this all is.” Not a problem; all you need is a straight face. So: “Ministers welcomed the short listing of Stagecoach and First for the key SWT franchise. Both operators bring a wealth of experience in successful management and an enviable reputation for delivering value for money for both the passenger and the taxpayer.” I have arranged for a supply of soothing throat tablets to be dispatched to timbeau.
@ Graham H – It’s almost as if you’ve worked at the DfT before. 😉 And as for throat tablets …. 🙂 🙂
@ngh @WW My local trains too. Time to create a new DOR as a credible threat?
Alternatively, if there is no acceptable bid at the end of the process, I suppose DfT could turn the ‘inners’ orange and re-tender the ‘outers’.
In other news today, I see the bus industry outside London is facing cuts, which would adversely affect both bidders.
The political risks of the ‘Hokey Cokey’ (EU referendum) and GE2015 may have deterred our European partners’ state owned railways from bidding; no wonder there was an effort to find new dancers for the franchising foxtrot.
SWT ridership is closely correlated with activity at the non-Waterloo end of the Unmentionable Line (& the Wharf).
The Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race is also a two horse race, which has seen its share of unexpected outcomes over the years.
On the other hand, the non-arrival of premium income could be messy. And it would be more challenging than usual to hold the incumbent to high standards if its successor is the franchisor.
Current performance is not encouraging.
@all above
Re First Group/Stagecoach as short listed bidders for SWT. This is where the whole concept of “competition” is exposed as a myth. With only two bidders for anything, this is not really competition at all, many more bidders are required for a proper market. And, should First get SWT, then that’s the end of one of the few examples of competitive services in the UK (London-Exeter).
I was amazed that there wasn’t an outcry over giving East Coast to Virgin/Stagecoach, as this means that both east and west routes to Scotland are under “monopoly” control (along with Midland Mainline for goodness sake). After the debacle over the WCML when First were “robbed” I suppose it is conceded (at the Dft) that they are owed something. East Coast was too prestigious to risk to a company known to be in trouble globally, and the only other bidder was Eurostar/SNCF, which would have meant UK state operation being ceded to FRENCH state operation, so no go, leaving Virgin Stagecoach as only possible credible option, even at expense of destroying last fig leaf of competition. All goes to show, rail competition is a mirage, or a grand delusion. However, as Stagecoach already looms uncomfortably large, then First might be judged to be just reformed enough to be given SWT. We will see. As SWT is probably the most lucrative “cash cow” in the UK rail portfolio, then one might have expected mega competition, at least six bids?
@Alan Robinson. I really cannot understand this concept that the East Coast and West Coast routes are in any way competitive with each other, except in the vague sense that they both run north-south with one end in London. I regularly travel to Edinburgh and Perth and sometimes to Aberdeen and it would need a discount or some other inducement of staggering proportions for me to even consider going West Coast via Glasgow. The further south you come the more insupportable this argument becomes. West Coast to Newcastle or York? East Coast to Stafford or Lancaster? The 2 routes serve very different markets. In any case, does the competition not come at the tendering stage? Presumably Virgin were awarded both routes because in each case they offered the best package. Is this very different to what happens with London buses? Routes are tendered and no-one is surprised, or complains , if 2 parallel or overlapping routes are awarded to the same operator.
Re DMUs: I stand corrected
@Alan Robinson
“I was amazed that there wasn’t an outcry over giving East Coast to Virgin/Stagecoach, as this means that both east and west routes to Scotland are under “monopoly” control”
Bizarrely, the monopoly issue that did exercise the Competition and Monopolies Authority was Stagecoach’s resulting monopoly between Peterborough, Grantham, and Lincoln. I note that neither bidder is headquartered in England
@Alan R
“that’s the end of one of the few examples of competitive services in the UK (London-Exeter).” also Windsor and, to some extent Reading.
@WW et al “I can already hear Timbeau screaming ”
They’re all as bad as each other – what matters is what the new franchise terms will require them to do. Not that I have much hope there, the bidders have been announced even before the consultation exercise has ended.
“As SWT is probably the most lucrative “cash cow” in the UK rail portfolio, then one might have expected mega competition”
That really depends on whether the same terms are on offer this time round. Stagecoach were very canny first time round, bidding low on the first round when everyone was testing the water and the government was being generous to get the bidders interested, and refusing to be beaten down to unprofitable levels on later rounds when the competition was fiercer. That is why SWT was the only franchise they won on the initial carve up.
@PoP and others
“multiple unit operation” means several traction units under the control of one driver. They could be a unit train like a class 172 or a Pendolino, but could simply be two locomotives double-heading a freight train (compare “tandem” operation, the normal arrangment in steam days or when two diesels are not compatible for multiple operation, where the two locomotives’ engines are controlled separately but the lead driver controls the continuous brake).
In that sense the two power cars of an HST are working in multiple. So are the DVT and Class 91 of an IC225, when the DVT is leading.
timbeau,
I disagree with your understanding of multiple unit and have always believed that the “unit” is the configuration of carriages that cannot normally be separated – it is, well, a unit, indivisable. To me that cannot be clearer and that has always been the context in which I have heard it used.
An HST may be a MDU but it is not a DMU. Similarly a DMU can be an MDMU or a SDMU but they are both a “unit” for planning and diagramming purposes – indivisible.
@Anonymous
Re East Coast v West Coast Competition.
I have several friends in Scotland (non ex BR!) who desire to travel to London occasionally. I have for some years acted as a rail fare consultant, searching the most advantageous (cheapest) fares on offer. These friends (as in the case of many) have no allegiance to either East Coast or West, just want to travel to London CHEAP, but by rail, other means deemed awful/uncivilized etc.
I can assure you that, since Virgin/Stagecoach got East Coast, the cheapest advance fares have indeed gone up substantially. Difficult to compile a proper analysis, I would estimate about 30% of my friends are screaming It’s a FIX!!! It is.
timbeau,
Thinking about it a bit more, I can see that the distinctions are getting blurred through usage and, no doubt, the Thameslink stock will be referred to a an emu so multiple unit whereas I would argue it isn’t. So “multiple unit” tends to get used as the alternative to loco-hauled, propelled or dual loco push-pulled. Maybe a traction engineer uses these terms differently from a operations person who will talk about a 4-car unit or a 3-car unit or a 12-car emu.
@Alan Robinson. You may well be right but this could arguably be caused by each route being a separate monopoly. I suspect it also depends on where your friends are travelling from and how much of a premium they put on time. If I am going to Edinburgh and want or need to do the journey in less than 4½ hours I will go East Coast. As I said, it would take a big inducement for me to travel by any other route because my time is limited. Others may have different priorities and there is nothing wrong in that but I still suspect that the percentage of travellers for whom East and West Coast are genuine alternatives is limited.
@Anonymous
I think that you are presenting the views of a very small segment of long haul rail travelers – the business traveller for whom time and facilities are of the essence (especially so if armed with expense account). The overwhelming majority are individuals travelling for visiting friends/relations, holidays, personal business, entertainment or students etc etc. I assure you that on longer distance of the nature of Scotland- London etc, price is the principal determinant of choice. (given an “acceptable standard of comfort and convenience etc). In fact private individuals CAN and do purchase First Class tickets when presented as an attractive bargain. (which is sometimes the case, but, as I have been informed less so recently). A few years ago I traveled down from Edinburgh to Kings Cross in first, where the entire carriage had been sold to advance cheap fare travelers for £30 with railcard discount. (So the train manager assured me).
So, I contend that the number of passengers for whom the choice of East or West coast is a genuine alternative is actually very substantial. I go to Scotland about five times each year and talk to passengers (1st class when alone, standard mostly when travelling with friend). If you are paying out of your own pocket, does 40 mins or so travelling time (on a 4hour-ish journey really matter). I don’t think so. How much is 40 mins worth to a private individual anyway, even the wealthier ? The minimum wage is £7 per hr (or something), so, logically the value of time can’t be more than that for most, so (say) £0.12 per minute?
@Alan Robinson. Sorry but I am retired, living on my pension and spending it as I wish. And yes, I spend it on First Class with my geriatric railcard because I want to, not because someone else is paying (and it costs far more than £30, where do you find this fare?). You really shouldn’t try to make assumptions to fit your preconceptions.
Over an Out
@Alan R
“How much is 40 mins worth to a private individual anyway, even the wealthier ”
Surely a big factor though is the existence of a through train. Now that most Kings Cross – Glasgow trains have been removed, I cannot think of a single destination in Scotland served by daytime trains from both Euston and Kings Cross.
@Anonymous
Ahaaa ! En Garde! Assumptions to fit preconceptions ? I am reporting my own experience of the world as reported to be by others, and indeed in keeping with my own experience. I am currently organising three trips to Europe for spring and summer (Germany/Holland/France/Poland) and have gone to enormous lengths to shave off the cost (all at public advance fares), i.e. I have chosen to make journeys across Germany using (in some cases) a series of Landercards (@ E 23 rather than a sparpreis ticket at 59 or so (but taking an extra 2 hours or so in RE trains rather than IC or ICE.
Same for Eurostar, cheapest advance fares available. By doing so, I have saved about E 300 compared with the more usual option (for all three expeditions). This is how one gets rich, by not throwing your money away. I think most people are like this, am I really so deluded?
Edinburgh – London
The £30 offer in first (i.e. £40 without railcard discount) really did exist, (about 5 years ago) I checked it out myself, similar price (sometimes) on West Coast. Yes, I do accept that not everybody is quite so parsimonious, but well, they do say that the Scots have a reputation for being canny!
That you can’t travel so cheaply today is my whole point.
In this picture, the locomotive at the front of the row on the left has more cables on the end than the one at the front of the row on the right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_76#/media/File:Reddish_Loco_Depot_-_geograph.org.uk_-_965138.jpg
the extra cables are the MU cables, to allow the locomotive to run in multiple with another, similarly fitted, locomotive. (About half of this particular class were MU fitted, specifically for working merry-go-round coal trains across the Pennines)
timbeau,
But surely that is not what the average person understands by multiple unit – certainly not in ex-Southern Railway territory. I have no doubt you have multiple unit loco workings but have never heard them referred to as diesel multiple units or electrical multiple units.
@Anonymous
Recent research (today) Edinburgh London. Ist Class Advance
(with senior discount) for March 16th;-
East Coast £53.50 (available most trains in middle of day)
West Coast £55 (available on a few trains, otherwise £100).
This is a considerable increase on the £30 of recent yesteryears.
Plus 78% (bit less in real terms). I rest my case.
If the HST is to be thought of as a multiple unit, it’s a DEMU (since it has electric transmission) rather than a DMU. When they were given TOPS numbers in the multiple-unit series, they had 2xx-series class numbers rather than 1xx-series.
@timbeau/PoP – every fleet manager and railway operator I have ever worked with has always been clear a DMU or an EMU has been a fixed formation rake of cars, capable of being driven from either end, with one or more powered cars, separable – if at all – only in the depot. A loco and coaches is just that – a collection of stock, separable at will, with the loco as a selfpowered item which can be driven round on its own if need be. HSTs are not D(E)MUs – the rakes are capable of being reformed at will, even if that doesn’t happen very often, and you can even have unidirectional HSTs or – as one memorable trip down a West Country branch showed, a train comprising back to back power cars. That is why HST power cars are numbered as locomotives in the 43 series, and their stock numbered amongst ordinary passenger coaches.
A Mr Sprague invented the electrical equipment that allowed the Underground to operate sets of electrical equipment on different cars from the front cab. This allowed locomotives to be abolished on the deep tube (only ever seen on the City and South London Railway and the Central London Railway). From this early beginning the term multiple unit came into being, differentiating it from a loco and a rake of carriages.
I doubt that the wrangling about EMU, MU, DMU, DEMU or even DMMU or DHMU (and I’ll christen the IEP bimode and a DEEMU) really matters much in the context of devolving control of London’s suburban rail network to TfL, although we can be confident that ALL the trains operated by TfL or its concessionaires will be multiple units (except Steam on the Met/Sarah Siddons/engineers trains)
The DfT press release is very interesting (and different to previous ones) and suggests to me that only 2 and there wasn’t a long list.
“The Department for Transport has today (4 February 2016) announced the 2 train companies that have been shortlisted for the South Western franchise competition, after submitting an expression of interest.”
I suspect that like the West Coast franchise bidders will have to bid aggressively to win and make a decent return for themselves.
With many potential CR2 issues also popping up but not quantified there is plenty of risk
For example ROSCOs might be nervous about new stock orders and hence price higher as a result of perceived risk…
100andthirty – yes, it’s a bit off topic, although I can’t help noticing that on timbeau’s definition, a 14xx with a pushpull trailer would be a multiple unit…. presumably an SMU
@Graham H
I would agree with you that “multiple unit operation” and operating a multiple unit” are not the same thing.
However,
“HST power cars are numbered as locomotives in the 43 series, and their stock numbered amongst ordinary passenger coaches.”
When the HST prototype was built, the locomotives were classified as Class 41 and the coaches with other Mark 3 hauled stock in the 10xxx, 11xxx and 12xxx series. http://www.philt.org.uk/PreservationScene/Heritage-Diesel/i-JGSzHWK/0/L/41001b-L.jpg
When the electrical arrangements were modified the prototype was reclassified as a class 252 demu. (The classification following on from the Blue Pullmans which were class 251). The carriages all had 30,000 added to their numbers into a new 4xxxx series (this series would also be used by APT cars, and had only recently been vacated by the last hauled non-corridor stock on the “Widened Lines”) . The HST power cars were numbered in a separate block in this series, starting at 43000 (not 43001 as they would for a loco)
Hugh Longworth’s catalogue of mark 1 and Mark 2 stock shows the original 43003, a non-gangwayed CL (composite with lavatory) to have been withdrawn as late as October 1977, over a year after the first production HST unit 253001, with its power cars 43002 and 43003, had entered service down the road at Paddington!
@Timbeau
Correct! Through trains do have a significant attraction. As you state, following Virgin/stagecoach takeover, East coast has fewer through trains to Glasgow. On examining advance fares it gets curiouser and curiouser.
It is necessary to look two months advance, present timetable and fares are sabotaged by Lamington bridge failure. For mid April, through advance fares (standard) from Euston to Edinburgh are at £100, but much cheaper in opposite direction (in awe of canny Scots). There we have it, two competing train services reduced to back “as it was in olden days” Euston for Glasgow, Kings Cross for Edinburgh.
You are right, the only two terminals in Scotland with a choice of East and West coast DIRECT trains are Edinburgh (Waverley) and Haymarket. Of course, with just one change (from both E and W coast) a host of other destinations open up as a practical choice. The West Coast option is now via Birmingham, with journey times up to 5 hours plus (when Lamington bridge re-opens). I think this is “case proven” East & West Coast merged, less choice, no more competition.
Dearer advance fares. Good for the travelling public? In public interest?
@Alan Robinson
“The West Coast option is now via Birmingham”
— Surely those via-Birmingham trains are simply the joining together of the Euston-Birmingham and Birmingham-Glasgow services, and nothing to do with the direct fasts from London to Glasgow?
Apologies – I forgot about Lamington: look far enough ahead and there are direct Euston – Edinburgh services (and a solitary Kings Cross to Glasgow service, which incidentally adds Motherwell to the exclusive list of Scottish stations served from both London termini)
@PZT
“Surely those via-Birmingham trains are simply the joining together of the Euston-Birmingham and Birmingham-Glasgow services”
I assume you mean Birmingham-Edinburgh.
Cheapest advance fares I could find to either city were £30 (27th April)
So, I admit I am totally confused now. Are Victoria line trains emus? Whilst one shouldn’t worry about this too much I do think the terminology needs tightening up as there may be a consensus that I am wrong but not a consensus as to what is correct.
I suppose one thing we need is the idea of a “fixed formation train”. This can’t normally be added to so class 700 or an undergound train would be one of these.
Then you get to the issue of who is regarding it as a fixed formation train. Clearly for operators under normal circumstances an HST is a fixed formation train that comes in various flavours but for engineers, as pointed out, it could be regarded as a loco at one or both ends with a number of carriages (0 or more).
Then we have loco and coaches which can reformatted at will.
Finally we have units which are indivisible under normal circumstances e.g. 4-car 455, 2-car 456. Now I thought connecting units in multiple made it a multiple unit train but clearly others differ. From my understanding, according their definition, a hypothetical self-contained single car electric carriage with drivers cabs at each end and a traction motor on each bogie makes it an electrical multiple unit. Is this correct?
@Peezedtee
I was referring to Euston – EDINBURGH trains. The Glasgow trains are indeed direct and fast. The point is that there did used to be a reasonable selection of trains London to Edinburgh/Glasgow by both routes offering a more or less comparable journey (West coast bit slower to Edinburgh, East coast bit slower to Glasgow). The choice seems to be more restricted now. The Euston-Edinburgh trains are extensions of the 00.43 Euston departures beyond Birmingham and Virgin seem to be overtly competing with Cross Country for West Midlands – Edinburgh business. (Virgin has time advantage).
@Timbeau
Sorry, we are at cross purposes. I thought Alan was talking about Glasgow but on rereading his text I realise he probably meant Edinburgh. So my remark was true, but irrelevant.
PoP To use a real example, a class 153 Diesel Mechanical Rail Car is capable of coupling to a variety of other vehicles and controlling them. I submit, m’lud, that the combo – 153 and something else – is a DMU.
LU trains are EMUs.
But there have been combinations that defy categorisation. I used to see a 4-VEP leading a 4TC with a class 33 at the rear all controlled from the 4VEP. Was that an early bi-mode?
Perhaps today a DMU or EMU is a fixed formation train that can’t be easily extended or reduced by simple coupling/uncoupling and shunting – ie software gets in the way!
@timbeau – I suspect Longworth’s book may not have known the whole truth .Off topic but entertaining – when we transferred the stock to the ROSCOs, which we did in the form of long lists attached to Statutory Instruments, we thought that we had got rid of the HST fleet until we found a complete rake of hitherto unremembered coaches at Bounds Green. Subsequently, I told this story to GW’s fleet manager – his reply was: We found enough “spares” to make up two extra rakes ourselves…
[I have already related the story of the Board’s very last vehicle and the results of Eastleigh works practices – think Aldenham – and the explanation may lie there].
Or indeed the not-so-hypothetical MLVs.
John Elliot,
Thank you for that. So, according to that trusted and true reliable source of people’s perception of what something means, namely Wikipedia:
as found in the Multiple Unit article.
John Elliott
Forgive me being pedantic (and I was originally from Purley too!) MLVs only had/have one motor bogie. They were effectively a 4-CEP driving motor car chassis and running gear with an extra set of shoegear and some batteries (early IPMU!)
@Graham H
“I have already related the story of the Board’s very last vehicle”
can you remind us, or provide a link?
Was it the Chairman’s limousine?
Please can there be an assessment also of AMUs? (And I don’t mean Stanislaus Lem’s AMU of science fiction, ‘Tales of Pirx the Pilot’). AMUs existed in South London and South Devon in the 1840s, and until ca 1860 in Ireland.
Surely an Atmospheric multiple unit would have more than one piston per train, all under the control of a single driver?
Incidentally, the word “locomotive” was originally short for “locomotive engine”, that is to say an engine which can propel itself. Something whose power is generated externally is not, in the original sense, locomotive. That would exclude cable haulage, atmospheric power – and “straight” electrics. So a dmu is locomotive, and an electric “locomotive” isn’t!
@Milton Clevedon
AMU – Atmospheric (Railway) Multiple Unit??
@John Elliott
a hypothetical self-contained single car electric carriage with drivers cabs at each end and a traction motor on each bogie
You could describe this (or indeed any bogie vehicle) as two four-wheeled vehicles connected by an elaborate coupling, so why not?
In which case, here is a steam multiple unit
http://www.hornbymagazine.com/central/images/articles/6995.jpg
@timbeau – no, the Board’s motor vehicles were all leased. The actual last rail vehicle we owned was a middle car in a VEP. We had been busy compiling enormously long lists by stock number of the vehicles to go to each ROSCO and drafting the appropriate SI. We thought we had finished the job,when a bright spark noticed a complete 4-car emu still on our books, so I duly drafted a very short SI and sat back. A short while later (by which time our insurance arrangements had lapsed in respect of rolling stock) , we discovered that there was still one middle car in a VEP remaining , and being uninsured, the risk was obvious. The vehicle was quickly tracked down and I arranged for the set to go into Eastleigh works until I could get the SI approved. Explaining why this was necessary to the works manager,he replied “I don’t know why you are worried about vehicle number xxxxxx; when they come in we remove the existing number and replace it with the next free one when it comes out again”. The Board’s lawyers and I agreed to remain unaware of this practice… Aldenham would have been proud.
Then there was the van in the bay at Barking which noone wanted to own, but that had been got rid of by the time I describe.
@Graham H
Left over rolling stock assets. You didn’t give a date. Anything “left over after privatisation was supposed to have been bequeathed to BR Residuary, which one might describe as “son of BRB”?
Residual BR was not abolished until October 2013, and there was a schedule of disbursements to other bodies (redundant infrastructure on closed lines, NOT owned by SUSTRANS went to a new division of the Highways Agency). One might suppose that anything still hanging about was “BR” until October 2013.
I know of at least ONE vehicle that remained disused an isolated, but presumably still “BR” until very recent times:- Wolverhampton LOW level (severed yonks ago) retained a siding containing a LMS built full brake. Don’t know what happened to it. Certainly there about 10 years ago. It would not surprise me to learn that are still ancient “fossilised” coal wagons etc lost down back of long defunct marshaling yards and sidings.
The bay platform to the east of the station here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2698936,0.5159959,182m/data=!3m1!1e3
has no track but the green blob at the buffer stop is an old 4 wheel engineers wagon full of ballast and earth with weeds growing out of it. I first saw it in 1983 when it was already looking long abandoned.
@AR/KG – I’m sure that there were numerous wagons left in odd corners, especially as freight wasn’t subject to the franchising toothcomb. Whether these passed to BRB Residuary, I have no idea but freight was effectively sold as seen, and so they might simply have passed to Freight by default. Certainly BRBR appeared to have no idea that they might have hidden assets*. Asset registers aren’t all they are cracked up to be.
The reason that the Barking case troubled people was that, as Shadow Franchise Director for LTS, I was tasked with performing a complete sweep, and this particular vehicle was very much in everyone’s face. In the end, we ordered LTS to take it and – if they wished – move it and scrap it. (I don’t know if/how they achieved this – we didn’t endow them with an 08 to move it…and I don’t think it became a “franchise asset”)
*And if they were devolved to BRBR, then they will now be owned by their successor body … the SoS…
@Graham
Got It! The last BR locomotive. The Furness Railway Locomotive swallowed up in the Lindal bank subsidence and never extricated.
Accountants may have written it off, but the remains, i.e. scrap
value endures as an “asset” . Therefore, it technically remained as a
subterranean BR asset until 2013, OR was it deemed to have been an
integral part of the infrastructure, therefore sold to Railtrack in 1995?
@AR – yes, I wondered about such cases (surprised that the enthusiasts havent tried to “raise the Titanic”). I think the vesting processes which led to the creation of the Big Four and then BR probably means that if an asset was in the predecessor’s books then it was vested; if it wasn’t, it wasn’t. If ownerless unvested junk was lying on BR/BRB’s land, I don’t think that confers ownership on the landowner – otherwise BRBR might well have become the legal owner of a large number of eg supermarket barrows, although I am equally sure that they would have the right to remove and destroy them.
In my day, the HST’s were called diesel trains, with no hint of multiple unit anything.
P.S. There again, the railways carried passengers then and they served things simply called stations (or railway stations). I wonder where they all went.
@Graham H: Funnily enough I had to research the law on abandoned property just the other day. As I understand it if the owner of property intentionally abandons it on your land then you own it – the problem being establishing intent. So supermarket trolleys no (because unlikely to be left by the owner), but abandoned locomotives probably yes. But if it is a metal item buried underground, maybe mineral rights come into play…? 🙂
@Graham Feakins: no hint of multiple unit anything
BR did initially number the HSTs in the DEMU sequence (Class 253 and 254), then changed their minds in the 1980s (much the same time they started calling passengers customers).
The HST certainly didn’t carry unit numbers on the ends for very long, because it proved necessary to swap the power cars around quite frequently and it was not unusual to find a different unit number on each end of the train. The carriages did tend to stay in more fixed formations.
The carriages were numbered in a new 4xxxx sequence, being neither the same as loco-hauled mark 3s and mark 4s (which are in the 1xxxx block) nor in the existing demu series (60xxx). This suggests BR saw them as neither fish nor fowl.
As for the power cars, the prototype pair were renumbered from 41.001 and 41.002 to 43000 and 43001 at the same time as the unit was classified 252 and the trailers were renumbered from the 1xxxx series to the 4xxxx series. The production power cars were numbered from 43002 upwards. This indicates that, certainly at the time, the power cars were not considered to be locomotives – during the TOPS renumbering BR had taken great care to ensure that no locomotive had a number ending in -000 (class leaders being shunted to the end of the list or the first available gap, hence 9000 became 55022, 200 became 40122, 5500 became 31018, etc.)
@IanJ – ! 🙂
@Graham Feakins – surely you know that these days we have only guests; they are offered transport solutions and enter them at welcome facilities?
@Graham H/ Graham F
clients: is your wifi fast enough sir
customers: so sorry your train is running late, we’ll try to do better tomorrow
cattle (or cash cows): put up, shut up, and pay up
customer services – aka victim support
@Ian J
“if the owner of property intentionally abandons it on your land then you own it ”
Not sure that forgetting where you left it (or even that you had it) counts as intentional abandonment. Nor if you sell the land on which you have left some of your property that was not part of the sale.
And I don’t think there was any intention to drop that Furness locomotive down a sinkhole!
Intention: You do not have to form the intention before you move the item to wherever you abandon it. You can decide later.
So the supermarket trolleys could be intentionally abanoned, if someone rules that the owner (the supermarket) has left them there so long that it has demonstrated the intention to abandon them by its inaction.
Kit Green
Still there or until very recently, too!
Oh dear, it do make me larff ….
@IanJ – how does all this abandonment of property square with treasure trove law? (Not that barrows are yet treasure trove,but give them a couple of millenia…)
Some barrows are already ancient monuments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_burial_mounds
Kit Green / Greg T
Like the GT-supplied aerial picture at Maidstone West (see post above). However, have you spotted a most unusual train formation in the same picture when enlarged to full size, on the Maidstone East line as it crosses over the Medway Valley line just a bit to the north? Looks like a VERY compressed Class 377 or an expanded Parry People Mover… Not sure you could classify it as an MU. I blame the Google editor.
@timbeau – but I doubt if any supermarket barrows have yet been lingering on site long enough to become ancient monuments!
Just to note that the Assembly’s Transport Committee are discussing Railway Infrastructure needs next week. They have Lord Adonis for 1 hour followed by Sir Peter Hendy for an hour. It will be interesting to see if there are any glimpses of infrastructure needs to support devolved operation or not.
There is also a 20 page progress update / milestone look ahead from Crossrail which looks like a good read. I’ve just skimmed bits of it. Papers via link below.
http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=173&MId=5696
As we’ve been discussing Thameslink and frequencies / running through the core here’s the latest campaign about Catford Loop services. Take a look at the slides and the service aspirations and then think “here we go again”. 😉
https://www.change.org/p/thameslink-a-decent-train-service-for-crofton-park-and-the-catford-loop
Someone really needs to sit down with people and explain the harsh realities of what the Thameslink works do and do not allow. Not denying there isn’t cause for complaint about Catford Loop services but demanding more trains through the core is not sensible if something else can be done that *might* be possible.
Walthamstow Writer,
But surely, this has been my argument all along. The only way you can provide a service through the core for Wimbledon loopers is by denying it to someone else – in this case the people of Crofton Park who probably would have had through trains, as they clearly want, had not the Wimbledon loopers been chosen as the people who were to be blessed with it.
I suspect the only reason that the people of Crofton Park did not campaign against the Wimbledon loop being retained as a through service was because they never understood that the consequence would be that it would eliminate any chances of their trains running through to St Pancras.
The people of the loop think they have the better case because it is an existing service. I am sure if the Crofton Park uses were more savvy they would argue it should go to them instead because it would make the railway easier to operate.
@ PoP – Woah!! No one is disagreeing with anything you’ve said. I merely shared the info so people could see another campaign was underway. I understand the issues. It’s just a shame there isn’t honest debate and hard truths being said to MPs and campaigners. That’s not to shut them up but more to ensure that if they want to campaign and debate that they’re handling facts rather than suppositions and they understand there are choices. The only way you effect change is to demonstrate that choices are legitimate and you have a better case than someone else. Alternatively people team up with those who may be their “opponents” and come up with something that could work for everyone but with some element of compromise within a proposed solution.
Re WW and PoP
What does or doesn’t go through the core is bit of a red herring…
The key thing that people don’t seem to understand is that in order to maximise overall capacity be it through the core, VIC SE AND Blackfriars terminating platforms for a number of routes you have very little choice in what goes to each terminus or the core as soon as you make one sub optimal choice (Wimbledon loop through the core) you reduce the capacity on other routes as a by product. Note that the Catford Loop users are asking for 4 tph and through the core which is what they would originally have got and is also the part of the optimal capacity solution.
However they won’t get that 4tph through the core an additional 2 tph VIC or Blackfriars terminating at best especially the SE franchise coming up and possible devolution.
The net result of the Wimbledon loop decision is that several lines get a reduced service frequency. The only sensible solution is to get all the potentially effected line users together at the same time to give them a solution where they all appear to win sometime at the same time but with some smaller losses.
@WW1343
I notice that the Crossrail report you provide a link to refers to future extensions to ‘Ebbsfleet and Hertfordshire’ – albeit if only to say it’s not their job (yet).
For those interested, somebody has gone and quite literally turned South London ‘Orange’ (in a TfL map sense):
https://media.timeout.com/images/103114763/image.jpg
ngh,
OK, so I should have written ” if the Crofton Park uses were more savvy they would argue it should go to them instead because it would make the railway easier to operate with fewer conflicts which also increases the potential to run additional services .”
Until Key Output 0, some peak trains off the Catford loop terminated at City Thameslink and then went into Smithfield sidings. Is that facility no longer there? The sidings only took 8-car trains but that’s all the Catford loop gets anyway. They are still there on carto.metro. If the sidings are still there, could not 2 extra trains an hour go there and give Catford the 4tph they want, at least in the off peak. This would give same-platform interchange at City Thameslink or Blackfriars with trains going further through the core in both directions.
I think the Crofton Park campaign is understandable and justified and some of their asks could surely be met if the political will existed. It is ridiculous that they have a poorer frequency throughout the day than in the 1950s. It is also hard to see why they cannot have 8-cars on all trains — now that there are so many Class 377s floating around, surely Thameslink cannot still complain about a shortage of rolling stock, especially given that the Class 319s are apparently not now going to be required on GWR.
Nor can there be any good reason why their early-morning and mid- to late-evening trains have to terminate at Blackfriars. These are not peak periods. Surely it is only in the peaks that the capacity through the core is at such a premium. The RUS calculations were based entirely on the demands of the morning peak, three hours out of the day at most. Even if you cannot get 4tph through the core in the morning peak, that is no reason for not having 4th all the rest of the day.
As for “abrupt cancellations are common”, hear hear (the same applies equally to the Wimbledon loop but it is even worse when the service runs only every half hour). Both loop services are Cinderallas of Thameslink and the competence of the management seems not to have improved noticeably from the abysmal level of First Capital Connect.
The problem with using Smithfield sidings is that any train going there has to use paths through the core – specifically the double track section through City TL. Not to mention that any train leaving the sidings southbound has to cross the northbound core track, and thus costing another path.
That Time Out map looks vaguely familiar
http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/article_2015/06/lon_con_head.png
@WW, PoP My understanding is the campaign is about current services with no mention of the 2018 situation, the full 2018 plans for the Catford loop are not public and when revealed will probably lead to a much larger backlash.
The “all trains to St Pancras” point is likely to be referring to the current early morning and evening services. The last direct train to the Catford loop from St Pancras is at 9pm with all later services requiring a change at Blackfriars. The first three departures from Blackfriars the ‘connecting’ train arrives at Blackfriars 20 minutes earlier. The final two there is a train 7 minutes before, if a person doesn’t trust the punctuality of that service the earlier core train is 15 minutes before that. It is better to use the tube in these circumstances costing 50% more due to the combined modes.
It is worth mentioning the 2015 December timetable consultation proposed “that early morning and late evening services which currently operate only between London Blackfriars and Sevenoaks will be extended to and from Kentish Town providing enhanced connections.” This change got dropped from the final timetable despite the increased run time being just under 30 minutes for the return trip to Kentish Town, no explanation was given for why.
Obviously the evening services are only a minor annoyance, especially when compared to the morning peak punctuality. So far this year it hasn’t been great with nearly all trains averaging at least 5 minutes late by City Thameslink. Hard to determine exact causes with some infrastructure issues, several train faults, a few platform overcrowding incidents requiring the “individual door closing policy” and a timetable that doesn’t seem achievable.
@ngh “won’t get that 4tph through the core, an additional 2 tph VIC or Blackfriars terminating at best” Wouldn’t that mean the Catford loop gets a capacity cut from today? Currently there are 5tph stopping/skip-stop to Blackfriars, even with class 700s on the core 2tph it doesn’t quite add up to another 8-car 319.
@ Quinlet 2226 – I knew someone would spot that. The other interesting thing in that section is that Crossrail have only received 10 sponsor instructions about changed scope and have only implemented 4 of them. It’s not clear if the balancing 6 are yet to be done or have been rejected / withdrawn.
Re Anon SE user,
I was talking about the stoppers only.
The TL 2018 plan for Catford loop is 2 tph Sevenoaks all stops and 2 Maidstone East limited stop.
The current stoppers are usually Bromley or Orpington starters so well get to the loop a bit fuller than currently in the morning.
As I’ve previously said we don’t have the detail of what the stopping patterns of the limited stop services south of the Thames are. I can imagine more than 1 loop stop at best (Denmark Hill?) else the Maidstone etc journey time would be very uncompetitive than that to other termini.
Anonymous SE user,
Thank you for enlightenment and clarification. I think if the users group could target their message to explain that is what they mean then their case would be harder to refute. It would be hard to dispute that they do get a poor service and even within the infrastructure limitations that exist they do deserve better.
As a general point to all, use of the sidings at Farringdon is more complex. You need to keep the westernmost one free in case a 12-car train can’t get its pantograph up (or down in the other direction). This will block access to the other siding but keep the train clear of the main line. Whilst this is an unlikely occurrence I can understand a reluctance to use the siding except for emergencies. You certainly don’t want to be in the situation where both sidings are in use in the normal course of events because if a train fails (but can be moved) you are then limited to some fairly unsatisfactory options.
Re PoP / SE anon user,
It is worth remembering that some of the “SE” thameslink services are effectively former SE services pre KO0 and KO1 (some of which revert to SE in 2018) in disguise using TL stock but still using SE drivers on loan hence the reasonable number not going beyond Blackfriars.
The campaigns best option might be to sensibly target DfT’s up coming SE franchise consultation if they want more trains…
I have concerns that the campaign is a bit parochial ie the Crofton Park users not the Catford Loop users. I realise to get a consensus between say those using Shoreham and Shortlands might be a tall order however. But we never really hear about the concerns of say just the St Helier group – I feel that the other loop was heard because it was more of a united front and a vocal MP. The local MP for Crofton Park appears to be part of the campaign – but much of the line runs through Jim Dowd’s territory and I got no joy from him when I contacted him YEARS ago about no extra Catford Loop trains when the franchise spec went public. It strikes me that the Brockley/Peckham part of the route is making a stand because it is a fast gentrifying area with residents who tend to know better how to run a campaign, stand up for themselves, make a noise etc, whereas the Bellingham/Catford end is poorer, more disparate, less well represented politically etc etc. It’s not a criticism but it tends to be how things go. I’ve got to say the Railfuture branch didn’t seem to be that interested in SE inner routes either, which isn’t encouraging. But it’s good to see SOME action at last.
@Anonymous 15:49
I cannot see any respect in which the Catford/Bellingham people would not also benefit from any improvements won by Crofton Park.
Of course it may all seem to matter a bit less in Catford itself because the people there already also have 4tph on a different route to town from the adjacent Catford Bridge.
No indeed, but the campaign would have more weight if a greater number of people and their MPs took part.
All stations as far as Nunhead have >4 tph to some terminus, somewhere in London.
It is the outlying Z4 stations which deserve as much attention in this (Ravensbourne, Beckenham Hill, Bellingham etc) because of
a) the poor service hampered by frequent cancellations / breakdowns / shortened 4-car formations and
b) the lack of an alternative route to the city. We have had enough Bromley North discussions to know that nothing is happening there anytime soon, and Grove Park is practically unusable in the morning peak (as is LBG in the evening peak for the Grove Park services)
Some of this may well be mitigated by the end of LBG works in 2018, but in the meantime we are talking about a catchment area roughly described as the whole of Downham, most of ‘North Bromley, most of Bellingham etc without an adequate or reliable service to the City.
@Tim
True, though we should bear in mind that 4tph is not the same thing as every 15 minutes. From Nunhead the pattern into town is 13, 17, 43, 47 past the hour – not in practice much better than every half hour, and certainly not “turn up and go”.
Of course you are right about the poor services for the northern parts of LB Bromley. On the map it looks to be dotted with many stations, but most of them have an inadequate service.
@Tim
“All stations as far as Nunhead have >4 tph to some terminus, somewhere in London.”
However, that does not mean that any no terminus has 4tph to Nunhead, even if they do turn up there at 15 minute intervals. It is little comfort, if you miss a train home from Victoria, to know that there will be one leaving Blackfriars in 15 minutes time.
Just diverting slightly from details of services to a personnel change that will undoubtedly affect how quickly devolution moves on. It has been announced today that Isabel Dedring, Deputy Mayor from Transport, is leaving that role and moving to Arup. She’s undoubtedly helped the current Mayoralty from having transport be a complete political liability. We clearly don’t have “transport perfection” in London but the tube works a lot better than it used to do, there has been progress on rail devolution, DLR Overground and trams have seen modest ongoing investment and roads / cycling are having money spent on them. Whoever takes over the transport brief at City Hall faces one heck of a steep learning curve.
Oops something missed – I should have inserted this:
Whoever takes over the transport brief at City Hall faces one heck of a steep learning curve.
At the start.
Sorry about that.
Isabel Dedring, Deputy Mayor from Transport, is leaving that role and moving to Arup
That could raise some eyebrows given that the Garden Bridge, controversially backed by TfL, is an Arup project.
I watched the “Rail Infrastructure” Assembly T’port Cttee session this morning. Nothing too exciting really. Andrew Adonis ran through his role at the Infrastructure Commission but was very reticent to make firm statements about any scheme. That was understandable given the Commission’s remit to report to the Chancellor and to give an assessment of various schemes. Lots of questions about Crossrail 2 but again very non committal responses. Seems the Committee were most put out that HS2 Ltd had refused to come and discuss the scheme with them. Lord Adonis, who sits on the HS2 Board, said he’d try to “change minds” about appearing in front of the Committee.
Sir Peter Hendy was the second attendee. He was in typically robust form. He was very clear about the need for Network Rail to raise funds from a variety of sources as TfL has been doing. He emphasised it was unlikely there will never be enough funding to cater for all the demands so having access to a source of funds means more can be done. He seemed pretty determined to make London Bridge the Cttee’s new favourite scheme – quite clever given their past criticism. He also explained that the lessons learnt from the issues at LB were being applied now to the detailed planning for works at Waterloo. TfL are also involved with the planning at Waterloo in terms of service co-ordination, information etc. Sir Peter wasn’t prepared to go into “woe is me” mode about what might have gone wrong in the past. It was about doing more and doing it better in the future. He also felt there was no role for TfL being involved in capital schemes like London Bridge as they are not involved (presently) in running rail services. This is a bit of reversal from past comments when he was Commissioner but perhaps not entirely surprising! He stressed that projects needed the right resources and require a load of detailed planning and that the Control Period concept needed to be stretched. Network Rail really needs to have a 10-15 [year] planning horizon given the time needed to properly plan and finance major schemes. He also said that it was probably unavoidable that disruptive works would be needed in some locations because longer trains and resignalling would not be enough. He did say, though, that the sheer pressure from growth made the task of delivering blockades and complex works ever harder. On the topic of devolution (coming back on topic) Sir Peter couldn’t see any major issues. The important aspects were the detailed train service spec, the concession spec and getting a properly aligned performance regime for all services (inners and outers). Once the concession was awarded he was confident that they would be delivered by the train operators because that’s what they get paid for. Interestingly he was very keen that the concept of a national network was kept and factored into decision making. There was no room for little fiefdoms (my term) and all services had to work together and effectively.
Sir Peter also said a joint “Investment Look Ahead” report covering NR route studies and TfL’s aspirations would be published in March. As this is something the Cttee had previously suggested this made the Cttee members rather happy! This will be an interesting document to see.
A full webcast is available on the London.gov.uk website. Tomorrow there is a Plenary of the Assembly with the Mayor and Mike Brown reviewing the Mayor’s achievements and future prospects for the transport network.
A complex small “knot” related to Dedring’s departure & the consequent lack of expertise in London’s (especially rail) transport.
As all do know, we have a Mayoral election soon & neither the tory nor labour candidate seems to have much knowledge/interest in transport, other than stopping Heathrow’s extra runway.
Of itself, this does not bode well.
Now, City Metric have weighed in, strongly suggesting that a fares freeze (i.e. a Khan victory) would be a slow-burn long-term disaster, as a result of his proposed fares freeze.
Um.
Further Garden Bridge controversy
(White elephant with two legs)
Try again, this time with linkie
Further controversy over the two-legged white elephant
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/feb/09/riba-halt-contest-design-garden-bridge-thomas-heatherwick
@Ian J:
In fairness to Ms. Dedring, the same argument could be made about most of the major construction firms operating in the UK: TfL will have ongoing projects involving almost all of them in some form or another, either directly, or through consortia.
@timbeau
Sorry, but I’m struggling to see how the “two-legged white elephant” is on topic for “TfL and the DfT are to jointly consult on shared governance and standards for London’s rail network”.
[It’s not. Sometimes the ever-watchful eye of the moderation team blinks, either deliberately or otherwise. But since you have brought it up – there are already quite a lot of places on the internet where deploring of this arguably wasteful and unnecessary project can occur, so perhaps we shouldn’t say too much about it here. Malcolm]
@all readers
May I attempt to steer everyone back to the topic in question, which is the prospect of extending TfL support and specification to parts of the current National Rail Network beyond “London Boundary”.
The Institute of Economic Affairs have just launched a major broadside on this topic, describing the notion of London local government “running” London’s railways as a “terrible idea. (Of course the IEA think that London local government running ANY transport service in London is a “terrible” idea.
This seems to have been fired off by Richard Wellings (Quel surprise!), and there is a full article in the Guardian (and elsewhere).
What I am find distressing is that they are (again) representing the Network Grant as representing a subsidy to ALL UK Railways, subtlety presented as a subsidy incurred on a uniform (consistent) basis per pass km etc, and that London’s railways are incurring a huge “wasteful” taxpayer contribution (£180 per UK household).
The IEA recipe is, of course Total Privatisation and deregulation. The New private owners (assumed, interestingly to be on traditional vertically integrated basis , wheels and rail under common management) should be denied any subsidy, allowed total freedom to close (no closure proceedings, just go ahead instantly), and also total freedom to set timetables and fares. (I don’t think I need to say any more).
Why should we bother with this? I am sure that nearly everyone reading this (apart from likes of R Wellings and “J Bonnington Jagworth” AKA Paul Withrington over at Transport-Watch) will be falling about laughing.
I say, beware. This is no doubt a carefully contrived attempt to rubbish the notion of publicly directed transport in any form, and when national finances are so uncertain that Conservative MPs MIGHT be persuaded to “have another go” at Rail infrastructure privatisation. The London proposal is simply a large manifestation of full public integration and regulation at present, and is therefore to be attacked.
As seems to be “normal” The IEA exaggerate any quoted statistics of Rail Costs, whether support or investment . They quote Rail subsidies at “nearly £5.00 billion”. The latest figures I can find (from ORR) quotes £4.00 Billion, but NOT including the £1.00billion operating profit that NR earns, this requiring to be “netted off” the £4b, thus reducing to £3billion for National Rail (excluding NIR of course). The IEA seem unaware that about half of this £3billion support is incurred by Scotland& Wales, to whom railway policy is devolved to respective assembly. By any measure, Support for London share of this £3b is minimal, and should reduce further (?).
I have constantly re-iterated (to anybody bothered to listen) that, as long as Rail support is aggregated to a national total, this will always be used mischievously by rail detractors. The London TFL proposed transfer is a welcome sign of recognition of value of objective specificity, by local government. It will be fought.
Read it for yourself on IEA website. I recommend a stiff drink.
Interesting. The evening news today from the private sector is that shares in a private sector rail supplier ‘tumbled by 62% after the firm warned today of mounting losses following a “disappointing” start to the new year’. However this was Hornby. Fortunately most of our readers can only afford crayons…
@Milton Cleveden
The plot thickens, The IEA have recently submitted a report to government demanding that charities that lobby the government with a politically based agenda should have their charitable status withdrawn (which means that they pay corporation tax and full business rates essentially).
I submit that the IEA is a major example of an educational charity in reality devoting its resources to the promotion of a purely political programme. I am writing to my MP to draw attention to this anomaly (the Charity Commissioners seem to be losing their grip these days) to demand the IEA has its charitable status withdrawn. Perhaps other contributors to this site might like to consider acting in a similar manner. Expressions such as “pot calling kettle black” and throwing stones in greenhouses” come to mind.
Serious thanks to WW for providing a really helpful summary of the GLA Transport Committee appearances, saves me watching something that makes fishing seem exciting!
It seems to me that PH has already achieved more than his predecessor in just a few months.
@AR 🙂 A very good warning! The manoeuvrings over the way in which network grant is paid via the TOCs suggests that NR is indeed being positioned for privatisation (and , of course, the eventual bailout in the 2025 emergency…). There is one further possibility, however, and that is that NR will be “hollowed out” as the jargon has it, and become simply a debt management body* (reimbursed from fees from the TOCs via a network management body, with a separate investment planning and delivery vehicle in the manner of Austria – not a very encouraging example, that…)
* the debt management entity can then be sold off with a guaranteed income just as if it had issued government bonds
@Graham H
Thank you for your insight. I fear that you are right. Whilst I totally approve (in principle) of the notion that NR should exhaust its costs in properly derived infrastructure charges, I too, am concerned that this is to be a precursor (LNWR Loco class?) of another great scam.
NR’s debts (capital debt, which few seem to understand) may sound massive , but in reality are just the inevitable position of an industry with a huge infrastructure asset base which has “enjoyed” substantial specific renewal and upgrading in SPECIFIC locations in recent decades (Certainly vastly greater in cash terms than BR could ever have wished for!). They are selling off the last bits of family silver now, so NR might well be next on the list. This can not realistically be accomplished however without a proper and full attribution of all costs , which I very much doubt can be done (Humpty Dumpty).
Managing NR debt will be another great scam, money for nothing. Just think, I used to perform similar tasks for Provincial Sector capital accounting for, what was it £x,000 pa !!! (I was robbed).
“2025 emergency” !!!! It’s coming sooner than that. I foresee nothing but DOOM and GLOOM in the general economic outlook, even wondering if Karl Marx’s predictions (in Das Kapital) are coming true. A while ago I predicted deflation, you were somewhat dismissive, but what do we have now;- general trend towards negative interest rates (AAAAAaaaargh).
@AR – what we have never been able to din into the Treasury is that costs are, by and large, what the costs may be, and hanging a different label round their necks doesn’t make them smaller… For example, it is true that a debt-free “NR” would be cheaper than the present entity – the cost of finance is about 1/3 of all its costs, but the debt would still be there even if being serviced via some other entity and it would still cost exactly the same as it does now (McNulty to take lessons, BTW, in the effects of gearing and ringfencing – he should be ashamed in his amateurish analysis of how NR might save costs…)
I’ve only just spotted the pun in the title. Peace = pax = passengers on our line.
I think the IEA report can be judged by its assertion that there has been no increase in overcrowding on trains since 1995!
The IEA railway report that AR etc refer to is at http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/without-delay-getting-britains-railways-moving .
ALan Robinson
The IEA exaggerate any quoted statistics of Rail Costs, whether support or investment .
Actually, no, what they really do is simply get it wrong, because their “research” is flawed from the word go & based on totally false assumptions.
[Unnecessary allegations deleted. PoP]
Oh yes, later: throwing stones in greenhouses
Don’t you mean “stowing thrones in Grass Houses” ( Muir & Norden again )
@Graham H
From my dimly remembered studies of the “dismal science” of economics in my misspent youth;-
There are only three costs: They are all “hirings” (rent)
(1) Labour (2) Land (3) Finance (capital)
The entrepreneur hires (variously) human workers (wages, salaries)
Land (rent of land and possibly property, buildings that stand on it)
and CAPITAL, essentially either equity capital or loan capital.
Of course, THINGS are purchased, these too are only an expression of the three elemental costs outlined above. (but incurred by other entrepeneurs).
For a Railway to control costs (minimise them) the 19th century railway companies soon realised that it was vital for everything to be “in house”, whereby the LABOUR cost element is maximised as a proportion of total costs. By this means the railway company has the ability to determine costs (I,e, by suppression of wages and therefore total costs) in accordance with external economic pressures. In general, the larger the railway, the greater the “internalisation” of costs. God’s Wonderful Railway was the supreme master of this principle. Their Chief Accountant was able to boast that they bought almost nothing other than raw materials. Swindon made everything, Precious little contractors either. This principle continued well into BR days. As I type this , I am viewing two clocks, which together tell a great deal about traditional railway management principles. One is a very basic desk clock. The other a retirement clock, presented to my wife’s grandfather on his retirement in 1957 after 46 years service on the footplate, then motorman (Watford DC) with : North London Railway, L & N WR, LMS and finally BR (LM).
Both clocks are the product of the Derby Clock factory, and are of identical design and shape, except the retirement clock is a bit “swisher” made of a fancier hardwood, the office version being plywood. When I started work, office furniture was produced from bits over from Derby and Wolverton carriage works etc etc.
By these means an extraordinary proportion of railway costs were direct labour, CONTROLLED by national pay awards (throttled down) don’t even think of asking for a rise.
This big build up is to set the scene for the BIG PUNCH LINE:-
The real reason for the disastrous rise in NR costs (and most costs in TOCs and elsewhere), is because:-
THE STAFF ARE NOW PAID CONSIDERABLY MORE IN REAL TERMS THAN IN THE DAYS OF NATIONALISATION.
AND: IN ADDITION. There are in practice many more staff, but hidden in the workforce of the myriad of contractors consultants, and completely new activities demanded by privatisation (insurance,
train leasing etc etc etc).
The McNulty report identified that cost of delivering a railway in the UK seems to be about 30%-40% higher than that of the state railway systems of other European Nations.
This is why, It is also of course the reason why UK rail costs are also about 30%-40% than under BR on a unit cost basis.
The case for Nationalisation that “dare not speak its name” is this;
By obtaining a PURCHASERS monopoly of inputs, Costs are screwed down, and especially wages and salaries, remain modest. Far from establishing a workers paradise, nationalisation was in part
designed to ensure that the cost of basic utilities would remain as low as possible, in order to assist the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. (on whose exports our economic survival depended in 1940s and 1950s). It was also (unrealistically) expected that investment in railways could be “de-prioritised” too.
BUT : You won’t get Jeremy Corbyn to admit to this;- HA! HA!
The ghosts of 19th Century Railway Directors must be rolling around laughing in their graves. (or wherever they choose to haunt).
@Greg Tingey
Er No, EXAGERATE is exactly what I did mean. eg They always INFLATE (rail) costs and quite mischievously present these inflated figures as emanating from an “official” source.
HS2 : The IEA produced video last year denouncing it as a wasteful extravagance which was going to incur £85billion in public expenditure. £85b??? The real figure (at that time) was £29b with a notional contingency, taking it to “£45b”. The extra £40b was an IEA uplift. There are many more examples over the years.
I don’t think a 40% premium in running costs compared to Western Europe can entirely be due to staff being paid more. Certainly driver salaries are comparable to those in the likes of France and Germnay. However if multiple companies are now having to perform duplicate tasks that once would have been covered by one BR that must have a consequence. Not to mention the web of activity related to franchising and contracting. McNulty of course found it easier to blame staff levels and costs (even though any expanding business would expect this as ultimately cutting staff is to the detriment of that business) which doubtless curried favour with a Conservative government, but stopped short at criticising a fragmented franchise system because you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. [Speculation as to the reason d’etre of the IEA snipped. Let’s not go there please. LBM] .
@Anonymous
“I don’t think a 40% premium in running costs compared to Western Europe can entirely be due to staff being paid more.”
I think you’ve misunderstood Alan R. Staff costs are higher not necessarily because individual wage packets are bigger but because there are more of them – all those contracts staff, project managers (on both sides of each company/company interface), procurement staff, bidding teams (and remember that in any tendering process the cost of preparing n-1 of the bids is completely wasted.
@Timbeau and Anonymous
There is a danger of getting unnecessarily tangled up over the question of rail cost increases since privatisation. It’s all a bit of both;- more staff (complexity) and higher wages and salaries. I just don’t have the data to analyse how this has panned out.
A simple point : A PRIVATE monopoly tends to assure and enhance profits by continual price increases, but, may pay generous wages to enjoy a quiet life. That the original private UK railways did not pay generous wages, I would suggest was because fares and tariffs were regulated (the old 1d per mile). BUT Nationalisation is capable of both increasing prices and holding down wages, as it can be held to be in the interest of the public (as taxpayers) to do so.
Whether this happens depends upon how tough National Government is (willingness to risk strikes).
Latest Hot News!!! The Public Accounts committee is ringing the alarm bells over dwindling interest in bidding for TOC franchises, (only two for SWT) and that the lack of competition will lead to significantly less advantageous bids :- need for more Rail Support. (Sounds like fares will have to go up again!)
I have performed the following ditty with piano accompaniment at St Pancras (i.e. playing and singing);-
(To a familiar tune by Sir Edward Elgar)
Trains of Hope and Glory, You don’t ride for free.
How can we afford thee, those conveyed by thee.
Higher still and Higher, shall thy fares be set;-
They who made the pricy, make thee pricier yet, BOM BOM BOM
They who made thee pricy, make thee pricier yet.
Got quite a crowd, seemed to go down well.
have the data to be able to definitely pronounce
Wages having increased in real terms since privatisation was mentioned Timbeau, not just an increase in numbers.
Interesting how interest might be tailing off though. I think it is a trend of privatisation to discover that these terrible old inefficient public bodies did not in the event have that much fat on the bones.
Anonymous2: ‘I think it is a trend of privatisation to discover that these terrible old inefficient public bodies did not in the event have that much fat on the bones’. Does this necessarily follow? Is it not more likely that there was a lot of fat that was taken in the first round of tendering and it is now becoming more difficult to find more?
@Anonymous of 1253 – the evidence suggests otherwise. Don’t forget that the very great majority of TOC staff (>90%) are either drivers or station staff. TOCs had a go at shrinking both (and still do) with disastrous consequences (see the many comments on this site about SE and TLK drivers). Then there have been substantial increases in new activities usually around interface management – those extra 400 performance clerks, for example. If there was any fat left it was in RT, but their attempts to contract out activities foundered on s frankly stupid understanding of what they were procuring. Let me tell you one illuminating story to illustrate (forgive me if |I have mentioned this before). In the bad old days of fat BR, isolations were dealt with by a man paid around £16-20k with a van. After privatisation, this activity was scooped by a small specialist firm in Kent, whose services were sold to the likes of Balfours as a sub(sub)contract. The Kentish firm charged its isolationists out at the equivalent of £80k pa. Balfours simply passed the bill on to RT as part of their total fee and the obscene inflation in costs was totally invisible to them. Multiply that by the totality of activities in a complex disintegrated industry and you quickly head for trouble..
“Old, Dirty and Late” shows just how much fat there was in those days (ie none, or even -ve, before anyone asks)
@Graham H
I say Amen. BR really did minimise costs (both in rates of pay and in house staffing) as described. I recall well how newly recruited finance staff in the early 1990s (whom I had the task of indoctrinating in railway business finance) were utterly astonished to learn just how extraordinarily cost-effective and efficient it was. I also recall that International comparison studies were “buried” by instruction of HM government (much too embarrassing, BR was revealed as absolutely brilliant!)
This was borne out by the superb BR business results of the late 1980s. NET P & L almost zero, support for NSE and RR almost totally negated by profit on IC, Freight, Parcels, Property (and a few other bits). “Real” cost to public account (cash) just about zero And all thrown away. The recession of 1990-96 dented things a bit.
Graham H
TOCs had a go at shrinking both (and still do) with disastrous consequences..
Like THIS do you mean?
I note though that the BBC are showing the LUL platforms at Farringdon, not anything owned or operated by what used to be “BR”.
Alan Robinson
Given that those numbers are now available, or soon will be…
Is there any real hope of a “proper re-nationalisation & cutting-out of the wooden dollars & profit-taking at every step & interaction?
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/transport-london-misses-out-south-10839907
Some very ill-informed journalism here. TfL bidding to operate the London – Portsmouth line?
But Alan, a reading of Chris Green’s account of the story of Network South East reveals that much of the efficiency was created by fearful cost cutting ie to the point where it was thought that the motor coaches on the London Tilbury Southend units would have to be locked out in case the transformers exploded; and that the signalling on the route was on the verge of totally collapsing, this effectively shutting it. Where does this lead us? Driver rosters that are so stretched that cancellations and skip stopping becomes the norm? Lack of station staff discouraging patronage? Stripping out ALL the seats to cram more people in? what I believe was termed, “the crumbling edge of quality?” Surely what Green wanted was either decent funding or the ability to borrow in order to plan long term and create robustness rather than exist hand to mouth?
MikeP 12 February 2016 at 13:22
“Old, Dirty and Late”
Best half back line that ever played for (name football club), or
Best back row that ever played for (name Rugby Union club)
Concerning the lack of bidders for SWT. It is somewhat of a surprise that it’s apparently taken 21 years for the industry to realise that franchise bids are a mugs game. It would be lovely to have someone delve through all those company accounts to add up the total that’s been written off due to failed bids. I guess that the bidder world has gone through several transformations over the two decades. Initially it was MBOs with bus bandits, then just bus bandits, then foreign railways. The pond has emptied. Perhaps DFT should have joined the chancellor on his various trips to flog Britain. Chinese railways and Indian railways must be keen to lose some money.
@Anonymous2 – there’s efficiency, which is what was in play in this discussion, and being forced to cut below a sensible level to the point of collapse. Just to make the point more strongly, Chris would never have sacrificed (and to my personal observation, didn’t sacrifice) maintenance expenditure to safeguard “fat”. The subsectors, as TOCs were in those days, had really very small HQ staff – perhaps no more than a couple of dozen not actually engaged in operating the service or managing the stations, and NSE HQ itself, once you stripped out the people who eventually went to the ROSCOs, IMCOs and TRCOs and so on was probably much less than 30 or 40 staff. Fat, not.
@Alan Robinson. Indeed, the business plan I worked up for NSE would have seen us coming out of grant by 1995 and running a cash surplus thereafter. As you imply, together with the cash surpluses thrown off by InterCity and Freight, the Board would have been cash positive at that point, no doubt leading to a negative EFL (as with the Post office). Compare and contrast with what is now paid over in revenue grants.
@timbeau – the sheer inaccuracy just takes your breath away. (The trouble is, as those of us who scan the Surrey Advertiser regularly for professional reasons know, there will be a chorus of local politicians and the less reflective members of the public who will now cry “foul” and add their own silly comments).
@Graham H
I can vouch for your accuracy, As Regional Railways planning supremo (i.e. Railplan inputter, which was much more involved than just bashing figures into the system) I had access to other sectors’ plans.
Regional Railways target was to (eventually) reduce support to a 50/50 ratio fares/support (passengers paying half total costs). We got close, but all went pear-shaped in 1991 and onwards (incurring wrath of Brian Mawhinney I recall). Happy days! This is where (from ignorance) accusations of gross incompetence and inefficiency started. We actually had some grudging faint praise in the late 1980s.
I remember “Management Today” magazine featuring an article on BR in summer of 1988, and praising us to the heavens as a perfect model of a state run industry!!! (Pah).
Graham H, I am certainly aware that BR was efficient, I was simply going by what I’ve read in Chris Green’s own account. My fear is that we will be driven to cutting below what is sensible if the current drive to reduce costs to meet franchise requirements goes on.
@Anonymous2 – I think you have put your finger on why so few bidders are turning up. Certainly what I hear from inside Stagecoach and Arriva and see from the actions of First is that the OGs do not see how they can easily make a turn and yet put in a winning bid. Not even management contracts tempt them.
GH / Anon2 / Alan R
Sooner or later, then, at this rate, a contract will come up for renewal … And no-one will bid.
Oh the embarrassment!
What then?
@Greg Tingey
Simple: Direct Rail services will have to be reconstituted, BUT, quite likely, in advance of this, the government will sort out a short term management contract deal which will attract bidders, anything rather than revert to a dreaded and despised inefficient nationalised train service ! (Unless Jeremy Corbyn and his merry men get in).
[Just a reminder to all responding that LR is not the place for debating nationalisation or the transport policies of parties or individuals. LBM]
@Greg Tingey – we old blood and custard merchants are just waiting for that happy day, glass at the ready… More seriously, it really is difficult to see where DfT’s much touted new bidders are going to come from. For example, none of the so far quiescent state railway undertakings in Europe has the size – and more, importantly, the political backing – to enter the market. The Asian players who would come on board have already done so. There are no American-based likely bidders. The other UK possibilities who specialise in contract management, such as G4S, have half-heartedly tried and got their fingers burnt – the risk profile hardly suiting them. Who is left? The Russians? (That would be fun: I have dealt with them in the past when I privatised the Estonian state railways …)
@LBM
BUT; —— Mike, Transport is the ultimate politically driven topic. Has been since the Ancient Romans built roads. All transport matters are ultimately a matter of politics. Nobody ever built any major transport infrastructure of any sort without government approval.
Not even interested in management contracts Graham H?! We live in interesting times.
Alan: Yes, but remember the rule – moderators are always right, even when they are wrong.
Slightly more seriously, of course we realise that transport is all politics (apart from the bit which is physics), which is why our thin red line is likely to be drawn in a slightly varying place. The principle is that overt party politics is definitely out. Saying bit X, Y or Z of the labour or conservative policy does or does not make sense may be sometimes tolerated. Saying that the whole of what Labour says is right and Conservative wrong is definitely not on (or of course the converse).
And apologies in advance to anyone who might feel their comment has been treated differently from someone else’s. Slight inconsistency is unfortunately unavoidable.
The Railways Act says what should happen if no suitable bidder is found. One could interpret it as saying that the ORR (or whoever the franchise’s gift is in this week) HAS to consider whether a franchise is appropriate, even if there are compliant bidders.
Section 26ZA
(1)This section applies in the case of an invitation to tender under section 26 for the provision of services if—
(a)the appropriate franchising authority receives no tender in response to the invitation; or
(b)it receives a tender but considers that the services would be provided more economically and efficiently if they were provided otherwise than under a franchise agreement entered into in response to the tender.
(2)The appropriate franchising authority may —
(a)issue a new invitation to tender under section 26 for the provision of the services;
(b)decide to secure the provision of the services under a franchise agreement with a person who did not submit a tender; or
(c)decide not to seek to secure the provision of the services under a franchise agreement.”
So under subsection 1(b) it appears that ORR/OPRAF/whatever should consider whether anything would be more economic/efficient than what, if anything, is on offer , and 2(c) implies that the “something else” can be something other than a franchise.
@Malcolm
Point taken. It would be absurd to degenerate into a party political
manifesto, but , the subject being discussed is a product of titanic
opposing political forces, as was the consequences of the Railways
Act 1993, being discussed now. For the first time since 1992, we do
have a major political party apparently minded to pursue an agenda
of renationalisation, can hardly be ignored.
@ 100 and thirty – thanks for the kind comment. I won’t comment on the Plenary other than to say it descended into a party political electoral slanging match at several points. Anyone who saw the local news will have got the gist of the main argument.
On the topic of franchise bidders I haven’t read the PAC report. However it is worth observing that TfL have 4 shortlisted firms for the Overground concession re-let including a new entrant in the form of Metroline (Comfort Delgro). No one should be hugely surprised by SWT because no one expected it to be relet now. We have already discussed the whys and wherefores of this. I believe there was a reasonable level of bidder interest for Northern Rail and TPE and Arriva have bagged themselves a big slice of business by winning Northern Rail. If the franchising process goes askew then I suspect that will be more about developing uncertainty over Network Rail’s future, funding into the future and also the fact that the bus groups are having their businesses undermined by local authority funding cuts and the looming Buses Bill. Nearly of this is under the Government’s direct control so they only have themselves to blame for uncertainty destabilising the market. All of that will make investors very nervous as earning potential will drop in the big groups. First have already said their bus earnings are being damaged by poorly performing high streets in their core business areas. The danger for the bus groups is that once they ditch evening and Sunday services, because local authorities cut all funding, that current bus passengers go “oh well no point in using any buses now” and then their commercial routes are undermined. More cars on the roads then make bus operation even less efficient thus worsening service quality. We all know what this downward spiral looks like.
Obviously this has been going on since 1986 but the current funding situation is extremely serious and may tip the industry in further decline. London may also go the same way if TfL have to cut the London bus network – just wait to see what is done over TfL cross boundary routes into Essex and Herts where the County Councils are proposing to withdraw all funding. If TfL step in to plug the funding gap then every council that part funds cross boundary routes will cut their funding. Therefore there is a serious tactical issue in play here – who blinks first loses. Once London stops growing bus patronage (it’s barely grown for 2 years and is forecast to fall this year) then the national bus stats will go into freefall.
Back to rail – it will be interesting to see how much interest the West Midlands and East Midlands franchises attract once they get going in earnest. If there is negligible interest in these then the PAC may have a point.
Malcom
Re politics in general & transport politics in particular …
At present ISTM that “A pox on both your Houses” is the appropriate comment – always remembering what happened to the character who said that.
Restricting myself to transport, neither of the two main players seems to have the remotest clue, unfortunately, & the next two players [ Lem-o-Crats & “greens” ] stand no chance, for other, non-transport reasons.
WW
….and the looming Buses Bill I’ve obviously been asleep – please, do tell – what is proposed?
As for the cuts in bus services, that does not bode well for “provincial” (including inner Home Counties) services, nor outer London.
Which will mean significantly-increased road congestion, which means …
As you say a downward spiral.
The wonders of the supposedly “free market” I surmise.
@Greg Tingey
Some light shed on the Buses Bill by the minister on Thursday – speech here http://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-buses-bill
The Campaign for Better Transport has managed to build up bus cuts far beyond their actual impact. Around 85% of all journeys are on commercially-provided bus services, a proportion that is steadily increasing. The big companies are taking on quite a bit of previously-subsidised work, especially Sundays (there is growing evidence that increasing Sunday frequencies reaps commercial rewards) but evenings are more problematic. However, it is deeply rural routes that are more likely to disappear altogether – especially as they save the tendering authority twice, once on the cost of the service and then also on concessionary fare reimbursement.
It’s a long time since I’ve seen figures, but the TfL routes that ran across the county boundary had some of the highest subsidy-per-passenger figures of any route. It defies logic that it is possible to travel from Dorking to Kingston for the same price as a one-stop ride in central London.
@ManOfKent
It defies logic that it is possible to travel from Dorking to Kingston for the same price as a one-stop ride in central London.
True I would say, but in that case it defies logic that, on route 77 for example, Tooting Station to Tooting Broadway Tube Station is the same price as Tooting Station to Waterloo (Concert Hall Approach).
This must be one of the reasons for the demise of long cross centre routes.
Alan @ 19:53
Some confusion possible here between Direct Rail Services (DRS) one of the current freight companies, albeit owned by Govt; and the DfT’s passenger operator of last resort, hitherto ‘Directly Operated Railways’, (DOR)?
ManofKent,
It defies logic that it is possible to travel from Dorking to Kingston for the same price as a one-stop ride in central London
Absolutely not! It only defies logic if you are operating purely on a profit making basis and it is established that income would be increase by charging more. This, however, is not the situation we have.
For two authorities (TfL and Surrey CC) it makes absolute sense. It continues to keep the fare system simple. It would be extremely hard to effectively introduce differential fares. Furthermore we are not looking at minimising absolute subsidy but making the subsidy as cost effective as it could be.
Before the 405 (Redhill-West Croydon) was jointly paid for by TfL and Surrey CC it was a poor service, indifferently run, and it was very expensive. Once in the London border no-one would catch it for local journeys as it was both expensive and Capitalcards/Travelcards were not valid. The service was almost unused but clearly a service that Surrey CC felt obliged to run. Now it is regular, fairly reliable, cheap, and, crucially, well used. There is a more-or-less parallel rail service but it is clear that many of the users would be struggling to afford the rail fare.
In what way is running the service at the same prices as a one-stop ride in central London defying logic?
@Pop
The logic of transport pricing USED to be that you pay for the distance (miles) of transport consumed. (used?) Regulated national rail fares used to be calculated on mileage tables (1d a mile in good old days). i.e. pre WW1, but with some exceptions) Public transport (buses, metros and trams) were priced by fare stages, but tapering down by distance whereby longer distance bus journeys could be cheaper than train fares. I well remember (1955) paying a 1d fare on Chatham & District Traction route 3a to go 0.75 of a mile into Strood. The journey to Rochester 1.2 mile was 2d. Simple!
If you accept the logic that bus fares need to be competitively priced then logic suggests that as the principle competition is the motor car, a competitive bus fare comes out at approx. £0.20 (or something) PER MILE. (I know, let’s not argue till the cows come home as to exactly what constitutes marginal costs of running a car), The principle displayed is that the competition (car) is essentially mileage
based (but with complications, i.e. car parking charges).
Therefore, the further you go, the more you pay?
“Flat Fares” certainly simplify things, but there has to be a point whereby either the fares are prohibitively expensive for shorter trips, or ridiculously cheap for the longer. Zoning is a problem too, people walk an extra half mile to save £xx. There is no “perfect” solution.
Alan Robinson,
Not disagreeing with any of that. But, bus fares only need to be “competitively” priced to the extent that the the people who directly benefit must not find it too expensive – if you are subsidising them or, at least, setting them on the basis of social benefit rather than maximising profit. Or, to put it another way, so that the council or taxpayer are getting value for money.
If the buses are run for social benefit there is no need to equate a reasonable fare level to the running cost of a car per mile or other external comparable mode of transport – except that if the cost of a bus journey exceeded the cost of a taxi journey I think serious questions would need to be asked about why run the service.
@PoP
You have pinpointed the “crunch issue”. What is the “raison d’etre”
of public transport? When it was a privately owned unsubsidised operation it was simple : “To make money for shareholders”. As soon
as government support is involved (national or local the question arises
What’s it for and especially WHO is it for?
There are at least two essential objectives I can identify which might be in conflict with the strictly commercial (maximise return on capital employed), Allow POOR people to travel, on basis that with
relatively prosperous potential passengers defecting to cars, this puts
and onerous burden on the poor, who would otherwise be disadvantaged and restrained from taking up employment opportunities.
The second objective is IMPERSONAL and also highly controversial,
TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE TO USE OF CARS IN URBAN AREAS. (For various identified reasons, pollution, safety, shortage of
space etc etc) CARS ARE BAD !!!! PUBLIC TRANSPORT GOOD !!!
If the main objective of support for public transport use is held to
be the minimising of car use, then fares have to be competitive with car travel (and I would suggest at a “popular” or perceived marginal
cost too, with heavily discounted travel for groups.
I am reminded of the 1967 Transport Act and its repercussions.
The “philosophy” of the support arrangements for uneconomic rail services was that it was supposed to be continue the provision of socially necessary services for the use of THE POOR (but the poverty
element of eligibility was not itemised, just implied) As I remarked at the time, subsidised train services are the transport division of the
Welfare State! Of course, the implication is that responsible and
solvent people are supposed to buy cars (or mopeds maybe).
As you say, if public transport fares reach the level of taxi fares, this
does raise question as to whether any point in continuing the service. I am distressed to read of examples in USA cities where it has been declared (by right wing politicians) that public transit is only for the disadvantaged, and that by definition it is the DUTY of
all others (the not Poor) to drive. (really). In the UK I have encountered bus fares so expensive (before I reached age of 60) that a taxi fare could be little more. Sad to say, experienced this in
the Medway towns, whereby a journey of 4d (1950s) had now become £4 something . There were two of us so I phoned up a taxi for the return trip (£5). The bus was only hourly (every 10 mins in 1950s).
My prediction for the future: THE RETURN OF DISTANCE BASED FARES (FARE STAGES).
Logic suggests that the contactless principle will be extended to the form of a charge device capable of being validated without swiping. This could be a plastic card in pocket, wallet, or even an implant. (forehead?)
The transport operator will then be able to precisely monitor each journey, therefore: board bus/tram/metro etc (Bleep), alight (Bleep
again, clocking up the precise journey at a precise fare ). The Netherlands OV ChipKaart could serve as a model for all UK passenger transport (by all modes) even taxis etc. Ten years ago I would have laughed at this vision, don’t now.
AR
There is an other reason for promoting public transport, that is never spoken of, but should be (IMHO)
The cost in lives & injuries & dsiablements of private transport
Yes, and while we’re at reasons for bus over car, there is a large proportion of the population who cannot drive (age, eyesight, etc) and do not wish to, or cannot, use spare family members as their chauffeurs.
@Greg Tingey
YES! That is what I was referring to under general heading of “safety”.
Given that the reality is still that most car internal combustion;- The many premature deaths and impairments cause by exhausts (and not just diesel either). Veritably an Elephant in the room.
@Malcolm
Yes Indeed ! And : I am one (my driving licence was suspended last September for heath reasons). Living deep in the heart of the countryside and expecting the meagre bus service to be totally wiped out in near future, this concentrates the mind.
I am deeply distressed as to how little attention has been drawn to the plight of “non drivers by exclusion” during this period of bus service destruction (in the country, it has having really drastic consequences). I am utterly appalled at the insensitive comments by certain local councillors on lines of “If you wish to live in the country then you MUST drive a car, Council tax payers should not be expected to subsidise you by funding a bus etc”. I suppose those who can no longer drive are expected to quietly move to town, unless you are rich enough to just book a taxi for your shopping etc (some do).
Seldom seen this mentioned, but in Out of town supermarket car parks (in rural areas) there are substantial numbers of taxis seen.
This is how the rural poor do their shopping trips. (In part) the rural poor DO catch my bus to town, but when its gone, taxi or walk.
Only 9 miles to nearest decent shop. Ho-hum.
Again, This presumed “transit dependence” (can’t drive) suggests that means testing is appropriate (only subsidies to poor, if rich, taxi).
AR & Malcom
Not just the country either. It applies in town too. It ties in, very horribly with some of the mini-holland proposals, where cars are banned utterly from some areas, & many roads are blocked off.
Now for most of us, we can walk, or get on a bike. But, suppose you are old &/or frail &/or disabled. Even if you can afford a taxi, it may no longer be able to take you where you want to go & the journey time can increase by a very significant percentage ( Well over double for some previously short journeys )
And yes, one of my neighbours is so affected ……
“a large proportion of the population who cannot drive”
— Or, like me, used to drive but have deliberately given it up for many reasons. By happy chance I live in London SE1 where it would be madness to even possess a car, but my late father had to move back into a town when he could no longer drive on health grounds, once the hourly bus service to his village was cut. He resented this because he thought local transport should be provided out of government funds just like the health service or the army. I am inclined to agree.
In London now almost half (46%) of households do not own a car – and this mixes inner London, where household car ownership is now under 33%, with outer London, where household car ownership more closely resembles the country as a whole, but is still in decline. This decline in household car ownership is likely to continue with densification of residential areas without any commiserate increase in overnight parking provision. This latter is the real reason why household car ownership in Kensington (one of the richest parts of Europe) is amongst the lowest in the country. In fact, public policy is, though unstated, to encourage this decline further.
The main reasons behind this – and the commensurate support for public transport, walking and cycling – is the efficiency of the transport system overall together with reduced environmental (particularly air quality) impact. Subsidising public transport for ‘the poor’ is probably a secondary objective, but many people with low incomes already get free or specially subsidised travel in London. For example, children, elderly people and disabled people travel free on public transport and job seekers get discounts.
You can, therefore, differentiate between policies which address the needs of the city as a whole from policies which address particular classes of Londoners, for example, ‘the poor’.
@PoP 1233
Documents on Surrey’s website quote support for 9 TfL bus routes out of 24 that run into Surrey. I can’t find a definitive list, but curiously a map indicates that the 405 is regarded as commercial – it may receive some funding from Surrey for evenings/Sundays or perhaps school enhancements.
An audit report states ‘The total contracted value is in the region of £11m per annum including £1m paid in a single instalment in October each year to Transport for London (TfL) in return for the London buses which operate services into Surrey.’ Although it is only around 18 months old, the total spend figure is suspect, as other figures show it last at that level in 2009/10: it is now around £8m.
Surrey’s spend on bus support is £8.00 per head of population – neighbouring shire counties spend from £2.10 to £4.55. Choose a different metric, and Surrey wins – support per passenger journey is the lowest of the same counties (£0.52 to £1.10). But that doesn’t alter the fact that it absolutely costs more. As Walthamstow Writer put in the first response on this thread “There’s no money”.
If the fare from Dorking to Kingston was £3 rather than £1.50, then the burden on the Surrey taxpayer would be less (passenger numbers go down, but elasticity means the revenue is substantially better). With a flat fare, there might even be an over-crowding issue, if everyone in Dorking decides to go to Kingston instead of Leatherhead, depriving those in the latter town of a space on the bus (cf the c2c Barking conundrum on a parallel thread). OK, that’s probably not the case, except possibly at the 0930 concessionary pass threshold.
Passing snippet – Dorking and Leatherhead each have only one location to top up Oyster cards. The joys of devolved transport….
Back to the task I intended to do tonight – retendering a local bus route.
@ Quinlet – a tiny quibble. Most children get free bus travel but many have to pay to use Tube, DLR, Overground and National Rail services. People who have continued in education may also benefit from discounted Travelcards but I believe the rules are pretty tightly drawn. Holders of 16-25 National Railcards can also benefit from reduced off peak PAYG travel / discounted daily caps on TfL / NR rail services.
I agree with the broad comments about having lower fares / good quality services as part of overarching policy objectives like better air quality, a liveable city etc but I fear the funding regime will make it extremely difficult for TfL to continue balancing fares against quality and delivering the wider objectives. We’re heading into uncharted territory especially for the bus service. A break even position was only achieved for one year under LRT control and no one would want to return to those service levels, efficiency and poor quality of some operators. I am not saying TfL will aim for break even on the buses but it will have to up the revenue take or take more cost out to reduce the network cost. I can’t see other modes being able to generate enough revenue surplus to part fund the bus network *and* support part of the rail investment programme.
WW
I am not saying TfL will aim for break even on the buses but it will have to up the revenue take or take more cost out to reduce the network cost.
Meanwhile, one Mayoral candidate appears to be sticking to his “Fares Freeze” proposals, in spite of them being comprehensively rubbished by everyone else.
How long does it take for reality to break in to politician’s “minds”?
[Would anyone minded to answer, or comment on, this rhetorical question, please bear in mind the “no party politics” rule.. Malcolm]
@Walthamstow Writer
May I please offer a dissenting view of your “other modes being able to generate enough revenue surplus to part fund the bus network , and fund part of the rail investment programme”
It is not “modes” that cross subsidise.
All cross subsidies are enabled by specific customers paying an inflated price for their service used, obtained by a monopoly position price. This monopoly may be inescapable, even desirable, but that is what it is, monopoly pricing.
Fares (and fare increases)do not fund investment. Investment is enabled by a capability to achieve a P & L surplus (or at least break even) with appropriate depreciation and interest payments charged.
Investment is always effectively an external funding question, Share sales or business loans etc in private sector, Government grants (or limited permitted external private finance) in public sector.
Yes, in a profitable private industry retained profits can assist with investment funding, but almost always to a negligible degree, and hardly applies to public sector transport.
There is also no mechanism for linking profits to investment . Take Network Rail, returns profit of C £1b. but is netted off against Network Grant. There is no mechanism to increase track access charge to NR just because fares have gone up.
It’s like walking into a pub;- Customer : Pint of bitter, please
Landlord : certainly, sir that will be £4.50 please.
Customer : What ! It’s gone up by £1.00 since I was here last.
Landlord: Ah Yes, It’s to fund Investment .
Customer 😐 What Investment ?, this dump is just the same.
Landlord : Ah yes, but we are part of a big chain, and there are pubs
being done up in London.
Customer %5**@@£2^) I’m off. you can stick your beer;——-
Following from the issue of fares freeze, and a comment on the GLA debate with the Mayor and the Commissioner last week (did it really go on for 6 hours? I lost the will to live after 90mins of political points scoring – what a waste of public money!). Mike Brown mentioned the proportion of TfL’s income that comes from the fare box which was, from memory, about 42%. This was even lower than I thought.
As to the fares freeze, we have seen before the impact of fares reductions (and a fares freeze is a form of price reduction). When the Labour GLC made a fares reduction in the ’80s, travel soared. I am not going back to the political furore that followed. I am merely making the point that a fares freeze will increase crowding beyond current forecasts and even the upgraded lines will struggle with the loads. In the ’80s the tube network could cope more easily, although I did have to manage the purchase of some more trains; it can’t easily cope today.
I was amused that the GLA, depending on your political point of view, was:
…Complaining about overcrowding
…Complaining that TfL had bought some diesel buses amongst the hybrids despite the latter being roughly twice the price of a conventional bus
…Complaining about the cost of providing the services
Always a bit challenging to deliver mutually conflicting objectives!
What you have to remember is that London does not have integrated public transport in a way that would be understood in, say, Germany. There, all local public transport journeys cost the same, whatever the mode used and however many interchanges take place between modes. Zonal pricing is universal. In London, buses are a cheap and simply priced alternative to rail. If you interchange between modes, or even between buses, you pay more. In Germany buses normally feed into rail and tram systems, with rail/tram/bus interchange being as natural a feature as tube line interchange is in London. Perhaps it’s a British class thing!
@AR. While one person in London might walk some distance to cross a zone boundary and save money, a similar person out in the non-London UK might walk a distance to avoid a fare stage and similarly save money!
To give a price comparison, despite having a senior’s bus pass, I regularly pay £2.10 for a 3 km single journey before 09.30 here in Basingstoke. Older Londoners get lots of subsidies that we poor provincial folk don’t. Early morning free travel being one of them. Free Tube travel being another.
@Fandroid
Yes , walking to save a zone boundary does happen in the provinces.
A good example I have experienced being Droylsden on the East Manchester line. Droylsden itself is a natural traffic objective and starting point, but the next stop into town (Cemetery Road), which is nowhere much, is only a few hundred metres away, but over the zone boundary, saving quite a lot.
Same thing happened in Dresden, which has a zonal fare system. I was on a tram to Weinbohla (about 12km). Two zones, city and outer.
As we approached last stop in city zone an announcement was made “you must have an outer zone ticket to travel beyond this stop”.
A suspiciously large number of passengers got off. I was ok, had a regional day pass.
The point I was making is, increasingly sophisticated technology could allow for very fine charging , eg by km, or even half km, so there would be no incentive to walk to next stop over the boundary.
re: seniors having to pay am peak fares;-
I frequently pay £4.00 for a 12 km journey at 07.48, the first “free” bus being at 10.00 (It’s a swiz).
Just saying, we buy all sorts of stuff by volume, kilos of potatoes, pints
of beer etc etc, just seems logical to me to buy travel by the km.
Smartcards do allow for more sophisticated pricing. However, zonal fare systems have the big advantage that they allow the traveller to work out how much their journeys are likely to cost them, in a fairly simple way. The best cities make the fare structure as obvious as they can with notices giving simple explanations. It even works in rural areas, and is really little different from the fare stage system that presumably still operates on UK rural buses. Zones are just a lot easier to explain graphically on bus-stop notices than are fare stages. As for travel in my home town, I don’t know how much any journey will cost me, except for my standard one of home to town on the No 1 bus.
@AR. Did you realise that us oldies (even foreigners) get a (modest) discount on some tickets in Dresden?
Alan Robinson,
Just saying, we buy all sorts of stuff by volume, kilos of potatoes, pints
of beer etc etc, just seems logical to me to buy travel by the km.
I am surprised you wrote this. I would have thought it would logically be related to the cost of the asset you are using including a fixed some for the stations that you use to enter, exit and interchange at. Rotherhithe-Wapping is hardly any distance but through infrastructure that is costly to provide and support (OK, I know in that case you would probably have to support it anyway whether or not trains ran in it). As an extreme case take Eurostar. If done on a per km basis then I would choose to journey from Ashford to Lille every time. What about Heathrow Express and Connect?
Does it really make sense to charge people travelling from East Croydon do Clapham Junction or Lewisham to London Bridge less than Caterham to Tattenham Corner ? Which ones actually determine the need for expenditure?
If you charge per kilometre people will play the system even more that they do under a zonal system. In particular some will drive to the innermost station they can tolerate (traffic wise) before getting the train for the last few kilometres.
If you want to see possible unwanted side effects of a mileage charge you only have to look at the consequence for British Railways consignments. The road haulage people did the long easy journey on the major roads and motorways when they came about then booked in their consignments at the local station (e.g. Exeter for all West Country deliveries) leaving the railways with all the hard work and little of the income.
@Frandroid
All good points. As a tourist visitor, I tend to just get the 24hr, daily
ticket that allows me to swan around with peace of mind, and in most
European cities it is cheap. A “normal” passenger (commuter, shopper student etc ) however will be more interested in the best fare
for a specific journey made usually regularly). Zoning inevitably makes some shorter journeys prohibitively expensive, although as you say, it is easier to communicate to the unfamiliar occasional passenger. I think of transport today being “in transit” between the
totally manual fare systems of yesteryear (cash ,booking offices, manual barriers on rail systems, conductors and cash fare stages on
buses and trams). and the glorious automated brave new world to come!
However, I look forward to the day when advertising will exhort people to travel on rail’/metro/tram/bus system for only £.xx per mile as a standard rate.
Yes, I do know of Dresden senior discount (obtained with glee).
It’s about 10%. Curious this, everywhere I have been in Europe there is a senior’s DISCOUNT fare (not much off) , which suggest that the
UK FREE travel could be unique. (Don’t tell Mr Osborne). Funny thing is, we don’t give generous discounts to students, very much a feature of French public transport and SNCF scholar’s seasons, which
I have seen advertised at incredible low prices.
@PoP – and your pointyheaded economics geek would go further and demand that the marginal passenger should pay the marginal fare to cover the marginal cost (I have actually had this argument with the Treasury). Thus the first passenger on the bus pays £20, the next 88 pay 1p because they cause just the cost of the extra fuel. Thin passengers pay less than fat ones, of course, too. The trouble is that public transport is by definition a compromise in its fares structure and operations; the thing is necessarily riddled with cross-subsidies and inequalities; this is what makes it so baffling to economists. In the real world you can/have to strike compromises and it’s the rationale for choosing one compromise over another that is so interesting.
@Pop
This is good stuff. Is transport really a hopelessly unreformable production led industry, or could it be market driven ? The economic
text books promote the notion of a “price for a product” and producers
have to work out out how to produce for less than that.
A Production led railway might well go down the path of charging for
retail facilities used. I paid a £7.00 “booking fee” last night for tickets
to the ballet (Swiz I say). The SNCF used to do this on a formal basis.
Train tickets used to include a “booking fee” designed to recover the
cost of ticket issue. This could lead to short journeys being extremely
expensive. This sort of thing gets customers backs up, not good for business ? In the case of SNCF, the “booking fees” enabled them to
spuriously misrepresent accounts to present rural stations as “viable”. I suppose a pub could charge you (say) £2 per visit just to
sit in the premises, then (say) just £1.00 for each pint.
The Eurostar standard pricing (for any journey irrespective of terminal) does lead to some anomalies. It certainly disbenefits Ebbsfleet and Ashford (no saving departing there , but l extra cost to
travel there by any means). It also results in the bizarre outcome whereby the very short run Ashford-Calais (about 70km) is the world’s most expensive “Inter City”railway journey., at same price as
London-Paris (Hardly anyone ever does it).
Where there is no market to generate a “market price” then the traditional thing is for a railway to charge “what the traffic will bear”
in absence of regulation. This is what Eurostar do. Their fares are totally unregulated, I believe.
The road haulage anomalies you mention are essentially the product
of allowing competitor (that is competing with rail) to use a publicly
provided expensive facility (motorways in the late1950s – 60s ) for
which no proper market bases charge(tolls) were levied, but this is
getting a bit arcane. The 1962 act sought to give BR ability to escape being lumbered with the rubbish. It was about 15 years too late.
The cost of running a road vehicle remains totally unrelated to costs of infrastructure provided. You pay a fuel duty (which IS a distance
based charge) but doesn’t vary whether you are driving along a country lane or the M25. In fact vehicles on motorways tend to use less fuel per km, therefore logically should be paying more. I look forward to the day when the entire road system is turned into a proper business, with P&Ls galore, and specific toll charges. This would sort out the sheep from the goats. (do I hear £0.75 per km for peak time motorway car travel?). I reckon that a proper commercial approach to road financing would soon have the effect of abolishing rail support, and rail could be confidently re-privatised back into the pre 1914 model. And we’d all live happily ever after.
Alan: there might be a theoretical fare from Ashford to Calais but I am pretty sure there are no trains these days. Very few Eurostars stop at Ashford (one per day to each of Paris Brussels and Eurodisney), and even fewer stop at Calais – and I’m pretty sure they’re not the same ones. My grievance about travelling cross channel from Kent is not that there is no reduction on Eurostar (which is hardly surprising, since it requires a seat to be empty from STP, as no domestic traveller may use it). It is that you get no choice of time of day – and the Brussels one is too early unless you live over the station in Ashford.
Alan: “What the traffic will bear” makes some sense for passengers. In your pre-1914 golden age, it meant that stone was carried at below cost (because it had so little value), and lead to obscure arguments about whether the rate for a guinea pig should be the same as for a pig.
@Malcolm
To be accurate, Ashford has 3 trains a day (M-F) to Paris.
There is a train from Ashford to Calais – at 07:28 (M-F) – but it’s not a lot of use for this purpose, as there is no return train that calls at both.
@Malcolm
There IS ONE train a day Ashford – Calais at 07.28
I have sampled one way adult fares;-
February;-
15 £141 , 17 £90 20 £141 23 367
March 23 £45.
As you can see the £141 is £2 per km (AAAAAAAAArgh).
Even the cheapest (Mar 23) at £45 is a pricey £0.64.
just don’t know what they are trying to achieve, can’t be good for the image. Every now and then smartalec Journalists was lyrically about how huge numbers of city types are now buying houses in Pas de Calais and commuting to London on Eurostar !!!
The reality is that the Ebbsfleet and Ashford terminals are very half
hearted operations. Not even through fare facility from SE Trains low speed. The Ebbsfleet terminal didn’t even include a loop line from Dartford so S E London passengers have to book to Gravesend and back again to access Eurostar ( Only about 2million people disbenefited, they can’t connect to Javelin either). As it stands, Ebbsfleet and Ashford are probably wildly uneconomic, “politically
motivated” assets essentially. A few years back there was a proposal for Trans Manche Metro, hourly Ashford-Calais-Lille, probably blown up by need to run 16 car trains through tunnel.
The “rate the traffic will bear” of the late 19th cent (pigs v guinea pigs)
led to the infamous explosion of road haulage in 20s and 30s. All road hauliers had to do was look up (publicly available) rail freight tariff by
commodity, identify some high value good producers, and make them offer they couldn’t refuse. (was described by road hauliers as ,
as easy as taking sweets from a baby). However, as you say, this may make sense for passenger business, but only where there is no credible competition, back to my earlier statement, excessive prices are a certain proof of existence of a monopoly, at least to some degree. I note that there is increasing criticism of Eurostar in travel trade mags etc, at being “naughty” with pricing whereby there are more and more dates whereby it’s now cheaper to fly. (So perhaps Eurostar don’t have as much of a monopoly as they think?)
Alan Robinson et al,
Of course for some situations you would be better of charging for time. I think that for minicabs (and possibly taxis too) time is a more logical basis. The highest cost is the driver’s wages. Why should it cost the same per mile to go bumper to bumper in a traffic jam as to go on an easy motorway journey? And yes, I have often thought that restaurants and pubs should start a meter on entrance and stop on exit if only that were practical but of course you would get into arguments about delay attribution amongst other things.
It is notable that you can hire a locomotive on “power by the hour” basis. I never really understood why maintenance for rolling stock vehicles such as SWT emus is done purely on a mileage basis and would have thought on an hourly basis would make more sense with a suitably determined combination of the two being close to the ideal. Going well off subject a bit, I don’t understand why they can’t use an enhanced black box to really identify costs (e.g. so much per brake application made at various different speeds, so much for each minute motoring, so much for each door opening, so much per hour the air conditioning is on). Of course it is different when setting fares for the general public as there is a desire to have them understandable and being able to determine them exactly in advance.
Actually from Eurostar’s point of view, the Ashford journeys are a bit of a curse because the cost of the station was covered by a per passenger cost claimed by the company that built Ashford International Station so, arguably, an Ashford passenger costs Eurostar more than if the passenger had boarded at St Pancras.
By far the largest cost to Eurostar for most travellers on Eurostar is the payment to Eurotunnel per person. They actually make incredibly little money on the cheapest fares and, I am told, actually make a loss on a lot of the staff discounts. Incidently, I understand that the overestimate/misunderstanding on Eurostar projected passengers numbers hit Eurotunnel far more than Eurostar as Eurotunnel was relying on them whereas Eurostar could make a savings which, while not quite proportional, went a long way to enable them to continue successfully trading despite initial projections allegedly being so wrong. Not quite irrelevant to discussion because it shows the need for a company to get the purely artificial pricing basis working to their advantage under a variety of possible scenarios.
A per kilometre charge is so distorted from real costs nowadays that it really makes no sense. This is unlike quantities of beer or potatoes and even then you get the situation where different brands of beer and potatoes cost different amounts per unit volume or weight.
@PoP. I have no idea how much my potatoes cost, but I’m very proud to eat them as I grew them myself!
Alan Robinson,
All road hauliers had to do was look up (publicly available) rail freight tariff by
commodity, identify some high value good producers, and make them offer they couldn’t refuse
When training to be a booking office clerk we asked the question to our instructors “why are the faretables not openly published ?” – it having been made clear to us that they must not fall into “the wrong hands” but not why. The answer was for the passenger equivalent of the reason you give. Such a thing would seem a nonsense in this day and age. In fact, if you knew how to go about it, the fare tables were publicly available (at a price) despite saying “not for publication” but this fact was definitely not advertised.
Although people complain nowadays about how difficult it was to find a fare it was much harder before the internet. You had to ask at the station and trust you had been given the correct answer. If you started trying to ask if it would be cheaper to buy a separate underground ticket or travel on a different day or at a different time or different route you were considered a nuisance.
Someone mentioned charging according to the value of the goods conveyed.. This is what happens in Russia; so, a tonne of white goods costs many times as much as a tonne of coal – a nonsense as the cost of conveyance is much the same.
The problem with a kilometric charge in an industry with a high proportion of fixed infrastructure costs, such as railways is that most costs have an X + Y structure, where X is fixed, regardless of distance or time and only Y varies, so you would lose on the short trips and gain on the longer ones if you had a flat rate charge. (Taxi fares recognise this – so, too do some restaurants with a cover charge although it’s usually argued by economists eager to eat cheap lobster thermidor that the cover charge should be high and the charge for the meal eaten low…)
BTW a propos the pigs versus guinea pigs argument, the Port of London rate book for 1910 distinguished between the cost of unloading a large elephant ( 5/=) and a small one (2/6), which must have led to some interesting quayside arguments. I have no idea what the breakdown of elephant loading costs would be as between fixed and variable…
@Pop
I do accept your points, all valid. There is a conflict (and always has been) between time and mileage based costs. As you state, correctly, many of the costs to the producer are essentially time based . To the customer (passenger) the value of the travel obtained is going to be distance related surely? The cost of travel by car certainly is, as far as “perceived ” costs go. Reconciling these two conflicting concepts can provide lots of fun for those with nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon! (To quote one of the characters in the 1937 Oh! Mr Porter film,;- ye-re wasting yer time! )
The Eurostar tunnel toll per passenger (to Eurotunnel) is a travesty, a classic example of the disastrous effect of tolling. If indirect costs (tunnel provision) are masqueraded as “direct” the result can only be economic stagnation. Eurostar (and Eurotunnel too) would do better business if fixed annual charges were devised unrelated to passenger sales. (Like BR’s onetime primacy concept). Who is the prime user of Eurotunnel anyway, Passenger (car) shuttles? Freight shuttles ?, Eurostar? Rail Freight? Whatever, marginal costs must be very low.
Eurotunnel (and Eurostar) are a little different here, if not quite unique. Transport generally offers to convey the customer to a variety
of destinations at varying distances. The prime function of the tunnel is to convey one (or things) ABROAD !!
The time cost is very relevant to many discussions re transport. Not many are aware that, generally, the faster you go, the cheaper it gets (for rail). on a unit cost basis for train operations, expressed per seat km. But , the faster you go, the higher the fare commanded, per km. Slow trains don’t make money!
I don’t know how TOCs compile their management accounting these days, but in “my day” BR achieved a fairly accurate disparate presentation of time and mileage costs. I used to present costs to PTEs in this format so they could play about with forecasting effect of timetable and diagramming changes.
Alan Robinson,
Agree (and learn) with all you way.
The time cost is very relevant to many discussions re transport. Not many are aware that, generally, the faster you go, the cheaper it gets (for rail). on a unit cost basis for train operations, expressed per seat km.
Pleased you brought this up. On the c2c Barking-Upminster issue, all other things being equal (which they are not), we should be encouraging people to use c2c not branding them as some sort of pariah if they do so. That would make public transport more efficient. Shame the infrastucture means this perfectly natural and laudible behaviour is frowned upon.
Beeching and Gerry Fiennes were both very well aware of the need to run trains fast and not stop at more stations than necessary if cost minimisation is your priority.
@Pop
Agreed! I have “form” here. As finance planning manager, Provincial in 1980s, I was very much in the tick of it re reducing unit costs (and therefore improved bottom line) by means of increased train speeds, with better daily mileage utilisation etc etc, especially so with 158 express programme, but had already started with 15x trains, selectively. (I mainly whammed the figures in, the genius who masterminded this was one Martin Gibbard, but with very effective supervision from Provincial Resources manager, Ray Patisson).
By this means the greatest ever bottom line improvement in any “chunk” of BR was obtained , and quite quickly.
I pointed out at the time, that we moved into exciting new territory, in that, with real season ticket fare increases, it was now possible to demonstrate (on paper) a huge enhancement of longer distance FAST commuter service, into major centres, whereby the bottom line could be improved. The old “bogey” of inescapable worsening deficits on increased commuter services was DEAD, all due to high speeds!!!
Didn’t happen though, much too revolutionary.
I used to do all sorts of theoretical business models in “spare” time.
I am quite puzzled that HS2 has not hammered this, Real High speed trains should be much cheaper than” conventional Inter City trains per seat km, therefore : HS2 if at maximum output COULD yield lower fare capability.
AAAAAAAAAAAAaaaargh, sorry, forgot that HS2 is banned.
@PoP/AR – the fundamental question is whether prices should closely reflect costs or not. Given that it is – for all the reasons stated – hardly possible for fares to reflect costs precisely, one is into some form of by-and-largery. The question is “what” and “why”?
In the uncapitalised railway, time seemed more important as a cost driver -staffing costs loomed larger than they do now (taking the industry as a whole) and most rolling stock costs were mileage related (energy and maintenance). Looking at current rolling stock leases, mileage seems to have returned to the forefront, and for NR, disconnected as ever from the sharp end, time hardly shows up at all. For example, track costs relate to t/km and the costs of inspection. (This latter point leads to some strange marginal effects whenever a new inspection frequencylevel is triggered).
@Graham H
Whether prices should closely reflect costs or not;——
That is, assuming there is a capability to actually assess accurate costs.
This took a long time to achieve. Certain costs were relatively easy to precisely identify (in total for a given unit,) terminal costs for an individual terminal. Train operating and maintenance costs were fairly good by 1970s. There is always a general problem of how to allocate overheads (and a railway has many levels). The reality (until relatively recent times), is that fares were essentially “historical”. They were regulated per mile, then with BR subject to an national fare policy (i.e. announcement each year as to how much they would be going up, usually bit more than RPI). Market derived pricing came in for Inter city, then extended to other sectors. I have never heard of “Cost derived” pricing. The basic thrust is that marketing managers have looked at fare tables and thought “how much can I get away with”. To this day, nobody actually monitors just what does happen to fares year-on-year. There is an announcement, say 5% fare
rise, and nobody ever does a sample to see if the increase really was 5%. I did !!! in 1993. Accusations from the Dft that Regional Railways had failed to increase fares in real terms led me to be instructed to perform a proper analysis from Selective fare manuals in archives going back over 10 years. The results were horrifying, absolutely scared the pants of RR senior management.
Fares had actually increased by about by about 3 times inflation, i.e. doubled in 10 years. Nobody could believe it, and I was required to check and double check my analysis, calculated over a representative sample of about 60 “sensible” non PTE RR journeys. I was right, successive marketing managers (in sub-sectors) had sneakily increased fares by more than guideline time and time again, and rounded up etc. It didn’t work though. Full fare sales showed noticeable decline, offset by soaring sales of giveaways.
The experience convinced me that Train fares are not as inelastic as often supposed. But, there is a time delay, the resistance and negative yield doesn’t show up until much later, by which time everyone has forgotten how much cheaper they used to be.
This is why I am very sceptical over the use of real fare increases as a method of reducing support requirement, Beware!
@AR – I think you’re making my point – fares cannot at microlevel reflect costs. Some form of aggregation is inevitable. The interesting question then is how you do structure fares and why.
I do agree that within what used to be OPS [Other Provincial Services], fares elasticities vary. The PDFH has consistently talked about an elasticity of 1 across the sector as a whole. That is demonstrably wrong given the nature of journey purposes and distances across much of the sector. I am thinking in particular of the services marketed eventually as Alphaline, which in every respect apart from volume, resemble IC. That would imply a fares elasticity of around 0.25 and the scope for pricing up accordingly. In 1987, my team in the Department undertook a private study of the scope for getting BR out of grant. So far as OPS/RR was concerned, we assumed that (a) the Welsh and Scots service groups would be transferred to those departments and the Alphaline services would be priced up as if they were IC. That would have left a small (but expensive) clutch of rural services mainly in the West Country, the NW and Lincs which could probably have been carried by cross subsidy from IC and Freight. The notion that Alphaline could have been priced up,however, met with great resistance (on no particular grounds) from the then RR Director and also from IC who suspected – wrongly – that the objective was to lumber them with some lossmakers.
Alas, the PDFH has not been usefully revised in this matter.
Raising fares, incidentally,does make a difference so far as investment is concerned in the public sector. The control is the total amount of external finance required, being the net sum of the Board’s total financing requirements for all purposes, net of the total funds raised from internal sources(such as fares) – for public expenditure purposes that is all that matters. Think of fares as a form of tax, for p/e purposes.
After much debate about allocating costs and price linked to cost on the Railway, I submit, m’lud, there are other ways of doing this that result in cost being less than revenue. As examples, three industries where prices are not linked at all to cost pro providing the service except at the very highest level (ie income has to exceed costs):
– Sending a letter costs the PO more if being sent from Lands End to John O’Groats than if it’s being sent from WC1 to WC2 but the cost to the customer is the same.
– The dual approach in mobile networks – effectively unlimited calls/texts (who makes 1000 calls in a month?) and metered data, neither of which is directly related to the cost of providing or running the services
– Council tax – an arcane process only slightly related to consumption of the service.
I’m not saying these are applicable to railways, but a strict approach to cost/price can lead to perverse answers.
@100andthirty – of course, what you say applies to most networks -there isn’t a right or wrong way of allocating costs (even if total revenue exceeds total costs, as with thePost Office). Pricing policy is in the last resort either a commercial matter (market share/customer loyalty etc) or a regulatory matter for social reasons (eg the PO universal delivery requirement at a flat rate). the railways’ misfortune is that it has been encouraged to fall between the two stools…
@Graham H
I think what you have finally got round to is the original principle on which railways were managed right up to nationalisation. Contribution Accounting. There is only one bottom line, the P & L for the railway company. Income is accounted for by broad business divisions only, Passenger, Freight, Parcels, Property , other (hotels, shipping?). Only direct costs are identified to these businesses, with a resulting surplus which is supposed to pay for the indirect costs of infrastructure and admin. But, As the late Robert Reid said in a talk circa 1983, I’m not clever enough to manage all that! (or words to that effect) hence sectorisation, with exhaustion of all costs to sector, and ultimately to sub-sector. (lots of bottom lines). In a “traditional contribution accounting managed railway” you charge whatever you think will maximise the contribution, unless regulated to achieve politically driven objectives, the Post Office being an extreme example, and I would think, unlikely to be maintained now that letter mail is so much less important to the economy and society than hitherto.
With regard to POTATOES. This whole topic is threatening to become a RUNAWAY TRAIN, so much so that I predict a SPUD.
Alan R
[Advocating violence politicians & others is outside the remit of this site. LBM]
( @ 17.03 )
The Eurostar tunnel toll per passenger (to Eurotunnel) is a travesty, a classic example of the disastrous effect of tolling.
And this appears to apply, in spades (probably redoubled) for freight, with ludicrously-low volumes of rail freight going through the tunnel, & huge volumes in lorries on trains.
There is definitely something of the madhouse about the whole thing.
PoP
Beeching and Gerry Fiennes were both very well aware of the need to run trains fast and not stop at more stations than necessary if cost minimisation is your priority. Which is presumably why almost all S Wales trains from Padders stop @ Reading & Didcot & Swindon & Stoke Gifford before reaching Newport & giving slower journeys than 25 years ago ….
@Pop
Padd – S Wales timetable. It is indeed slower than 25 years ago. I suppose you might say victim of its own success, in that business at intermediate stations has increased to the point whereby it is a greater significance (to the TOC) than maintaining longer distance business through high speed.
It bothers me greatly that huge sums of money are proposed to be spent on infrastructure improvement to improve journey times when
all that is necessary is non-stop timings. (with some modest re-jigging of signals maybe). same thing might apply, in principle to London train services, i.e. Brighton Line, 59. I can remember when
peak North Kent trains (ex LCDR) ran fast Chatham – Cannon St in
40 mins. We now have HS1 , Chatham to Central London in 45 mins.
same thing in rural Herefordshire. Principal trains London – Hereford (Cathedrals Express and a few more) did Paddington to Greta Malvern in 2 hours 7 mins in 1992. These days, more like three
hours, stopping everywhere for the Cotswolds gentlefolk.
Gerry Fiennes must be turning in his grave.
AR
And it is still possible, given a half-hourly service to have both options, actually.
So that if your X.15 S Wales is first stop Stoke Gifford & the X.45 is as previously, then all will be well.
Provided you have a 4-track major stop at the appropriate distance for the fast/semi-fast services to cross over & swap passengers.
This used to happen at Leicester, where a fast Nottingham, would pass a semi-fast Derby & vice versa.
Also, the railways are in competition with the M-ways & a lot of people will just look at the headline time ( & take no account of tiredness or other factors) & are probably losing out.
One place where this sensible regime still applies appears to be out of KGX, I’m glad to say.
@AR – Don’t know about “finally getting round to contribution accounting” – in an railway industry which is properly capitalised (unlike anything that existed in 1923/48/62/93), you will findthat over 2/3of all costs are not locatable to any particular activity. In those circumstances, you can be as savvy as you wish about carving up contributory costs but they don’t amount to much more than the proverbial row of beans. The industry still sinks on the basis of all those undifferentiated costs. BR1 was, as usual, right: it wasn’t worth anyone’s time to try and deal with all that top hamper, but his solution – sectorisation – was just as much an arbitrary formula as anything else. The fact that all those involved at the time thought that sectorisation and its development into O4Q thought – and still think – it’s the best solution yet devised to a basically insoluble problem doesn’t mean that it’s “right”. The essential point is that there is no correct way of allocating most railway costs but if you don’t attempt it, then the whole industry will be pushed over by a mass of cost that no one thinks is under control.
@Graham H
Yes! You have to do something. As long as railways were viable (or at
least enjoyed a cash surplus) there was really little urgency to tackle
this issue. When railways slip into negative CASH position, then creative accountants work overtime. I would say that railway business
division has to be big enough to be provided economically (economies
of scale, which is not a fantasy) but small and cohesive enough to have a good commercial business focus. The cost allocation of indirects or overheads is always going to be controversial. I was discussing this point with one of my former colleagues at our regular
“bash” at the famed hostelry “The Lion and Wheel” re the question of
whether it was possible to “see” a stand alone profitable railway
(Inter City & Freight plus best of RR?) I pointed out that “profitable”
airlines operate using airports whose users include highly subsidised
national “legacy carriers”. if these legacy carriers were to stop, then presumably airport charges would have to increase thus threatening
to make the private “profitable” carriers unviable. It’s the same with
Railways. If a profitable railway operation only achieves viability by sharing resources with a publicly supported sector , then this is OK.
Same thing could happen with a toll road, in theory. However, if fiendish civil servants wish to conspire to eliminate the publicly supported services without throwing out the profitable baby along
with the bathwater, then : Euston we have a problem.
Re Alan R and Greg,
To take a current example:
Part of the IEP business case (especially on ECML) partially rests on slightly faster journeys (due to massively improved acceleration) with 1/2 more stops or existing end to end timings with 3+ more stops with the extra stops improving the load factors. (Also more seats/train to fill…). The extra stops also allow the creation of more fast paths on the ECML.
First’s infamous WCML bid assumed more stops to drive load factors amongst other items.
@ngh
I have always been “bemused” by the Anglo-Scottish rail offerings.
Supposedly the “main chance” is to snare the businessmen who want to be in either London or Glasgow/Edinburgh as early as possible and get back home again swiftly. This should be achievable with non-stop
services, i.e. Kings Cross- Edinburgh 3hrs 30mins, Euston – Glasgow
in less than 4 etc (especially West Mids to Scotland, currently 4 hours plus stopping at every lamp post in North West. It is by no means only business travellers who would appreciate this.
The basic contention remains. assuming there is the potential traffic to fill trains, the most profitable passenger railway is one where trains whizz from one end to the other as quickly and frequently as possible also minimising terminal costs (only two). Paris – Lyon is a
superb actual example. (ok I know , a few trains stop at Le Creusot TGV).
“The extra stops also allow the creation of more fast paths on ECML”
Eh? have I read this correctly, don’t get it. Can you please explain.
@Graham H
“even if total revenue exceeds total costs, as with the Post Office). Pricing policy is in the last resort either a commercial matter (market share/customer loyalty etc) or a regulatory matter for social reasons (eg the PO universal delivery requirement at a flat rate”
I think we are confusing the Post Office (still a government-owned company) with the Royal Mail (recently privatised). It is the latter which has a universal delivery requirement. The Post Office has other obligations (e.g the requirement to have a sub-post office within x miles of y% of the population etc)
@Greg
“One place where this sensible regime still applies appears to be out of KGX, I’m glad to say.”
It doesn’t look very sensible from where I’m standing (on the platform at Stevenage trying to get to York, or at Newark trying to get to Retford, twenty miles away (as I write, the quickest way takes 74 minutes, with a change at Lincoln!)
@Alan Robinson
“Paddington to Great Malvern these days, more like three hours, stopping everywhere for the Cotswolds gentlefolk.”
I fail to see why Great Malvern deserves a better service than Evesham just because it is further away from London
From the point of view of yield management it makes sense to run a train fully loaded from one end of the line to the other. But, whether the other end of the line is Glasgow Central or Tattenham Corner, this is not in keeping with what the railways should be for. Unlike airlines, they pass through communities on the way, and have a moral and social obligation to provide a service to them too. That was part of the deal when the lines were originally built.
I see Virgin are increasing the number of trains to Edinburgh in the May timetable. Is there really a market for 2 tph over that distance, and not one for more than 0.5 tph between two market towns, only twenty miles apart. Both with connections to cross-country routes, but then joined-up thinking is very out of fashion on the railways
@timbeau – I was – and should have made this clearer – referring to the period when the PO was a single state-owned organisation.
“not in keeping with what the railways should be for.” And what are the railways for?
Should have added that the performance regime also encourages the attitude to intermediate stops being at best an encumbrance and at worst an irrelevance. The measure is too heavily biased towards getting a train to the end of the line on time, resulting in broken connections or stops skipped in order to achieve it. Five minutes saved for the passengers already on the train, but maybe an hour or more lost for those left behind.
@timbeau and Graham H
And what are railways for? Simple. to make shareholders rich by whatever means it takes to do it. If we (the UK) aspire to achieve a railway that is support free (i.e. users pay all the costs) then this basic
commercially driven model (make shareholders rich) is what applies, on a hierarchical basis, Of course, should the State decide that railways (or specific services and terminals) should continue that can not be commercially provider, then the State must specify and fund as appropriate.
If an independent commercial railway is required, then can be no question of justice or public interest any more than there is a public interest in whether or not Ryanair flies to a particular destination.
It is up to the public to communicate to their elected representatives
as to what supported services are desired. Ministers must decide.
My observation re Great Malvern is nothing to do with any supposed “deserving rural country folk in Herefordshire”. Simply that the Inter City services that used to run with fewer stops to a faster schedule had better load factors throughout, and therefore more likely to make me rich (If I was a shareholder).
It’s a variant on “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. If the piper is NOT paid (support free train service) then the Piper can choose which tunes he likes to play. I would suggest that a good commercial result might be obtained for the Cotswold lines by a fast service London- Oxford-Worcester, PLUS a stopper, with appropriate rolling stock to match differing requirements. The massive investment in Cotswold line re-doubling was supposed to enable this ,
I was led to believe. Hasn’t happened.
Frankly, I judge that running an eight car train through to and from
Hereford is a nonsense. There are plenty of trains by LM Hereford-Worcester, and Hereford COULD access London more quickly via
Newport (Maindee East curve) then limited stop to Padd. I’ve been
hoping an open access operator might see the potential here, i.e.
a Shrewsbury-Padd. Even without a through train, Hereford – Padd is
usually quicker by changing at Newport. (than trundling through Cotswolds).
timbeau,
this is not in keeping with what the railways should be for. Unlike airlines, they pass through communities on the way, and have a moral and social obligation to provide a service to them too
Absolutely. You are referring to the dreaded “skip-stopping” pattern on the East Coast Main Line(ECML) which is a thoroughly unsatisfactory, but necessary, approach to serving communities (sort of) without using up too many vital long distance train paths. If the ECML and the GWML (and the Brighton Main Line come to that) were four track all the way it would be different.
What Fiennes, Greg and myself and no doubt many others were perceiving was a combination of fast trains (e.g. first stop from Paddington is Newport – as it used to be) and semi-fasts* with appropriate connections. Alternatively, run the trains from the outer terminus until they are full and then just run non-stop to London.
*given the lack of stations on the GWR west of Didcot one can argue as to whether to refer to these as semi-fast or all-stations.
If Gerry Fiennes was in charge of Crossrail on opening he would probably be running morning peak services Shenfield – Chadwell Heath (all stations) then Stratford and onward combined with other services such as Gidea Park – Ilford (all stations) then Stratford and onward and a few Ilford starters (all stations) – having made sure terminating facilities at Ilford are retained. A more frequent all stations service has its merits that may be more important for other reasons but, in terms of stock utilisation and fastest journey time, it is a step backwards.
@Graham H
” what are the railways for?”
The problem is that everybody, and nobody, really knows any more, but note the word “should”.
Well, for their original promoters they were a means for making money. For the shareholders of the various TOCs they still are. But, then as now, they needed Government backing, initially in Acts of Parliament to get them built, and nowadays in the financial contributions made by central government and PTEs.
There is also the point that if you are going to inflict a railway line, (or a motorway) with all the noise and physical obstruction that involves, on a community, it is rather unfair not to allow the community to use it. (There is of course a balance to be struck – for a small community with a railway still running through it, the likelihood of having kept its station is inversely proportional to how busy the line is (cf Berney Arms and Box).
Re Alan R (and Timbeau).
[As a former London to Yorkshire commuter for several days a week…]
The problem (apart from few southbound Leeds – London services in the morning) is that you can’t fill a train to just a single destination (beyond Peterboro) you need more stops to fill the train. And you need max bums on seats to get the revenue to win the franchise bidding currently.
By having more stops you also improve the poor service at intermediate stations which Timbeau has illustrated well.
Virgin East Coast announce some more London Edinburgh services today (post ORR wrangling)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-35576875
In reality extending a London – Newcastle service to Edinburgh (Monday-Saturday), adding 2 extra new paths and trains on Sunday and adding a few extra stops to other services from the May TT change. There appear to be many more Peterborough stops so this is potentially the first sign of the new IEP timetable???
Extra fast paths on ECML (covered a few times on LR before), you stop a current through train at say Peterborough thus creating a bigger gap in front of it so you can run another train in front of it on the 2 track sections as you have opened up a gap (a through path effectively equates to 1.x that stop at station as you currently need a circa 15mile gap in front not to slow down a fast service if the one in front stops). The financial penalty at the moment for an extra stop is huge (see Graham H’s HST vs VEP example) but with new stock (IEP) the financial penalty is much reduced with faster braking and regenerative too (no burning brake block smell like in Mk3s…) and much faster acceleration so you could run London – Peterborough – York with IEP faster than London – York currently with either stock type. Unless there is an empty path or 2 in front (rare for example the 0700 from KGX) the fastest services will already be catching slower services in front and reduce speed at some points along the journey so many services you could add 2 stops (PBO + 1 from Retford, Newark, Grantham, Doncaster) and still take the same time or faster as a direct London – York service today but have far more passengers. See C2C discussion for more even stopping patterns discussions – the ECML example just has more miles between stations!
The lesson for London can be seen in much higher rolling stock performance specifications so some of the timetabling thinking can be completely revised.
@ngh
“Extra fast paths on ECML you stop a current through train at say Peterborough thus creating a bigger gap in front of it so you can run another train in front of it on the 2 track sections as you have opened up a gap ”
But surely all you have done, at best, is swapped two paths – you may have created a gap in front of the stopping train, but unless it is terminating at Peterborough (or going to Melton Mowbray or Spalding – which would create pathing problems of their own because of the flat junctions!) there will need to be a gap further back in the sequence for it to slot into. And overtaking is not possible at all stations – Newark, for example, has only one track northbound, and Grantham only one southbound (and in the converse directions , having a main line service use the loop platform rules out any connecting services using it, rather defeating the point)
Re PoP @11:29
But the point is that new higher performance trains rewrite the rules to an extent, stopping no longer has the time or financial penalties that it used to have so the skip stopping on the ECML will reduce.
The May VTEC timetable has increased stopping.
Also remember that First TPE bid went big on extra services in the Northern ECML area which is also under potential new open access attack too.
When HS2 phase 2b (Leeds) opens the Leeds services will probably go most stops as HS2 is better journey time for London – Leeds hence the IEP performance spec.
Would Fiennes’ view still be the same today with improved performance specs trains and relative operating costs? The capacity and cost optimisation solution have different answers then to the near future.
Non-stop inter city trains
The presumption throughout appears to be that the primary aim of the service and the biggest market is end to end, whether this is London to Edinburgh, London to Cardiff or London to Great Malvern. This is probably wholly misplaced. London to Newcastle plus Newcastle to Edinburgh is more likely to outweigh London to Edinburgh. Thus a stopping inter city service may, in effect, be a series of two or three non-stop services which, for operational convenience and for the convenience for the smaller number of through passengers, just happen to be joined together.
Commercially, it comes down to whether the trade to be picked up at the intermediate stations is worth it. There is a time penalty – which cumulatively may add up to one less end-to-end journey being achieved by the fleet over the course of the day, as well as the marginal cost to the passengers of the longer journey time and the all important “headline” time. There is also an energy (money!) penalty, which will always exist until someone can come up with 100% efficient regeneration.
And with any normal fare structure, the people using the intermediate stations will be generating less revenue per head for the operator than the end-to-enders.
From a social benefit point of view, getting eight Granthamites to London is twice as good a use of resources as getting four Yorkshiremen* there (although some would argue that a Yorkshireman is worth two of anyone else!) But that is not necessarily the case from a purely commercial perspective – unless you charge the same fare for both journeys.
*Insert Monty Python quote here
@quinlet
“London to Newcastle plus Newcastle to Edinburgh is more likely to outweigh London to Edinburgh.”
Quite possibly – but this argument cannot be extended indefinitely – London to Grantham and Grantham to Leeds are almost certainly not going to outweigh London to Leeds – even if you include the connections from Sleaford and Skegness! But nevertheless, and notwithstanding the alleged views of its most eminent daughter*, something has to call at Grantham.
*I wonder if her opinion was at all coloured by what was probably her main experience of them, travelling to and from Oxford University between 1943 and 1947, when the railways were not really at their best.
Re Timbeau,
Not necessarily because with mixed stopping patterns, rolling stock and train speeds a path isn’t equal to a path…
Lots of the potential gain comes from one VTEC service not catching another VTEC service as 3 VTEC paths / services are often flighted with 8 minutes hence the first has to have fewer stops and no additional ones compared to the second etc.
Lots of service currently run at less than full line speed so they might as well throw in a stop if the “cost” (financial or time) of the stop is a lot less in the future and run at line speed before and after the stop.
@Everybody in last hour
Oh dear what have I stirred up? I favour fast (i.e. non-stop trains between London and Scotland (eg Edinburgh or Glasgow, can be BOTH via ECML, especially with electrification of NB Edinburgh Glasgow Queen St in prospect) because this is just about the only IC route with really serious air competition. As most of Scottish population (about 5.5 million) lives roughly north of a line from South Edinburgh to South Glasgow then speeding up trains to reach the tipping point to successfully compete with air (I would say less than four hours) for the main trunk haul sounds like a goer to me? There is about 6million air journeys a year, I believe, quite a lot to wrest away to rail, and much at substantial fares too, say £600m-£1billion pa to go for. I do read that rail market share of Anglo-Scottish has improved substantially in last ten years, but hasn’t cracked the business travel market yet?
This only really applies where there is substantial air competition, same thing applies W Mids – Scotland.
Elsewhere, there will have to be many “fine judgments”.
@Everybody again;
I have just done some in-depth research into current air-rail competition on Anglo-Scottish It’s astonishing.
Looked up Skyscanner site for Edinburgh- London for variety of dates.
Cheapest = Ryanair £13.00 TOMORROW. Most fares seem to be £30-60ish even for early flights at shortish notice.
To my astonishment there seems to a price war going on.
National Rail : Edinburgh – London £30 apparently for all trains TOMORROW (and the £30 fare applies for most trains on future dates too at any time of day.
Air flight times are quoted as 1hour 20mins – 40mins. (To Stansted or
Gatwick) To this might be added another two hours (check in and transfer to Central London, which may or not be final destination).
Total 3hrs 20 – 3 hours 40, Train times all over 4 hours (varies) typically 4hours 20mins. As I say, reduce train time to under 4 hours and competitive position seriously improves.
N.B I also researched NEWCASTLE – London = £138.00 for early
trains (same ones). LR readers will appreciate that the” generally available” £30 fare from Edinburgh is cheaper than many outer London originating point ordinary singles. 400 miles v 40!!!
ngh,
Would Fiennes’ view still be the same today with improved performance specs trains and relative operating costs?
Funnily enough, I asked myself the same question as I was writing it. I did wonder if electrical acceleration has improved so as to make a difference. I suspect the answer would be no – if he also recognised that the the need not to make a loss was not the be all and and end all of decision making.
On the longer distance services, converting from diesel to electric clearly reduces time penalties but I would have thought there was still a case for some trains to run non-stop between Newport and London.
@Pop
With Voyager trains, diesel acceleration has greatly improved too.
There is also the question of fine tuning number of vehicles to number of passengers in offing. If a previously non-stop train stops at additional intermediate stations (to use example you quoted, London – Newport) It would usually be the case that more passengers would present themselves for the LONDON leg . leaving a relatively poorly loaded train for the country end etc. So Dep Padd (say) 500 passengers, Swindon 200 get off , 20 get on etc.
For many years LM attempted to combine Euston-Birmingham with
Birmingham – Manchester/Liverpool, resulting in empty 12 car trains
north of Birmingham. A similar effect is now apparent with the xx.43 departures ex Euston to Scotland via West Mids.
With simpler non-stop workings, better load factors should result, therefore better bottom line ?
@Alan R
Confirms my suggestion about whether it makes commercial sense to charge a lower fare for a shorter distance if the seat will be empty for the rest of the journey.
The standard off peak fare from Newcastle to London is £48 (and advance fares are available for less) That means that on the fares cited by AR, it would cost twice as much to take a train from Newcastle direct to London than it would to go to Edinburgh and fly from there – or even to take a train to Edinburgh and then another one to London, passing through Newcastle again on the way!
Only yesterday I booked two sleeper tickets (with a two together railcard) for £99 the pair, each way, in the middle of the Edinburgh Festival period. (Actually, I booked to Glasgow, saving £25 each way!) It would be difficult to get a double room in Edinburgh for one night in August for that price, so effectively we are travelling for free!.
“eg Glasgow, ….via ECML, especially with electrification of NB Edinburgh Glasgow Queen St in prospect”
Queen Street, even after the proposed platform lengthening, will only be able to take eight cars – two less than an IEP. However, although there are very few in the current timetable, Glasgow Central has seen ECML electric trains for a quarter of a century, ever since the wires reached Edinburgh to link up with the line from Carstairs, which had been electrified two years earlier
Alan Robinson – Yep, even with transfers flights are quicker and much cheaper to Scotland. Check-in is done on phones these days for many so no need to queue at the airport. Even the remote nature of Stansted isn’t a huge hindrance if going to the rapidly growing areas of East London like Stratford.
Sorry, that wasn’t clear –
1989 – electrification Carstairs to Edinburgh, allowing through electric trains from Euston to Edinburgh
1991 – electrification Newcastle to Edinburgh, allowing through electric trains from Kings Cross to Glasgow
Re Alan R,
One of DfT’s franchise aims was moving to 2tph a regular time of 4h07m (including padding) to Edinburgh for the xx00 departures (the xx30 departures being slightly slower with more stops).
So with those timings and frequency that is probably nearly competitive vs air?
Re PoP,
Electrical acceleration: Yes it has and ditto electrical deceleration by even more, the cost part is also interesting.
The existing VTEC stock (Electric or diesel) all has DC motors.
[So do the 315s or 317s on Mr Fiennes locals being replaced soon by 345s! There is detailed info on the 317 trial upgrade with much fast accceleration (with electrostar equipment) vs a standard 317. The number of powered axles is also now much higher so the tractive effort can be much larger now.]
A class 91 uses rheostatic (resistive electric) braking from max speed down to 30mph then friction brakes (on Loco and coaches). The locomotive can provide at least 2MW of rheostatic braking (usually better) which requires massive force air cooling of the resistor banks for about 5 minutes after stopping which you can hear in stations hence why 91+Mk4 are much cheaper to stop the HST due to less brake wear.
The theoretical energy recoverable from an fast train on the ECML is circa 0.25MWh and the IEP has regenerative braking and much higher electrical braking capabilities due to the distributed traction.
Combine this with an autotransformer set up on the OHLE (the upgrade is on going on the ECML) and acceleration /braking can be much better.
Re PoP And Alan R,
“On the longer distance services, converting from diesel to electric clearly reduces time penalties but I would have thought there was still a case for some trains to run non-stop between Newport and London.”
&
“With simpler non-stop workings, better load factors should result, therefore better bottom line ?”
The net effect is a lower frequency of service with much longer waits if you miss a service or there is disruption of cancellation which is good way to put people of travelling…
Also they may waste more time waiting if they have to get an earlier to later service because there are fewer trains overall to their destination. Jonathan Roberts can probably explain TfL’s thinking on frequency turn up and go etc. The people of Bristol, Reading, Peterborough and York etc. have go used to TfL turn up and go type frequencies! That Genie will not be going back in the bottle.
Re Alan R,
Picking up on one of your earlier posts – The Cotwolds improvements part 2 will come in CP6 post Oxford electrification and Oxford Station rebuild…
ngh,
The net effect is a lower frequency of service with much longer waits if you miss a service or there is disruption of cancellation which is good way to put people of travelling…
Of course and you have to strike a balance. Probably the ultimate limit (esp on GWR) is the number of trains you can run so you are forced into more stops because the alternative (run more trains that call at more stations) is just not possible. It does raise the issue though, if you can fill up the trains without the intermediate stops then why bother with the additional stops?
You need to make sure this argument against fewer stops does not become all consuming. Taking it to its logical conclusion you would stop all trains between Orpington and Charing Cross/Cannon St/Victoria at all stations and I am sure that is not what you intended.
I travel to Edinburgh regularly by train and the typical single advance fare with senior railcard is £19.00. The bonus is that I have cross platform interchange to the local for my destination on the Edinburgh/Glasgow line and at no extra cost! It also allows me to break my journey for several hours if I wish.
I live within 15 minutes of Kings Cross.
Travelling by air for me would be very inconvenient.
Interestingly, Virgin’s first thinking about ECML was for a non-compliant hourly KX-York – Newcastle- Edinburgh (with the other being KX-Edinburgh nonstop in 3.30), with Leeds being just Peterboro’ and Donnie, leaving all the doggier calls to a Bradford hourly. Better than what we got, or not, DfT weren’t interested (partly it seemed because of the impact on the case for that project which dares not speak its name).
[@timbeau – “Yorkshiremen”… when Derby was testing the Pacers before they were delivered to WYPTE, the works manager explained to me that they had simulated the load with sandbags – just as good as Yorkshiremen, was his view].
@poP
“if you can fill up the trains without the intermediate stops then why bother with the additional stops. You need to make sure this argument against fewer stops does not become all consuming. Taking it to its logical conclusion you would stop all trains between Orpington and Charing Cross/Cannon St/Victoria at all stations”
And of course, the converse – take the argument to the other extreme and we can close wayside stations like Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, York etc
Re Graham H,
“DfT weren’t interested”
How well didn’t it serve the large number of government offices in the Darlington area?
Also huge gaps in service provision overall….
That would also have left the door wide open for more open access services and stops because the VTEC wouldn’t really have been providing a service at some stations or force DfT to get TPE/EMT/Northern to run more stopping services.
I also suspect that if you didn’t get a large modal shift from air with the non stop Edinburgh services it could have been another Nat Ex moment as you would have lost some existing revenue but not gained the expected new revenue.
2tph with Virgin advertising should do well.
@ngh – those government offices in Darlington are filled with clerical staff: they don’t travel on business and don’t need to be visited much – just as few in DTp felt the need to visit DVLC* at Swansea. The regional offices are in Newcastle and Leeds. Huge gaps – not sure that’s right – with two Edinburghs, three Leeds (extended alternately to Harrogate and Ilkley) and a Bradford + the existing Hull, that doesn’t leave more than 1 path per hour out of KX. I doubt if VT were worried about getting TPE to do more.
Apparently, the modelling suggested that Bradford hourly would turn out to be a poor idea, but Edinburgh (and York) fast was highly attractive. As to the likes of Grantham, these are very small places compared with Leeds or York, and lack the commercial attractiveness of either – again, no great loss.
*Essentially, the equivalent of NSW as in the Belloc poem (or the Northern Ireland Office if you are a minister).
Re Graham H,
I wasn’t suggesting the local staff used any of the services however the offices are home to a very large number of big government IT systems that seem to be in constant need of upgrade and update (every Autumn Statement & Budget) and there were carriages full of London – Darlington reservations with lots of teams of different IT consultants and contractors sitting in the seats (HMRC, DWP, National Savings, Student Loans, (& Capita etc) all having big IT heavy sections there). The effect of the government first class travel ban also led to First being virtually deserted overnight while it became very expensive or impossible to get reservations on some services in Standard and indeed cheaper to travel First on may occasions as result.
timbeau,
And of course, the converse – take the argument to the other extreme and we can close wayside stations like Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, York etc
Yes, precisely. What is the point of those stations if you can get all the traffic you want end-to-end? (Beeching would have been proud of me). Logically, depending on criterion, that would be the sensible thing to do but we all know other factors get in the way.
Turning it round a bit, if you can fill up the existing trains with end-to-end journeys then shouldn’t you do that first then add capacity to for the intermediate ones? If there is a case to be made for increasing capacity to provide a semi-fast service then you do that. If not then just get rid of the intermediate stations. If the argument is valid for Wotton Bassett (as then was) why not Swindon if Swindon station cannot justify its existence? In a similar manner add Grantham, Newark, Retford for starters on the East Coast Main Line. I am presuming here the classic assumption that longer non-stop journeys are more profitable.
I did persuade a Local Authority to cough up for a first class fare recently when I provided the evidence that it was cheaper than standard for the time they wanted me in their office!
Accept I might get snippped as this post takes us even further off topic!
@PoP
It shouldn’t have to be a question of either (fast end to end) or slow (stopping). A modern double track railway with a few modest enhancements, sections of multi tracking, terminals with overtaking lines etc should be able to satisfy both aspirations, especially with the improvements in acceleration and braking as mentioned. As the end to end should yield the best business results , then this should be slotted in first, and the timetable devised on a hierarchical basis.
A simplistic model:
(i)Hourly Eight car, all stations, revenue X cost Y
(ii)Hourly FOUR car, non stop, Hourly Four car stopping.
Revenue X plus 25%
Costs Y plus 10% (extra crew, nothing much else).
Bottom line improves, passengers on non-stop are happy, passengers
on stopper, no change
Assuming no additional infrastructure costs of course.
@ngh – as a taxpayer, I’m appalled and can only hope that the phenomenon is temporary …
Alan R, Ed, Anonymous (15.25). As with so much else in life, theory doesn’t always mirror reality. It may be quicker to fly from Heathrow to Edinburgh than it is to take the train from Kings Cross to Waverley (particularly with hand baggage only) but what proportion of travellers, I wonder, are actually doing that?
I have for many years regularly been travelling between Newbury and Gleneagles (not for the golf, I have a daughter living there). Genuine options are to drive, fly or train. In truth there is not a lot of difference although one can of course cherry-pick the most attractive or unattractive possibilities but in general, car takes an hour or so longer but is cheaper, particularly if two are travelling. However, increasing age and increasing traffic congestion combine to make this a less and less viable option.
Flying is in practice no quicker than the train. On-line check in is all very well but if you have cases to bag drop you save very little time. Allowing for the time taken in driving to the airport (Southampton or Heathrow), parking, getting bus to terminal, dropping cases, waiting for aircraft departure, waiting for cases at Edinburgh, queuing for hire car, getting bus to pick hire car up and driving to Gleneagles mean that flying is no quicker but is far more stressful and more expensive than getting the 12.00 out of Kings Cross and getting off at Gleneagles at 17.35 (without changing).
I don’t for one minute suggest that my specific journey is typical but from talking to fellow travellers it seems that the majority are taking the train because it is overall a better option than flying.
@PoP
“Turning it round a bit, if you can fill up the existing trains with end-to-end journeys then shouldn’t you do that first then add capacity to for the intermediate ones? If there is a case to be made for increasing capacity to provide a semi-fast service then you do that. ”
Take that one step further. The added capacity – presumably in the form of new lines – would need stations to serve the intermediate destinations. So why not keep the existing line for the intermediate stops and use the added capacity for the non-stoppers, which require no intermediate stations.
And we have
the proposed Battersea – Brixton – Herne Hill bypass tunnel
the proposed Waterloo – Surbiton tunnel
and, of course,
HS2
@Alan R
“a few modest enhancements, sections of multi tracking, terminals with overtaking lines etc ”
Given the mix of average speeds, you are unlikely to get much of an increase in capacity like that, and I fear even a few “modest” enhancements would cost an extremely immodest amount of money.
And given that a four car train costs almost as much to run as an eight car, why not run them all as eights? After all, they may not be dealing with the biggest flows, but they are serving an awful lot of smaller ones. London to Leeds non-stop is one flow, but calling at Stevenage, Peterborough, all stations to Doncaster, and Wakefield is 35 (not counting the end-to-end one!
timbeau,
So why not keep the existing line for the intermediate stops and use the added capacity for the non-stoppers, which require no intermediate stations.
A lot of people here have stated as much if you can produce the case for the new line and I don’t disagree.
@Timbeau
Infrastructure costs are highly circumstancial;-
But I must take issue with your statement:
A four car costs almost as much as much to run as an eight car !!!!
By far the largest cost of a train is the cost per vehicle of leasing (it
used to be depreciation and interest, but train leasing rolls all this up plus profit). Next comes maintenance, by vehicle, both for time and
mileage. Next comes train crewing, then fuel. With MUs , fuel is
directly proportional to vehicle too.
So circa 90% of costs are direct to the number of vehicles diagrammed to a service. I spent much of my time bashing this out when working in junior capacity for Finance Officer Movements LMR in 1970s.
@AR -and you might have added, too, that an 8 will be charged twice as much as a 4 for track wear and tear (wear and tear being about 25-35% of access costs depending on the type of vehicle).
Off topic, but its not just that Edinburgh to Newcastle and Newcastle to London together outweigh Edinburgh to London. From a table the consultation document for the last franchise competition, London to Peterborough, London to York and London to Newcastle all individually exceed London to Edinburgh. I suspect so would Edinburgh to Newcastle, except that this flow is split between franchises, so is only partly shown in the table. Eliminating all except the non-stopping journeys would be problematic. I suspect this isn’t the only line you for which you could give similar examples.
[Belaboured point about HAL snipped. LBM]
AR @ 17.37
Yes, something like that should work – why are not more people doing it?
Stock “shortages”?
Littlejohn
And … no so-called “security” checks, either!
@Graham
Yes of course, and a few other bits I didn’t mention like carriage servicing and stabling , vehicle based again. As you state, “proper” wear and tear type costs are by vehicle tonneage. The fixed infrastructure costs are unaffected. e.g. If service over Forth Bridge is doubled, then
you don’t need to order twice as much paint. In “my day” wear and tear charges were generally a bit less than you state ( I would say 20%
more normal, there were 16 track categories in the SAFGABS system,
a matrix of tonneages, axle loadings and speed (more in later years, up to 32 as I recall. A typical infrastructure costs breakdown was something like;-
Structures maintenance and renewal (fixed to prime user) 15-30%
Track maintenance (partly fixed by incremental timetabled basis)
15-20% Track renewals (mostly variable) 30-35% Signal Maintenance
and renewal (fixed) the rest, overheads attributed to cost class,
A very broad presentation. Prior to 1995 these were REAL ACTUAL
LOCATED costs. Since then, track access charge increasingly remote from reality. (undershoot).
Yes, on reflection (it’s years since I grappled with this stuff in anger)
you are about right 25-35% close enough.
Incidentally, NR infrastructure cost average c £250k per route mile.
In last days of BR, I recall something more like £60k per mile total
equated infrastructure cost (about£120k in today’s money, half the cost (OK this for RR, IC and NSE may have been a bit dearer).
I may have not made myself clear. A path is a path, whether it is used by Pacer or a Pendolino. If there is only the demand for eight carriageloads per hour, capacity is best used by running one eight car train rather than two fours, at least over the section common to the two. This is, after all, what is done on the south western, with rolling stock costs reduced by dropping the rear units at Bournemouth or Salisbury, (in the latter case the rear unit peels off to Bristol, in other cases both portions go to the same place but the rear portion is detached at Basingstoke and makes more calls than the front portion.
A Leeds train made up of two 5-car IEPs which calls at Peterborough and divides, the front then calling only at Doncaster, Wakefield and Leeds and the rear calling all stations to Doncaster and York, would make best use of capacity on the crucial Welwyn stretch.
We used to have the conundrum that the rear of Charing Cross – Ramsgate trains got to Ramsgate before the front – dividing at Ashford, the rear portion went via Canterbury while the front portion went via the coast.
@AR -interesting breakdown, thank you. The EU/DGTREN still believe that variable is around 20% when I last discussed this with them but I suspect that is an average across all member states and probably reflects a variety of different approaches to cost allocation (UK is very much a leader in cost analysis – a good many jurisdictions are hardly aware of the issues, let alone have suitable policies – I might name France, surprisingly, and Ireland (unsurprisingly).
BTW I seem to recall SAFGABS had reached something like a 64 part* speed/cost matrix by the time I left, with an extra dimension being added for suspension type.
*”Spem in alium” anyone?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
@timbeau – “A path is a path” – well, no, a Pacer path will be different to a Pendo one -just try drawing them on the graph.
@timbeau
But with double track (single is very restrictive) it should be possible to run considerably more than one train an hour. Of course, the fast eventually catches up with the slow. but I would have thought there was plenty of scope. What I am envisaging of course is prospect of two trains per hour Oxford-Worcester, 60 miles, 45mins running time for fast, c 75 mins for slow. Padd – Worcester 105-110 mins.
This is in effect what you are describing on South Western and proposed ECML. My concern is simply that I can see for myself how the UK’s slowest Inter City service (Padd – Worcester – Hereford) seems to be displaying very much worsened business results due to the inflated schedules of recent decades. (empty trains west of Evesham) The same principle probably applies elsewhere.
What evidence? The last four occasions I have taken a morning HST from Great Malvern to Padd, I have been the only 1st class passenger,
until Worcester. It fills up a bit at Moreton in Marsh, Kingham and Charlbury.
I have had to walk through the standard class to get there (short platforms) and can report load factor of less than 10%. This is not good. (Same thing in reverse in evening). This, I submit is what happens when you run an all stations service over long distance,
150 miles to Hereford. (and it is “all stations” these days, the only ones omitted are the “parliamentary” halts like Coombe and Ascott under Wychwood, (Sigh! Adlestrop is no more). As the poem says;-
One day of heat, the express train stopped there ;— no one left and no one came., all I saw was Adlestrop, only the name.
Alan Robinson,
With MUs , fuel is directly proportional to vehicle too.
I really can’t believe this. Surely, as you approach higher speeds, the head-on wind resistance becomes a major factor and whether it is a 2-car single unit or a 12-car multiple unit this will be roughly the same? With mutliple-units doing up to 110mph I think this is a serious consideration.
Any car driver who cares about fuel consumption knows how fuel efficiency goes down at higher speeds (compare 50mph to 70mph) and wind resistance is an obvious explanation.
Furthermore, a lot of energy used on a train has an opportunity to be regained with modern regenerative braking but wind resistance is just lost as there is no way of recapturing it.
Re PoP,
You are correct, air resistance tends to become the majority restive force on train above about 50mph (assume steady speed rather than accelerating) with the front car/locomotive taking much more of the aerodynamic load* so adding another coach on the back makes comparatively little difference at higher speeds. The extra 2 cars added to some of the pendolinos only need 2/3rds of the power per car of the original 9 cars for the same/better performance level.
* Aerodynamic loading on line side structures is only usually modelled for the leading vehicles etc.
Re Graham H,
Last Paragraph on paths – Agreed but you have put a little bit more politely the that I would.
On your earlier post Darlington etc. – Universal Credit** (or insert name of many similar alternative government IT backed programmes there is perpetual stream of them) is a bit like nuclear fusion always happening X years in the future so I image the same is still going on!
** If UC benefit calculations for anything more than a single person with no dependants or disabilities gives a circular ref error in excel attempting to model/calculate it that should have rung alarm bells far earlier but that is off topic… the extra fares to Darlington are fairly academic in-comparison to other issues and costs!
@Pop
You may be correct in principle, but “in my day” BR’s BATS system clocked up mileages and fuel consumption was attributed by
the vehicle mileages indicated by profit centre. Same fuel cost per vehicle mile irrespective of length of formation. I have never heard of any adjustment to take in factors you identified. Fuel costs are such a small percentage of total train provision costs anyway (less than 10%) that any adjustment for factors such as wind resistance can’t make a huge difference. Of course BR used to buy cheapest nastiest diesel they could get. Remember the clouds of foul smelling blue exhaust emanating from 1950s era DMUs !!
In any case, didn’t I read somewhere (to do with 1930s streamlining, i.e. Gresley’s Coronation) that SIDE resistance just as restricting as head resistance. (hence bogies being covered in skirts).
Head on Wind resistance should be neutral anyway. The energy consumed by head on resistance is compensated by REAR END wind ASSISTANCE (assuming wind hasn’t changed) on return working.
Perhaps trains should have sails.
I would hope that today’s cost attribution techniques are sophisticated enough to allow for effect of regenerative braking, this is a very significant factor for electric trains.
To forestall more questions, 1950s dmus did have unpowered trailers. (for some classes). I remember a great wrangle with West Yorks PTE whereby, mainly due to desperate state of units and lack of spare parts, the PTE ordered breaking up of sets, so they had a fleet
with increased number of trailer cars. The fuel cost attributions caused a big row. Modern Dmus (14x and 15x are all vehicles powered, to great relief of present day TOC finance managers.
@Alan Robinson
“Head on Wind resistance should be neutral anyway. The energy consumed by head on resistance is compensated by REAR END wind ASSISTANCE (assuming wind hasn’t changed) on return working.”
There is wind resistance on a moving train even in still air – unless you have a tail wind faster than speed of the train.
Pacer/Pendolino
Of course where line speed permits, my alliterative comparison falls over, but the difference between a long and short IEP is measured in a few seconds. The time taken for the extra coaches to pass a point. At 112 mph = 180km/h = 50 m/s it takes less than 2 seconds for five cars to do so. Platform occupancy times might be extended by 10 seconds or so.
The HST to Worcester may be empty across the Cotswolds, but I bet it fills up at Oxford and Reading. So, it’s really doing several jobs, all of which have been discussed.
1. direct service from Worcester to London
2. mass people mover between Oxford and London
3. Skip stop on the Reading-London route to make space on the locals for passengers at intermediate stations.
In order to serve functions 2 and 3 it has to be quite long. If it is to serve function 1 as well it has to go across the Cotswolds.
“Slowest Inter City service”? Really? I’d have thought Plymouth to Truro (Penzance isn’t a city) and Perth-Inverness would both be in with a shout for that title!
(And taking it literally, note that, for example, Salisbury and Exeter, or Lincoln and Sheffield are both city pairs with even slower services.
@timbeau – I hope you are writing ironically to interpret InterCity as referring to services between cities (let alone wishing to draw us all into the tempting discussions as to whether the seats of Anglican and Scottish Episcopal Church bishops constitute cities … ) I expect the Spanish Inquisition to appear.
So what does constitute an Inter City service these days?
This was 1985
http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/InterCity%20NRM%201985-8813%20BR.jpg
I read Alan’s “slowest inter-city” as a vague hand-wavy claim which may not stand up to LR commentators’ erudition or pedantry. But Graham is quite right to warn everyone not to go any further into what exactly is a city. As LBM often says: there are other sites for that. (Or, even if there are not, this one is not going to fill the lacuna).
Alan’s “Head on Wind resistance should be neutral anyway” is what is technically known as “wrong”. The orginal statement might have been better phrased as “air resistance”. The effect of any wind will be to increase the air resistance if the wind is head-on or a crosswind, and diminish it slightly if it is a tailwind. But partly because the force bears a highly non-linear relationship to the relative speed, there is no chance of getting back the energy lost on the return journey. (And any cyclist will tell you that the wind always changes before your return journey anyway so that it’s against you most of the time).
@ Greg 14/2 0824 – I will try to give a view on the fares cut issue. If the moderators feel the need to wield an axe then I’d be grateful for an E Mail setting out any transgressions although it is not my intention to transgress. I’ll try to keep it non partisan.
We have not seen anyone’s numbers so it is very hard to say “yes” or “no” to the idea of a fares freeze. I am sceptical we will ever see the detail although TfL may be forced to release a revised number given what emerged at the Plenary meeting about how the £1.9bn number was drawn up (i.e. 5 year period, fairly high inflation forecasts etc). None of that surprised me when it was said because I’ve been on the “other side” of having to prepare revised budgets and forecasts. There are always assumptions and assumptions can always be challenged. This is what has happened with inflation numbers – TfL were criticised for using high numbers but different cost indices apply to different aspects of TfL’s work. There’s no point using CPI or RPI if construction costs or power costs are rising well in excess of other indices and these are material factors in your cost base. No recognition of that from the politicians doing the attacking.
Back to the core question – can you freeze fares? Yes you can but there are consequences. You may well get a bounce in ridership but given that much of the system is at or over capacity what is the point in doing it other than to relieve the burden on people’s pockets? All you are doing is making everyone’s journeys worse and creating more overcrowding. As already said it was easy in the 1980s as there was plenty of excess capacity although LU got badly caught out in the late 80s when the economy boomed and the under invested network couldn’t cope. Just look at some old Thames News clips from that time and see what Sir Wilfred Newton was saying. Thirty odd years later we now have some upgraded tube lines and Crossrail 1 two years away from completion.
If fares are frozen from this year then TfL’s income will be depressed compared to current plans but no one can say by how much. We do not know how TfL intend to cope with the loss of £700m annual revenue support grant 2 years earlier than originally planned. We must wait until March for a revised business plan and see what TfL have assumed and decided to do. TfL say they are trying to secure further efficiencies and avoid service volume cuts but I am sceptical they can do this for all modes. To some extent they are locked in with contracted operations for DLR plus the new Overground concession starting in Nov 2016 plus the expected build up of Crossrail services. Obviously any service level can be adjusted so it may well be that planned improvements like later trains on the Overground are postponed again. I fully expect the projected increase in bus service mileage to be be scaled back from last years plans. I think there are serious questions to be asked about things like cycle hire and more marginal aspects of investment like the borough improvements schemes, cycle training, some road schemes plus the level of charges and fines. Don’t be shocked if fines for yellow box infringement, parking etc on TfL roads go up or that application fees for Zip Oyster Cards rise. I’d also expect LEZ and CCZ charges to be increased at some point. These are all the standard things you do to bolster your income and cut your costs. I expect TfL will also set about sacking people again. I am deeply sceptical about things being proposed like TfL recreating an internal bus company to bid for its own route contracts, TfL bidding for rail franchises in the UK and elsewhere and re-establishing the old “LT International” as a form of consulting arm. These all introduce costs and risk to the organisation and could be a dreadful distraction for management and the delivery of improvements for Londoners. I also wonder if there are possible “state aid” issues lurking there too. No one needs to be employing lawyers to fight over that. And don’t get me started about TfL building houses and becoming a landlord for affordable housing. More cost, risk and ongoing liability plus the risk of massive “failure” if Mayoral targets aren’t met. If LU / TfL didn’t have a massive investment programme to deliver then maybe you could indulge in these side shows but there are massive programmes to deliver before you get anywhere near a steady state position and a calmer rolling programme of investment to keep the asset base ticking over properly. We still have investment bow waves to deal with because line upgrades have been delayed by up to 20 years. And if someone does want the Bakerloo extended, Crossrail 2 built (Boris stated on the Sunday Politics that it will definitely happen) and lots of rail concessions specced how does all that get done without taking on extra resource and cost?
Fundamentally it is a choice – do you believe users should pay a substantial / full share of operating and investment costs in order to keep up service volume and quality? Or do you believe it is acceptable to reduce the financial burden on users of the transport network even if that means potentially scaling back on investment and service volume and / or increasing the tax burden. Traditionally this last mechanism would have been available but central government have turned off the subsidy and there is little or no scope to increase council tax given the current Mayor is bequeathing a budget with a reduced council tax precept.
I am very sceptical that a lot of money can be freed up within TfL if you want to keep on doing what it does today / want it to deliver more. A lot of efficiencies have been squeezed out of the organisation while preserving its scope of responsibilities. *If* someone came along and said “I am reshaping TfL and it will no longer be responsible for these (undefined) actitivities” then possibly a lot of money could be freed up but that has consequences in terms of whatever gets stopped / downgraded or transferred elsewhere. We come back to Graham H’s basic question – “what is the reason you are doing something? / what is the purpose?” I have yet to see any sort of clarity around the candidates’ “vision” for TfL’s role in life. Until that is set out you don’t know what resources and skills you need, what income you require and what it will cost. Now TfL is a very powerful body in and of itself and is perfectly adept at going into “self preservation mode” when it needs to. Several controversial figures have fallen by the wayside over the years and I suspect “TfL antibodies” raced into action to repel the possible attack. It will be fascinating to see how things happen over the next 6 -9 months.
My own preference has always been to put investment and service quality / volume first. That gives you the basis to grow your business / use of the system. It is more important that assets are safe, well maintained and in good state than it is to offer lower fares as some sort of trade off. If, as a society, a decision has been taken for the general good to use taxpayer’s money to fund cheaper fares *and* investment then that’s fine by me because the system is properly funded. What I don’t like is botched trade offs and if pushed I’d rather see fares rise to maintain good services but with the proviso that the provision of those services should be done as efficiently as possible. And yes I know that is a delightful dreamy panacea that raises as many questions as it answers. 😉
@ Alan R 14/2 0957 – I really should force myself to relive the agonies of 4 weekly financial review meetings before replying to your posts. I did not make myself clear. My references to surplusses was in the context of TfL’s business plan and not the wider commercial world or even National Rail. So while I understand why you took my answer to bits and “corrected” me I am actually still correct in the context of the modal numbers for TfL. I do actually do some analysis on the business plan numbers so am aware of what bits *do* make a surplus and which bits do not. TfL’s own published numbers are certainly not wholly transparent and you can’t even see how TfL Rail is split out between original Overground, West Anglia and Crossrail. It would be hugely helpful if those numbers were split out because they are identifiable business / geographic units with different markets. Tracking the financial performance of each would also be hugely helpful given Crossrail *must* earn a revenue surplus in order to pay back an element of project funding. I really do NOT want any more lessons about railway finances in the context of my points as we were talking at cross purposes due to my lack of clarity. Despite appearances I have done some basic accountancy and have run departmental cost centres, off charging processes, capital investment project budgets, outturn cost / VOWD / completion date forecasting, contract performance and payment modelling and forecasting and risk forecasting. Oh and a load of financial modelling too but not being a true finance person meant I was never to be trusted. How I loved my finance colleagues. 😉
@100 and thirty 14/2 1148 – the Plenary may well have continued for many hours but Boris and Mike Brown escaped after about 2 hours or so. I think the Chamber was more fevered than usual because election time for everyone is fast approaching although a good number of Members are standing down. Therefore they are indulging themselves with some good old political knock about. Some of the questions and arguments were enormously frustrating – I think I got to “loud conversations with the computer screen” stage when Tory members were bemoaning the lack of buses and trams and Overground in their constituencies and then praised Boris for cutting back TfL’s funding and cutting council tax. Errr …… surely some connection there chaps?
I am surprised by the 42 % figure given how high TfL’s revenue actually is – from fares, charges, third parties etc. I’ll need to check the annual report to be clear. If total investment, including Crossrail, is on the cost side of the equation then the percentage may well be true as loans and government grants would make up the balance.
@ngh: insert name of many similar alternative government IT backed programmes there is perpetual stream of them) is a bit like nuclear fusion always happening X years in the future
The Southeastern Flexible Ticketing Programme would be a railway example, as would ERTMS Level 3.
@Graham Timbeau etc etc
Sorry folks, really didn’t mean to stir things up that much. Will be good in future. In summary, don’t think any cost attribution can ever go down to nth degree of including for wind resistance etc (it’s just much too difficult, too many accountants needed etc) a rough justice has to prevail. “Slowest Inter City service”. Paddington to Hereford does serve three cities, all county towns. the slowest trains take over 3 hours nowadays. 150 mile as @ 40something, the fastest take 3.
I should add that fares have risen faster than inflation too. When you examine the interactive map on the other thread, it appears that passengers at stations from Hereford to Worcester have increased substantially. This is true , but my experience is that this is the Birmingham services which are booming.
Regarding Malcolm’s assertions that my observations are “technically wrong”, well :- It could be the WRONG sort of wind.
I caution Graham H not to expect the Spanish Inquisition, You will be presumed to be a nobody.
@Walthamstow Writer.
The whole question of fares increases impacts on the whole economy in a manner that is inescapably controversial. It is not generally appreciated that a real price rise in anything is economically destructive. So, a price rise means; the consumer consumes less of it,
or consumes less of something else. Either way, economic decline. The Institute for new economic thinking is conducting in depth research motivated by realisation that measuring GDP in CASH terms is all wrong. A correct measurement of Economic growth is in physical “real” units. Tons of steel, numbers of widgets, and passenger miles etc. This is not easy, rather easier to clock up expenditure and capital values.
Economic growth can only be achieved by increase in productivity at lower unit cost of production. Henry Ford succeeded by producing a cheaper car at a price almost everybody could afford; economic growth. If he had chosen to produce a superb very expensive car, no growth. Same thing applies to railways. London & Birmingham railway 1837, introduced travel at about half the price of a stagecoach and about three times faster. = growth. You could say that real price increases are the result of entrepreneurial exhaustion, and exploitation of a monopoly position is an easy salvation. It was always thought that government regulated to stop this. Capitalist enterprise is supposed to be supreme at lowering prices. ?
I contend, no economic growth without real price reductions (in total economy). It is up to the entrepreneur to find ways of achieving this. Perhaps there is not enough enterprise in our economy these days. (or we have the WRONG sort of enterprise).
@WW
“TfL bidding for rail franchises in the UK and elsewhere ”
Elsewhere, maybe, but in the UK it’s specifically forbidden by Section 25(1)(bc) of the railways Act 1993
“25. (Public sector operators not to be franchisees.)
(1)The following bodies and persons (in this Part referred to as “public sector operators”) shall not be franchisees—
(a)any Minister of the Crown, Government department or other emanation of the Crown;
.(b)any local authority;
.(bb)the Greater London Authority;
.(bc)Transport for London;
.(c)any metropolitan county passenger transport authority;
.(d)any body corporate whose members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown, a Government department, a local authority,the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, or a metropolitan county passenger transport authority or by a body corporate whose members are so appointed;
(e)a company—
(i)a majority of whose issued shares are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above;
.(ii)in which the majority of the voting rights are held by or on behalf of any of those bodies or persons;
.(iii)a majority of whose board of directors can be appointed or removed by any of those bodies or persons; or
.(iv)in which the majority of the voting rights are controlled by any of those bodies or persons, pursuant to an agreement with other persons;
.(f)a subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (e) above.”
Mods: please feel free to delete, but I thought it was worth clearing up the confusion about “wind” resistance, when what we’re actually talking about is “air” resistance (aka drag). The effort (approximates to fuel consumption) required to move a train is to overcome train resistance, according to the formula:
R = AW + BV + CV2 [squared – can’t work out how to do superscript]
where:
R = total resistance
A = journal or bearing resistance, proportional to weight W
B = flange resistance, proportional to velocity V
C = air resistance, proportional to the square of velocity V
So as PoP/Malcolm/ngh note, fuel consumption increases with speed, with air resistance becoming important above about 80km/h (high speed trains are streamlined not just to look pretty) – it is not directly proportional to the number of vehicles.
Accountants may not be concerned with such things, but engineers certainly are: see, for example, http://www.istc.illinois.edu/about/seminarpresentations/20091118.pdf (particularly the graph on slide 24) and https://www.railelectrica.com/traction-mechanics/train-grade-curve-and-acceleration-resistance-2/.
@Timbeau
Very good nitty gritty stuff (and a relief to get back properly on topic).
two observations :
(1) The Act does not specify only UK public bodies as ineligible to bid.
I wonder; Is it strictly legal for DB NS an SNCF to be franchisees?
(don’t think this was ever contested).
(ii) Under what legislation was the present day Overground transferred from National Rail (Dft)? Previously, these services were part of a franchise specified by Dft (LM trains etc). just how were they de-franchised, and a public body enabled to be the specifying body?
Presumably the transfer of responsibility for specifying services from Dft to Tfl will be enabled by same legislation. How might it be accomplished whereby it becomes legal for a public body to be responsible for transport beyond its political boundary?
This was my original point some weeks ago.
PTEs (as set up) were strictly contained to operate within the respective metropolitan county, the last station before the county boundary becoming the PTE boundary.
Hence my suggestions that a Greater Greater London “PTE” or some equivalent new body would seem to be a legal necessity. How else might it be done?
We’ve been here before, of course, extraordinary wrangles re municipal transport running beyond municipal boundaries.
@AR – I think you have just reinvented GosPlan. If I knew how,I would happily post pictures of Tallinn station with its 13 platforms to serve a dozen or so daily trains (“A city of 800 000 people will have a station with 13 platforms” etc), or Skopje where they couldn’t even be bothered to put tracks against half the platform faces+ (“Gosplan was silent on how many *tracks* a city of 800000 should have”…) You have only to have worked in any ex-Commie country to see the extraordinary effect of managing the economy by units of output.
+ not that that prevented every face being fully electrified…
@timbeau/AR – TfL doesn’t bid for franchises it; awards them -like the Scots and the Welsh, by agreement with DfT/SoS. As I have drawn attention to before, every franchise requires, like a pair of clutch plates, two entities, the vehicle for the franchise and the entity that controls that vehicle. At the point of franchising, control of the shares in the former is given to the latter for the duration. Neither bids. No doubt,TfL will set up other companies to act as clutch plates for future extensions of their activities (eg CR2) and they will franchise out control of that idc,but they and their creatures won’t be bidding.
@Mike
Wind resistance etc. I think we have been somewhat at cross purposes.
I was referring to multiple unit trains (distributed power). Of course, for loco hauled and HST sets different criteria apply. Rolling stock engineers may take on board wind resistance factors in investment submissions, but I can’t see how this can be applied in routine accounting. Did LMS accountants use different coal consumption rates for streamlined and non-streamlined Duchess class 4-6-2s ?
Any railway in practice is going to budget for total fuel purchase (diesel) and spread by usage. 1980s BR certainly did it by standard consumption rates for DMU vehicle miles, which swept a multitude of variations under the carpet no doubt, but only means practical.
Electricity is more circumspect, partly because there is a whole range of tariffs. N.B as late as 1990s BR did not have fuel gauges on rolling stock. Trains just pulled in and filled up on planned basis mostly. This was a major criticism by auditors, lack of proper control and monitoring of diesel issue. Don’t know what happens today.
@Graham
GOS plan ? eh? What have I said to conjure up this sort of thing?
I have visited a “commie” country, the soviet union no less, and was most entertained by skulking around (in disguise) at various Leningrad terminals observing the desperate plight of would be rail travellers (the comrades having been denied a ticket, Is your journey really necessary?) and trying to wangle themselves onto a berth vacated by a “no show” (with Provodnik at every carriage ). The Soviet Union could dramatically overprovide resources, then drastically underprovide use of those resources.
Talinn. Yes, I saw the huge overprovision of platforms (again in Soviet Union days). There was a Su 2-6-0 in steam providing carriage heating. A British railway anorak made an offer the driver could not refuse to sell him the whistle! He was seen walking back to hotel with huge object wrapped in paper. Don’t know how he got it home.
Actually, you don’t need to look as far as Eastern Europe to see the same syndrome. Belgium has long had a state railway divided into two divisions , operating and infrastructure. For decades after WW2
the Belgian “NR” spent huge amounts on flyovers and multi tracking,
but train speeds remained low, and stations tatty.
Not had time to read every comment but bear in mind that the recently awarded GTR ‘franchise’ (sic) is in fact running as a Management Contract, that (sotto voce) the TOC will admit, is effectively a concession running the specified trains for the specified prices.
Going for the full blown concession model would actually clean up a big and costly issue with fares – that company which had to be created in 1996 because we had rail franchises, and needed a company to divvy up the revenue from ticket sales – Rail Settlement Plan Ltd. You’ll readily notice the difference if you buy a TOC-exclusive fare, for example KGX-PBO travelling GTR only (a bit slower but 50% cheaper, as the fare goes directly to GTR). With a concession all the fares go into the one pot – eliminating the need and costs for RSPLtd and matching bureaucracy with each TOC chasing their %
@Graham
Yes, of course, Tfl will appoint a franchise, not bid for one (although, does the existing London Overground “count” as a true franchise?
I thought it was something more akin to a management contract.
My point is, if Tfl appoints a franchise, or whatever, under what authority? Can you identify the legislation (Act) that has enabled this?
And, is this legislation applicable to train services outwith the London boundary?
WW
Back to the core question – can you freeze fares? Yes you can but there are consequences.
Yes, – political ones. I have the greatest difficulty in local public meetings, when someone starts moaning on about how “ridiculously high” our fares are compared to Holland/Germany etc … & I point out that this is because their fares are heavily local-&-national guvmint subsidised from *cough* higher taxes *cough* & “your call”. They still don’t get it.
As you say: do you believe users should pay a substantial / full share of operating and investment costs in order to keep up service volume and quality?
That is a political question, which I’m not sure anyone has asked, let alone answered.
I think I got to “loud conversations with the computer screen” stage … You too? Oh dear, is it a sign of increasing age, or something?
AR
I caution Graham H not to expect the Spanish Inquisition, You will be presumed to be a nobody.
You really, really should not have done that….
<A HREF="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeyARoZAYq4"Start at 6.30 – 6.35 Complete with RTL or RTW bus, too & old-fashioned ticket machine ….
@Alan Robinson s141 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 refers:
141 General transport duty.
(1)The Mayor shall develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London.
(2)The powers of the Authority under this Part shall be exercised for the purpose of securing the provision of the transport facilities and services mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(3)The transport facilities and services mentioned in subsection (1) above include facilities and services for pedestrians and are—
(a)those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in, or visiting, Greater London, and
(b)those required for the transportation of freight.
@AR
No problem with NS, DB, SNCF etc bidding, as they are not owned by the Crown, (Hong Kong might have had a problem before 1999) but I looked in vain in the definitions (Section 83) for a definition of “local authority” that would exclude RATP and its analogues.
I did find this though
“locomotive” means any railway vehicle which has the capacity for self-propulsion (whether or not the power by which it operates is derived from a source external to the vehicle); ”
Which makes any powered car in a multiple unit a locomotive! Or indeed a Parry People Mover or a tram (unless trams are excluded by some other definition)
@Graham H
Thank you very much for this vital information, saved me considerable effort digging it our myself. (worth a pint!).
I am quite astonished at the loose wording.
(I)
;——- to, from and within Greater London!
What !!!! How far? To and from has unlimited scope.
It suggests that any transport service (National Express coaches, Airlines) that run services that depart or arrive within Greater London (loosely described, is subject to London Mayor authority. I suppose that Heathrow could be described as “Greater London” if you could demonstrate that most air passenger journey start or terminate within boundary. Eurostar?
I had never bothered to investigate before, and am totally discomboobulated.
Are they really serious.?
What a contrast to PTE rail legislation, carefully defining the scope and responsibilities of a PTE , and the geographical limitations to their authority.
This does “answer” some important questions. I was anticipating major problems involving boundaries and cross boundary services etc. (“Inner suburban” services not necessarily terminating neatly at stations within Greater London area). Could still cause a rumpus.
Just pondering. How did Directly Operated Railways get round those perversely comprehensive subsections which were designed to rid the new efficient railway of any whiff of public ownership?
Attempting to answer AR’ s query about the Overground. I presume that ‘franchising’ is only governed by the requirement for regular competitive tendering, and the rules don’t specify the specification conditions within the tendered contract. By this means, ‘concessions’ are permitted alongside what we think of as ‘franchises’.
@AR. Do not be discombobulated. Clause 141(1) only allows the mayor to ‘encourage’ and other vague phrases. The powers to actually run things are presumably elsewhere.
@Timbeau
The act doesn’t actually specify that only “local authority” under the ultimate authority of “The Crown” Is barred. The main heading is;-
“Public sector operators not to be franchisees” doesn’t say UK public sector operators.
Multiple units.
I would have thought that “capacity for self-propulsion” requires the provision of driving controls, also the ability to run as a single vehicle legally in accordance with rules and regs.
It might be possible (with aid of fitter) to split up a two car DMU with cab at both extremities, doubt it could run as such.
Single MU cars that “count” include;-
Class 153, and : “Bubble cars” 1950s generation classes 121 122.
Also : SR MLVs (but not passenger vehicles?) used for mail, parcels and passengers heavy luggage on boat trains.
@Fandroid
Public bodies can “encourage” as much as they like, and often do.
But without legislation granting powers to enforce (and fund in consequence) it is all meaningless. In which case, where is the legal basis that can effect this transfer of specifying capability from Dtp to Tfl? (Is it all just hot air and puff?) This is why I am so astonished by Clause 141 (I) It suggests responsibility without power.
@Fandroid -the key is that DOR isn’t in the market for franchises. The prohibition is on the public sector bidding for franchises. (This seems to raise the interesting possibility that publicly owned bodies could be asked to run, as DOR does, management contracts. GW to be run by Reading Buses, as in).
On the question of mayoral powers, the key is in his obligation to produce plans. TfL must then act in accordance with those plans.
@AR – those “to and from ” powers are carried forward from the LRT Act 1984 And yes, it does give TfL an interest in the Scottish sleepers and much else. One of the few good things to come out of the LRT legislation.
@ Alan R – additional powers were granted to the Mayor of London to allow them to increment / decrement rail services specified within franchises controlled by the DfT. This is in addition to any direct procurement responsibility they may have for some of the National Rail network. Further the concept of an enlarged area for transport services was also defined to allow for the fact that local services largely within London do sometimes run beyond the administrative boundary. This is why the old Southern franchise got extra ticket gates, more evening and Sunday Metro services, more station staffing and more stations moved into Zone 6. TfL funded those improvements as an “increment”. As they worked they were incorporated in the DfT spec for the next retendering of the Southern franchise. Note this was for Metro services *not* longer distance trains to / along the South Coast.
I am not sure why you are seemingly so agitated given LT ran services way beyond the LCC / GLC area for decades and TfL has run Underground and bus services beyond the GL boundary since its inception. Furthermore it has added rail services to Watford, Shenfield and Cheshunt to its responsibilities without the world apparently ending.
I know there are concerns about democratic involvement etc etc but I don’t see TfL taking on rail services to Birmingham or Oxford or Brighton. I don’t think they’d want that scale of operation and DfT wouldn’t allow it.
I’m not sure what you mean by “real franchise”. All we are talking about is a procurement process and a form of contract and incentive mechanism that differs between TfL and DfT. I suspect the contract management approaches also differ between the two organisations to reflect the alternative approaches / emphases on revenue, service performance and service quality attributes. TfL apparently specify and measure and reward on a far more detailed specification that DfT do.
@Graham H
Thanks again (worth another half pint) I am still a bit puzzled as just to
just how this works;-
From here to there;-
Wes start off with FRANCHISE (SWT Southern, SE, C2C etc ) devised
and specified by Dft inviting bids. Winner appointed to operate a specified train service for defined period for defined support or premium. Then;- The whole thing is disembowelled. A chunk of it goes to Tfl to manage as concession or management contract etc.
How is this done: When one of these Franchises is notified (by Dft?)
that from a certain date part of your franchise specification is withdrawn and passed on to another public body, to be re assigned in
some form, presumably under quite different financing arrangements, under what legislation i.e. statutory instrument , can this be effected? and of course, what about the knotty question of compensation to current franchise holder for loss of business, and ongoing procedures for cost re-attribution, given that many assets will be shared (terminals especially) . I am very sceptical that track access can be carved up in a manner that would stand audit!
BR could (and did) do this, I used to do it! But now;—– help!
No I don’t want my job back!
Whatever, I can’t see how this can be accomplished within the loose
provisions of Clause 141, There must be something else lurking , but
what?
“Public bodies ONLY BEINGEXCLUDED FROM BEING FRANCHISEES!! (but conceivably could be appointed under other arrangements such as concessions and management contracts).
Didn’t know this(quite intriguing). It was always said that the Southern suburban was just a tramway really, perhaps Boris could engage Blackpool Borough Council! And perhaps HS2 could run High speed trams! All right, trying to be entertainingly facetious, but it seems to me that we have another Great British Muddle!
Can’t see how Tfl can accede to this enhanced extended scope without some “unmuddling”.
@Walthamstow Writer
Thank you for that. Most Illuminating. You have answered many of my questions except for “Powers to increment/decrement rail services specified within franchises controlled by Dft. This suggests minor variations to established position. The “Peace on our line” article seemed to me to be implying something more radical and far reaching. Have I got it wrong? willing to be corrected.
(I’m not dishing out any more rewards in PEU (pint equivalent units, could get expensive).
@AR – DfT can – and usually do – write a re-opener into the franchises just so that they can move the pieces around (otherwise we would be locked into the present franchise structure for ever). DfT will pay compensation if this is done mid-term but naturally, they prefer to let the franchise go to full term and then the cost/revenue effects of any change are factored into their bids by bidders in the new round. I have not been privy to the negotiations that take place if a transfer happens mid-term but imagine they are a good spectator sport.
On the asset transfer point, in fact, franchises have virtually no assets, merely leases on vehicles and access rights to track and stations. (The odd desk, maybe, and one or two highly specific “designated franchise assets” – typically specialised tools and kit – which have to stay with the franchise whoever is running it). The main problem is recarving up the staff every time you move boundaries. Bad for the staff and bad for the franchisees (on both sides of the change boundaries) who then face inheriting new staff with pre-existing terms and conditions which may or may not match those in the old “core” franchise. You may imagine the pressure to level up in those circumstances.
@Graham H
Thnaks again. I should have said “use of assets” rather than assets, and therefore implied complications for re-distribution of costs. Everything you report suggest to me that I’m right. A Great British muddle!
Still. that’s what we are supposed to be good at.
And, compensation! How much is this going to cost US!
Re Alan R (&WW),
See the recent split off of London Overground West Anglia & TfL Rail (future Crossrail) from Greater Anglia for extreme examples of what can be done mid franchise. I suspect the minimum that will be seen is a Southern 2009 style increment package but with some revenue splitting based on the improvements. E.g TfL pay for gating X stations and revenue goes up from those stations they get to recoup on their investment.
Interestingly TSGN especially on the southern side are effectively going for TfL style (LU and LO features) on station operations – Closing ticket offices putting staff out to man the ticket machines armed with tablets etc (Fujitsu as SI) AND first to last station staffing, hence there may be no easy to spot differences between TSGN metro and a potential TfL operated NR Metro at stations if you ignore the branding elements…
The low hanging fruit of LO conversion on other routes has effectively been eaten by large green parakeet already.
See:
http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/modernising-our-stations/
&
http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-to-fight-ticket-office-carnage/
SWT might be hard to split operationally so the increments route may happen there but SE might see the biggest changes (and also cost the most as there is bigger potential for improvement.
Just to get something clear. TfL doesn’t, and cannot bid for franchises. A franchise is awarded by (DfT, the Scots or Welsh authorities, or TfL) to a franchisee.
And yet, there is one arena where TfL appears in the same set of brackets as, say, c2c or Chiltern. That is in public perception. Blame or credit for good/bad performance is always, in the pub or the press, handed out to either TfL or Chiltern, even though they are on different sides of the franchising relationship. Nobody ever praises, blames or even remembers the name of Lorol, Abellio London, or the Department for Transport.
Is this a case of branding being, dare I say it, important?
@Alan Robinson
“The main heading is;-“Public sector operators not to be franchisees” doesn’t say UK public sector operators. .”
The heading is not part of the legislation.
“It might be possible (with aid of fitter) to split up a two car DMU with cab at both extremities, doubt it could run as such.”
I have seen a Class 114 DMBS running on its own (out of service). As it was near its home depot, I assume it was on its way to the nearby triangular junction to be turned round to face the right way to couple to a driving trailer (the units did not run in fixed formations).
@Fandroid
“How did Directly Operated Railways get round those perversely comprehensive subsections”
Section 26ZA allows the ORR (or whoever is in charge this week) to decide that a franchise is not appropriate in any particular case. If it’s not a franchise, the prohibition of S25 does not apply.
@Alan R
“When one of these Franchises is notified (by Dft?) that from a certain date part of your franchise specification is withdrawn and passed on to another public body, to be re assigned in some form, presumably under quite different financing arrangements, under what legislation i.e. statutory instrument , can this be effected? ”
As far as I am aware this has only ever been done as part of a franchise agreement – so for instance the timetable for LO taking over from Silverlink was dictated by the expiry of the Silverlink franchise (the rest of it going to London Midland) . Likewise, the proposals for takeover by TfL of services south of the Thames are based on expiry of those franchises – and the reason SWT are at the back of the queue is because SWT didn’t get their extension to 2019, and there isn’t time to make alternative arrangements before the existing franchise expires next year. It is proposed instead that there be a break point, for the inner suburban services only, in 2019.
@ngh
“SWT might be hard to split operationally”
I don’t see it as any harder than Southern or South Eastern. Not only do the locals have their own dedicated platforms and pair of tracks all the way to the GLA border at Surbiton, but SWT have already given the trains operating the inner suburban services (including the new 707s) a distinctive livery – traditional London Transport Red!
Compare
http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave/assets/images/db_images/db_770921_Barking_COCP_stock1.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/SWT_Class_455_refurbished.jpg
http://i1.wp.com/www.globalrailnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/desiro-city-swt-livery-online.jpg?resize=720%2C400
@Timbeau
Now we’re getting some place. It seems to be only practical to recast service specification to coincide with end of a franchise term. Otherwise much too messy. I thought as much. So, What’s likely schedule ?
Re Timbeau,
The diagramming of some SWT units (especially 450s) isn’t split as cleanly as those on SE or the colours they paint them in make out especially in the outer suburban area which TFL do have their eye on.
The big issue with SWT is maintenance facilities as those will have to be shared (even after CR2 removes SWML inners).
How would the future 707s (delivery starting next year) for Windsor inners services get to Norham (Siemens – Southampton) for heavy maintenance circa once a fortnight per unit without training lots of LO drivers on the SWML to Southampton or training SWT SWL drivers on 707s etc… (ditto any 450s that go to LO in the outer suburban areas that TfL have their eye on).
There is also probably no chance of extra stabling / maintenance facilities at the London end of the SWT area till after Weir Lane/Durnsford Road CR2 depot comes on line creating some space at Wimbledon across the tracks.
@AR – it’s perfectly possible to split mid-franchise (cf West Coast) as ngh remarks but it costs you (and me). Were this not done then you could only remap the franchises if all the adjacent franchises (and perhaps all the franchises in the entire country) expired simultaneously. DfT don’t want that to happen on other grounds, nor do the OGs. Similarly, you can respecify the franchise mid-term, but, again,it will cost you. One fairly intrusive way in which happens quite frequently is in the matter of DfT-led rolling stock cascades (no that DfT would admit to a rolling stock strategy – indeed, perhaps they really do make it up on the hoof).
Malcolm – absoolutely so – as I tried to say with my frivolous example, once the thing isn’t a franchise anyone can run it. I agree that the present arrangements are designed to obscure responsibility and accountability – no one outside the industry seems to appreciate that DfT are the puppetmasters. [Old DfT lags, when they gather in bars and clubs are totally amazed that DfT has managed to dodge the bullets – all it requires is a PQ: “Will the SoS explain why he has specified the 07.24 at only 8 cars?” Or “Why has the SoS required only a 30 m service interval on Penguin Trains services?”]
Re Alan,
Except the SWT 2019 date which is mid franchise…
(Which has probably helped put off few bidders as there are only 2).
TSGN and SET are both timed for end of franchise.
@Graham H
“All it requires is a PQ” A wonderful irony. My understanding of Rail privatisation 1990s I sthat politicians were fed up with PQs i.e. The 07.00 from Bloggington to Bloggington Junction is always five minutes late and what is the SoS going to do about it?
SoS “This is matter for the chairman of British Rail”.
Ha Ha They who engage and pay a piper must realise that when the piper makes a horrible din, the buck stops with they who pay him!
We don’t seem to have got very far.
@ AR – my understanding of incrementing and decrementing is that it is just a process whereby the Mayor / TfL can buy extra service or, in rare circumstances, require that a service is NOT provided. Southern is the biggest use of incrementing that I am aware of. As mentioned in someone’s post above the “extras” TfL bought have now become mainstream requirements or are offered by bidders because they’re seen as driving more patronage and improved customer satisfaction. The use of decrements was the result of “arm twisting” by the DfT when the deal to create the Overground service over the South London Line was done. TfL were forced to decrement a proposed service on South Eastern (Bromley S – Victoria) in return for being granted powers and funding for the SLL service. I think that was a bit of very nasty national vs London politics between the Labour govt and Tory Mayoralty.
Where we are today is a somewhat different proposition but the precise form it will take is not clear. The “new deal” is a partnership that may well result in services going under TfL’s specification and procurement with TfL selecting the operator. However I can equally see some instances where a franchise is incremented but not split away into a London commuter core. The political pressure from London is for TfL control but I don’t think that will happen in every case – Thameslink is especially difficult for reasons much discussed here already and which don’t need repeating. There are some routes where the room for manoeuvre is very limited / non existent in terms of incrementing services (Chiltern inner area services for example). People may well want a much better service but the cost against the likely benefits make it very unlikely. For all the talk of partnership the buck always sits with the Secretary of State even where TfL are the procurement authority as he / she is responsible for the National Network.
‘@Walthamstow Writer
Thank you, I think we have just about “bottomed” this subject now.
Just have to wait and see. I can now take a rest.
@Alan
“It seems to be only practical to recast service specification to coincide with end of a franchise term.”
or, as with SWT, put in a predetermined mid-term break point where there may be a significant change. In this case it would not necessarily be the franchisee who changes, but the franchisor (“from [date] the contract for providing service Z will be with TfL rather than DfT)” It is not unusual for the obligations of a franchisee to change during the franchise term – usually the introduction of a new timetable, for example the addition of HS1 services to South Eastern. The nature and date of such changes are set out when the franchise is first let.
Exciting new development;- Lord Adonis (speaking as Chairman National infrastructure commission) re Tfl and London suburban;-
Recent Article is publication new to me ,”The Wharf”;
Can’t find his statement reported anywhere else, yet. Adonis is waxing lyrically over the brave new world (promised land) that awaits London Commuters, once ALL inner suburban services are transferred to LONDON OVERGROUND, He anticipates that this will lead to CROSSRAIL 3,4,5, and 6! However, under what authority is he speaking?
Clearly, he is envisaging a full transfer of responsibilities, i.e to be stripped out of the franchise spec and vested in Overground, which as we have established, can only be achieved at END of existing franchise term.
Men in white coats subsequently calmed him down and removed him to a safe place.
@Graham H
Perhaps, in his rapturous enthusiasm he got mixed up, and was really talking about HS 3,4,5,6, etc?
@ AR, @GH
The Wharf is Canary Wharf’s twice-weekly newspaper, you can subscribe for free.
Story referenced by AR is here: http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/tfls-takeover-suburban-lines-like-10897904
Lord Adonis was active in Centre for London (whose TSLO report was published in Jan 2016) before being appointed as Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission.
Other useful story links attached, note particularly (relevant for c2c article) the two links immediately below:
http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/who-gets-what-city-east-10319888
http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/boris-johnson-unveils-city-east-10318254
http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/tfl-should-absorb-south-london-10731518
In the context of any final version of ‘City East’, Crossrail 3 is one eventual option, but that’s probably best covered in the parallel c2c topic.
When Lord Adonis appeared recently in front of the Assembly Transport Committee the one thing he did NOT do was gush enthusiastically about any scheme. His box of verbal crayons was clearly locked away on that occasion. He was reluctant to commit to anything because he is only making recommendations and it is for government to decide what they want on their shopping list. The problem is that the last time they drew up a shopping list they couldn’t stop scribbling more and more schemes on to it thus lumbering Network Rail with an undeliverable, under specififed and unfunded mess. This has, of course, given grist to the mill of NR’s critics thus spawning the splurge of reviews currently under way / completed contemplating the future size and responsibilities of NR and other bodies. Sounds almost like a plot line for an episode of Yes Minister.
I’d ignore whatever gushing the noble Lord has been making and see what, if anything, emerges at the time of the Budget in exactly 4 weeks.
Seems I watched a different meeting to the one the Wharf journalists did! I hadn’t clicked on the link when I wrote the post above. While Lord Adonis supports devolution and TfL operation of suburban services the real improvements will only be delivered off the back of very substantial investment (as we have discussed many times before).
An interesting article about the Overground network. Has a nice contrast back the 1980s horrors of London suburban rail travel and also includes the first reference I’ve seen to a growth in patronage figure for West Anglia – 30% since the TfL takeover!
@ Graham H, Indeed I imagined a Treasury hit team being dispatched to take him out.
It seems to me that Lord A has been either misquoted or misinterpreted. Not sure how much I agree, but my reading of what he said was that the potential overall benefit of “Overgroundisation” of south London was equivalent to the overall benefit of several Crossrails, i.e. as sumarised by the Wharf’s headline. I don’t think he was talking of firing up any TBMs at all.
@Caspar Lucas if that’s what he really meant,it just goes to show how little he understands of the capacity/operational problems. I’m sorry, but despite his public stance/image, he simply doesn’t know very much about railways,and service as a junior minister for two or three years will not have made him an expert. He is fine as a front man or a name. He is by training and avocation a jobbing academic whose principal publication is “Making Aristocracy Work” (A study of the C19 House ofLords) Quite interesting and well written but d*****d all to do with railways.
@ Caspar Lucas – I think you’re right. Your comment has sparked my memory and I think he was making a comparison about vastly better suburban services being equivalent to several Crossrails.
[ goes to London.gov website ]
I have gone back to the webcast at 1hr 2 mins in and he was making the point you state. He then went on to say that he did not envisage more cross London deep tunnels after CR2. He viewed them as “once in a generation” but he said more East Thames Crossings were required.
Re WW 1705
“also includes the first reference I’ve seen to a growth in patronage figure for West Anglia – 30% since the TfL takeover!”
Any bets on whether that is a real 30% or just 30% as a lot more people now have to pay for travel which is what is actually being measured!
Re Caspar, WW, Graham H,
I suspect Lord A has been drinking too much of the turning South London Orange juice and extrapolating. He is partially right in that it will be much harder to find tunnelling routes in the future in some parts of Zone1 but there are still plenty of options.
With the West Anglia Overground routes it is the first time a route into a terminus has been completely overgrounded and the 30% figure whether real or measured sets a worrying benchmark for TfL when considering taking over more radial routes especially if they go on the tube map. [Lots of existing users probably hoping they won’t!]
I also wonder what the quality of the base data was like – were there lots of assumptions that it only became obvious weren’t correct after the split from GA?
@ Ngh – your querying of the percentage rise made me wonder off to see if we were approaching a Rail and Underground Panel meeting and we are! The MD Report includes a brief commentary on patronage numbers. Seems London Overground patronage is up 35% year on year to Period 10 and 10% ahead of target. Regrettably no split out below that between “old” and West Anglia routes. TfL Rail has also seen an increase of nearly 6% so not quite as spectacular as Overground. Although the report tries hard to be positive it looks to me like performance remains an issue on both routes against the targets although better than other TOCs. Customer satisfaction levels are also struggling because of overcrowding so you’re right to make the point you do above about expectation management and ability to deliver significant improvements.
@ngh
“With the West Anglia Overground routes it is the first time a route into a terminus has been completely overgrounded ”
Second, surely? Wat-Eus was the first!
Re WW,
The 35% number is period 10 to period 10 comparison so includes going from 0% WA LO to 100% WA LO in the overground total so it isn’t a growth on WAML Overground number itself. So a bit of a misinterpretation?
LO ridership being +12.8 % above target is probably the more interesting number.
Re timbeau,
Watford DC doesn’t meet the usual LO standard of 4tph minimum on all other routes…
@ Ngh – fair comment. I guess we must wait until May or June to see what level of growth there has been year on year wholly under TfL control. Hopefully we might get a presentation with a more detailed update of performance and progress around that time.
ngh & everybody
I simply do not believe the 30% increase in use of E London routes since TfL takeover.
I use the Chingford line every week at least ( ditto Vic-line ) & I think I’d have noticed an upturn that sharp.
Therefore, I suggest to the jury, M’Lud, that it is an artefact of the gating operation.
An insight from autumn 2015 counts is of variable growth patterns compared to previous years depending on station/route, and with higher offpeak / evening travel growth rather than AM peak. Also some possibility of journey destinations potentially changing somewhat because of the combined tube/Overground map influence. So please do not assume it is an all-or-nothing, one-size-fits-all answer, likely to be more complex. Higher passenger volume also is unlikely to mean equivalent growth in revenue, because of greater level of zero/low-cost journeys allowed on LOROL services rather than TOC operations.
Also more contra-peak flow travel than before, as the rail lines become better known.
Just to note that in Lord Adonis’ appearance at the GLA he also said that no-one was objecting to Crossrail 2 interchanging with the Northern Line. This is of course not the case, as I’m not the only one to believe that commuters from stations beyond Wimbledon will change from CR2 to the Northern Line as well as in the other direction. My full writeup includes extensive journey time analysis. eg. Chessington to Bank is 3m faster via Balham & Northern Line than Tottenham Court Road and Central Line. Or Morden to Victoria being only 2m faster changing to CR2 than changing onto the Victoria Line. (Note that the combination of these two appears to show CR2 being a disaster for the Northern Line.) See here for more CR2 journey time modelling info.
His CR3/4/5 comments appear to be referring to getting more people onto the network in South London. This is in my view the opposite of a Crossrail, as it simply increases the number of people arriving at the southern termini all desperate to get on an already full tube!
@Stephen C
“commuters from stations beyond Wimbledon will change from CR2 to the Northern Line as well as in the other direction”
There will be a lot more of the former (most of West Surrey) compared with the latter (five stops on the Northern Line, two of which have catchments overlapping with the Crossrail 2 station at Wimbledon)
Re Stephen C,
You keep seeming to forget about the significant number of existing passengers on the Northern who change to the Victoria line at Stockwell or the other (Charing Cross) Northern Branch at Kennington (or even the rather smaller number onto the Bakerloo at E&C).
Not everyone in SW London wants to go to the City. Also note the big expansion in office space in the West End and Midtown which isn’t well served currently from SWT land, yet plenty still try to get there currently.
While I like you attempt at modelling the journey times, you also take selective account of ability to board services (ever tried to board a west bound Central at Bank in the Morning? which is one of you suggestions!) and don’t look at walking times or the quality of travel. 2 CR2 journey legs may be much more pleasant that 1 CR2 and then 1 Northern Line. So CR2 then CR1 to Moorgate & walk the 4 mins may be more popular than the Northern Line even after a Bank rebuild. (Standing up straight may prove very popular on CR!)
If some of those outer northern passengers transfer on to CR2 at Balham instead you free up space through Clapham.
Plenty of Northern Line users will object to your objection…
Agree than Lord A is slightly deluded on CR3456 being equivalent to lots of Orange.
CR1 and TL will increase the attractiveness of living in places other than SW London for getting to the City.
Re Greg,
Neither do we.
Mystery effectively solved as TfL did their classic (happens every time they take over a route!) and just quoted total over ground numbers which will have unsurprisingly gone up when included you starting running 8+tph into LST!
They really should have to produce like for like numbers as retailers do for financial reporting purposes.
@Graham H
[re Andrew Adonis] “service as a junior minister for two or three years will not have made him an expert.”
— Not quite right — he was the SoS for the last 11 months of the G Brown government. Not that that will necessariy have made him an expert, either. Still at least he was impressively enthusiastic: I recall thinking that at last we had a Transport Secretary who was actually interested in transport.
@ngh, the analysis I did was simple but covered all routes. This is because by the time CR2 opens (15 years) every tube line and CR1 are likely to be jam-packed given we simply aren’t building fast enough. I’d also argue that CR2 will be full on opening – the service uplift from many SW locations is pretty limited, eg 2tph to 4tph. Point on walking noted, but you are meant to read the results taking that into account!
Given that each CR2 train has a capacity over twice that of a Northern Line trains (a factor around 2.3), if just 10% of the CR2 passengers move to the Northern Line, you need 23% of the Northern Line to move to CR2 just to stay even. ie. even more must change to actually relieve the Northern. The claim “If some of those outer northern passengers transfer on to CR2 at Balham instead you free up space through Clapham” is entirely dependent on just two factors, what people arriving at the interchange station do, and the proportions of northbound users that choose to switch to the other line (CR2 to Northern and vice versa).
The question to ask is whether anyone from Morden or South Wimbledon to the West End, most of whom will still have a seat in 2030, will trade that seat for a trip on CR2 for a saving of 2mins. Off-peak, I’m not sure many would, since CR2 will be less reliable than the Northern Line due to the Network Rail pieces and the Stockwell change is so convenient. In peak? Well, really TfL should be justifying their claim of relief, because I’m not the only one to disbelieve it. (And see Swirl-Max for my alternative that avoids the problem)
@ Peezedtee – err a SoS who likes trains and building big “things”. He turned himself into a “bus expert” (ahem) by travelling on London buses for a week and writing a rather mediocre blog about it. I might have been more impressed if he committed to using buses (and trains where necessary) to travel everywhere for a year. Then he might well have got a rounded view of services across the country [1] which might have helped him think about what improvements are needed. I am sure he has an intellectual understanding of lots of things but like all politicians he stretches beyond that by trying to personalise it and then empathise with people.
[1] and I’m not claiming I have that because I don’t often use buses outside of London. My journey plans are often prevented because researching services shows them to be so bad / inconvenient I can’t get to where I want to go.
@ngh
“Not everyone in SW London wants to go to the City. Also note the big expansion in office space in the West End and Midtown which isn’t well served currently from SWT land, yet plenty still try to get there currently”
Indeed, and for them CR2 will be a boon and the Northern Line irrelevant. But, as Stephen’s write up points out, the pph capacity of CR2 will be more than twice that of the Northern Line, (similar frequency, but much longer and wider trains), so a small proportion of passengers transferring from a CR2 train results in a much bigger effect on the Northern Line train to which they transfer. Even if 50% of the Northern Line passengers switched at Balham to CR2, it would only take 20% of the CR2 passengers to switch the other way for the Northern Line to be more crowded than before!
And don’t forget that the Balham Bulge will add distance, and therefore time, to CR2 journeys to Central London. Without it, journey times from SW suburbia to both the west end and the city (via CR1 or otherwise) would be quicker.
People in the far south of the Northern Line catchment already have ample opportunities to get to the west end, via Stockwell, and Kennington. In addition, they will in future be able to railhead to the CR2 station at Wimbledon, as many already do to go to Vauxhall, or Victoria via Clapham Junction, or via Earls Court.
Balham already has a decent service to Clapham Junction and Victoria. If CR2 calls at both Wimbledon and Balham, couldn’t outer suburban services call there instead of Clapham Junction, and then there is no need for CR2 to call at CJ at all!
@PZT – thank you for the correction (I fear I was seriously ill at that particular time and missed much of the political detail…) . Enthusiasm can be a mixed blessing in a minister. Heseltine was very enthusiastic and we are still paying for the consequences of that today, but in general,I agree that a minister who at least takes the trouble to read the papers is far better than one whose only interest is getting through as many gin and tonics as possible before lunch.*
*We had several of these; one particular individual in the mid ’70s who had better remain nameless, was in such a state that when we ankled in to discuss the local transport settlement with him, he had only one question – “How had we managed to get colour photocopying ?”(This was a novelty at the time). My boss duly explained and the odd few billions of expenditure including sums for the Fleet Line and proto-Picc-Vic, but nothing for Avon metro were nodded through unconsidered. I didn’tlike to ask whether the colour photocopying was a deliberate ploy to play the man, not the ball.
WW 15.14: Lord A did also do a “Great British Rail Trip” (or something like that), which is – possibly unfairly – remembered by me at least for his blogging about not being able to buy a coffee in (as opposed to right outside) Southampton Central, and he started a second blogging rail trip not long before the 2010 General Election which was however cut short by the Icelandic volcanic eruption*, but not before I had shaken his hand at Stourbridge Junction… A few years ago I think I walked past him near the site of Birmingham Curzon HS2 station (not that that proves anything).
* In that the SoS was expected to get back to London for urgent meetings concerning repatirating trapped holidaymakers (or some such), not that volcanic dust stopped the trains running.
I met him once too, I challenged him as to his reasoning on Crossrail 2’s routing, alas, after ripping into HS2 and why I thought it was a bad idea he had lost all enthusiasm in talking to me.
@ Caspar Lucas – ah yes the great use of an All Line Rover ticket that exposed its value for money, caused a boost in sales thus triggering the TOCs to go into “evil mode” and push the price up *and* laden it with horrendous restrictions. I haven’t bought one since that happened because the ability to head out of London on early fast trains is important if you want to cover a decent number of miles, do some sightseeing and then put your head down in places distant before continuing on your travels. A great way, not!, to promote use of the rail network and help UK tourism.
@WW: the National Stations Improvement Fund (I think it had another name then) came directly out of that trip and his realisation that many medium sized stations were rubbish, so I would count it as a success.
I can’t help feeling that one problem the Civil Service had with Andrew Adonis is that he kept disagreeing with their accumulated wisdom (on electrification, high speed rail, IEP etc), and showed worrying signs of wanting to stay long term in a Department that has become very used to short tenures from ministers on their way up or down. Fortunately from their point of view, his government lost power and they thought they had seen the back of him…
@IanJ – I think you are right in that, these days,elements within the Railways part of the Department seem to have acquired a very large number of strange and not very rational technical prejudices – as you say,IEP being one of them – many of the individuals concerned appear to have been recruits from consultancy and the industry itself. Personally, I (and colleagues) never had any difficulty with ministers who were willing to engage enthusiastically with their brief -Portillo and Mitchell, for example, in my day – but they knew their limitations and didn’t impose their views in technical areas.
@Graham H
In “your day” (and mine, too) there was one essential difference. The Railway Industry was (mostly) one “firm”, BRITISH RAILWAYS.
The railway could present a fairly united front regarding technical expertise and knowledge, before which even government ministers had to bow.
A very important concern I remember raised regarding privatisation (1990s style) was the expectation (fear) that a dis-aggregated rail industry would no longer convey a collective “clout” to dispel lunatic dreams of ignorant politicians.
@Alan Robinson – that’s correct -even my most prejudiced colleagues would say – and believe – that the Board was the government’s professional adviser on technical matters.We might disagree with the Board (and frequently did) on commercial and business matters, we might complain, and even overrule them on quantities (usually of locomotives), we might ask for further and better on technical risk (with the expectation that we would be given details of its mitigation) but I cannot recall a case where we insisted on a specific technical solution. The nearest we came to that was Mrs T’s blind spot on electrification but even there (and despite the comtemptuous and stupid remarks of one of my colleagues about “electrification being some sort of social democratic dream”, and despite his support for electrification costing one junior minister his “most favoured nation” status), we let the Board bring forward cases which seemed robust and we approved them.
@Graham H
I am intrigued. “Mrs T’s blind spot on electrification” (eh?) what was this, can you elucidate. I would have thought that she had so little to do with railways that she probably thought they were still using coal burning steam locomotives. Robust cases for electrification;-
I do know that the ECML caused great agonising, so much so that the whole business case rested on a very fine judgment as to future price of oil (for which only the very finest crystal ball could be employed to provide a forecast). However, the ECML was duly electrified and somewhat more economically than NR’s effort on the Great Western. And rather quicker, too.
@Alan – getting EC electrification past No 10 was difficult enough but the real stumbling block turned out to Hastings. The Department was more or less ordered to turn it down but the case was so robust (and there were so many commuters from a Tory heartland) that No 10 eventually caved in – there had been much lobbying also from one junior minister who sat for the area (John Stanley) on the usual “shiny project” grounds but No 10 never forgot or forgave him. “His end was bacon” like Aunt Porcas. Quite why Mrs T so hated electrification wasn’t entirely clear – it seemed to have much to do with her belief that railways were for losers and any public investment in them was a waste; fortunately, only major set pieces such as Hastings were visible to her. I suspect the attitude should be seen as of a piece with her encouragement of the rail conversion lobby.
[Yes, ECML was done cheaply and cheerfully but we seem to be reaping the consequences now – the use of lightweight span wires which come down in the wind compared with the extraordinary structures going up along GWML just now. The case was very finely balanced and indeed in the early ’90s, there was a serious faction at Board level which advocated its de-electrification – as one Board member put it “De-electrification will be serious test of this Government’s willingness to pursue vfm”.]
@Graham H
Oh dear, I feat that we are staring to approach the outer boundaries of forbidden territory (party Politics and personalities).
Hastings is a surprise to me, I never though that such a piddling little scheme (in national context) could possibly reach PM level. Given that the Hastings diesels were totally shot, never good in first place, I am quite astounded. Does this explain why the Tunbridge Wells -Eridge closure had to go ahead, a sacrificial offering to appease the gods?
[Not so much party politics and personalities (if in a historical context and largely factual) but having to sort out the random carriage returns that is more annoying. PoP]
@AR – we’ll get shot for travelling too far off piste, but no, Tunbridge_Eridge was going through the mill before Hastings appeared – I’m not sure what triggered it (it appeared on my desk as something just to sign off, with all the analysis done well beforehand – I don’t recall any major infrastructure savings – it may just have been on the basis of “Here is a trivial* sacrifice just to show willing….” If that’s what it was, John Palmer egged on by No 10 grew greedy anyway.
*As in Balloch-Balloch Pier or Abertafol and Gogarth
@Graham H
Tunbridge Wells Eridge was the only significant closure proposal to get by me at 222 Marylebone Road. A bit off piste, but I do recall that the financial case was overwhelming, but rested essentially on assumed need for major Infrastructure alterations in Tun Wells cent and/or Grove Jcn. I did query the justification for this as the time but quickly found that I was up against a “force majeure”. It was a very unusual closure case, in that the claimed savings were theoretical, i.e. avoidance of infrastructure alterations, as opposed to the usual, the avoidance of a renewal of an existing asset.
@AR – yes, that’s how I remember it, too.
The decision to close the TWW line may have been independent of the Hastings line upgrade, but the timing certainly wasn’t. The upgrade, which was completed in 1986, was more than just electrification. It also included single tracking through most of the tunnels, to allow normal loading gauge trains to use them, and more complex modification of the two either side of Tunbridge Wells for the same reason. Costs were saved by not renewing Grove Junction, so the branch closed in 1985.
An additional factor may have been that the revised timetable following electrification may not have left room for the Tonbridge-Eridge shuttle – there being no suitable bay at TWC they had to fit in with the London-Hastings service up the hill from Tonbridge. This may have been difficult, either because the electric service was more intense, or more constrained by the newly-singled sections further south, or simply that a 207 diesel would not be able to maintain electric timings up the bank.
I know the BML2 brigade have their eyes on this link as an alternative way into London if the Hayes Line is spoken for, but that’s for another topic.
@Timbeau
that’s my recollection, too (re closure Tun Wells – Eridge).
The only difference I can recall, is that the infrastructure constraints following electrification (single line tunnels mainly) could only be overcome by very expensive re-building of tunnels to allow for normal loading gauge vehicles on a double track. No doubt LR followers are familiar with the infamous inadequate construction of the Hastings line tunnels, whereby a cheap and quick solution was found by the SER, additional inner brick lining, thus necessitating narrow loading gauge stock in future, until 1987.
Alan Robinson,
It might have been an unusual closure case but this situation is by no means unknown. Coulsdon North was closed due to a combination of needing point renewal and the fact that the junction would have inconveniently come off the fast lines – the fast and slow lines being swapped during the associated route modernisation. The case was made considerably easier by the fact that there was another station right next to it (Smitham as it was then called) so it would have been difficult for anyone to claim hardship.
More recently one can look to the DLR and the closure case for one platform at West India Quay which prevents trains from Bank calling at the station – only in that case it was pretty much impossible to provide a replacement facility at any price.
@PoP
Tun Wells – Eridge was maybe not unique, but what was unusual is that the cost of continuation was never actually costed. (e.g. alterations to tunnels and Grove Jcn. There was an adequate case for
closure in direct cost savings on this lightly patronised section, so the fact that huge expenditure would have to be incurred was just a “memorandum item” . To forestall inevitable questions;- I did say earlier that the case for closure was overwhelming, Actually, it was the insertion of any substantial figure for infrastructure enhancements (compared with original electrification scheme, which assumed closure, if not spelt out) which made it overwhelming. Otherwise, it was a “normal” case.
One member of regular monthly meetings of BR HQ Finance managers was in NSE finance in mid 1980s. I will ask him at next opportunity.
Sorry about carriage return problems and irregular type. I thought I had cured that. Please advise if still causing difficulties.
Moderators might be reasonably tolerant of going “off-piste”, but I really don’t want moderators to be “piste-off”.
[Well played. LBM]
@Graham H
I have conducted a quick research into career of John Stanley. It bears out what you say, quite dramatically;- 1979-1983 Junior minister for housing, 1983-1987 Minister for Armed Forces (reporting to Defence Sec, definitely a major promotion) then 1987 – 1988 Junior Minister NORTHERN IRELAND (UK ministerial equivalent of being sent to Eastern Front, Siberia?). He then resumed a quieter existence as back bencher, MP for Tonbridge and Malling, retired at 2015 election.
Still happens today, after WCML franchise fiasco, Theresa Villiers got sent to Northern Ireland, and Justine Greening to Overseas development.
His demotion was a year or so after Hastings Electrification was approved. Mrs T did like the dish of revenge to be served cold (or at least lukewarm).
I thought Adonis was correct concerning Southampton station. It was a bit of a dump. Some cash has been spent there, and it’s better, but it’s still amazingly poor for a busy city station. The other one I recollect him criticising was Manchester Victoria. That’s had serious money spent on it since and now does some credit both to its historical features and it’s 21st Century function. I think it’s a bit much to blame Lord A for what happened to the all-lines rover. Was he supposed to spend our money on a load of Anytime singles? I also have a vague memory that he went to Japan and ‘saw the railway future happening now’.
He wasn’t a very nice human being either – a case of litotes there – but since he is still alive, I will forbear from describing his worst offences – but just to give you a flavour from a friend who was his private secretary in MoD. On one occasion, he decided to issue some instructions tothe then Head of the Army, summoned him and began “Snodgrass (or whatever), I want this done, and – Snodgrass – I want that done, and so on”. The military man replied “Certainly, Stanley” The Minister turned bright red and exploded “I have a title” “So do I” was the reply as the general left the room. [My apologies for wandering even further into the byways].
@Graham H
Oh dear! Your insights do make we wonder sometimes as to whether there is (was?) such a thing as a nice politician.
Amongst those I met: Paul Channon. David Mitchell, Michael Portillo, Bill Rodgers (up to a point), Tom King, John Horam, Linda Chalker
@GH
19 February 2016 at 15:57
The ‘Tonbridge’ style was indeed a bit narrow, like the trains.
@Fandroid
“Southampton station….was a bit of a dump. Some cash has been spent there, and it’s better, but it’s still amazingly poor for a busy city station.”
There are several equally busy stations on the SWT network which have worse facilities: from Annex C of the recent consultation document:
All stations served by SWT with over 5million entries and exits (operator is SWT except where stated)
London Waterloo (NR) 98,442,742
Clapham Junction 25,287,250
Vauxhall 19,401,716
Wimbledon 19,302,216
Reading (NR) 15,673,400
Putney 10,933,750
Richmond 9,533,696
Bristol TM (GWR) 9,522,840
Surbiton 9,206,902
Guildford 7,961,067
Woking 7,697,790
Southampton Central 6,278,910
Earlsfield 6,233,208
Bath Spa (GWR) 5,990,274
Kingston 5,986,660
Twickenham 5,758,276
Basingstoke 5,373,748
In comparison, some supposedly important stations come a lot further down the list – e.g
Bournemouth 2,623,628
Exeter St David’s (GWR) 2,356,204
Portsmouth Harbour 2,272,038
Portsmouth & Southsea 2,032,386
Salisbury 1,943,654
(These are entry/exit figures – Exeter and Salisbury are also interchanges but I don’t have figures for that)
Regarding rises in users on West Anglia lines taken over by LO and – “an insight from autumn 2015 counts is of variable growth patterns compared to previous years depending on station/route, and with higher offpeak / evening travel growth rather than AM peak.”
Higher off peak and evening figures due to now having to pay? These were always the easiest to avoid paying.
When TfL get Southeastern they’ll see similar big jumps in ‘passengers’, or those who are now paying, almost immediately particularly at off peak times.
No Ed, these are real passenger counts comparing one year with the other (Mk1 human eyeball).
@Timbeau
Recommend looking at % change in usage not just gross volume (entry/exit)…
Your listed stations, but then organised by % change 2010-11 to 2014/15:
The London, Bristol and Exeter areas predominate. Make of that what you will, my view is of London region agglomeration, and city region effects.
Some interchange locations eg Clapham Junction are also very important.
Station Name % change 2014-15
Exeter Central 41% 2,343,636
Clapham Jn 35% 26,465,840
Richmond 28% 9,767,824
Vauxhall 28% 21,111,416
Barnes 27% 2,286,338
Feltham 26% 4,294,762
Wandsworth T 22% 3,928,646
Earlsfield 21% 6,553,176
Hampton Ct 21% 2,583,672
Wimbledon 20% 19,526,884
Bristol TM 20% 10,099,526
Bath Spa 19% 6,222,126
Twickenham 18% 6,013,240
Kingston 17% 6,186,850
Bracknell 17% 2,315,218
Winchester 16% 4,915,402
[Portsmouth Hb 16% 2,206,210]
[Portsmouth&S -10% 2,156,486]
Surbiton 15% 9,603,768
Teddington 14% 2,630,766
Reading 13% 16,339,602
Basingstoke 13% 5,561,414
Mortlake 13% 2,244,922
Raynes Park 13% 4,513,818
Putney 12% 11,158,352
Norbiton 12% 2,627,752
Wokingham 12% 2,344,598
SouthamptonC 11% 6,433,514
Exeter StD 11% 2,509,220
Woking 10% 7,963,172
Havant 9% 2,351,802
New Malden 9% 3,523,712
Walton-o-T 9% 2,868,664
Waterloo 8% 99,201,604
Salisbury 8% 1,963,292
Weybridge 7% 2,502,734
Farnborough 4% 3,081,070
Guildford 4% 8,090,682
Worcester Park 3% 2,745,468
Staines 3% 2,881,160
Egham 3% 2,121,684
Bournemouth 2% 2,624,682
@ J Roberts – thanks for the insight on the West Anglia growth. Looks as if the gains are in the right place in terms of there being capacity to cope (off peak, contra peak etc).
Some of those percentage increases at SWT stations look horrendous. They must be posing serious problems at some stations in terms of overcrowding and congestion. I know some places have had upgrades but many have not and are not likely to see anything of substance. How do you significantly upgrade Vauxhall for example? Is anyone at DfT, NR or in the TOCs actually tasked with looking at issues like station capacity and congestion (other than for safety and evacuation management which is mandatory within the safety certificate process)?
Can I add that the line closure discussed above led to the best acronym in heritage rail – that of the Tunbridge Wells & Eridge Railway Preservation Society?
Anyone’s hopes of a “shiny new project” in the Hastings electrification must have felt somewhat short-changed on seeing the slam-door Mark 1 EMUs that were actually put into service (these being those dim and distant days when entire new electric services could be introduced with no net increase in fleet size – see also East Grinstead sparks – presumably due to the then continuing decline in both BR and LU ridership; would I be right in thinking that about the first hard evidence of this turning around was the decision to retain HSTs on the electrified ECML where the original mid-’80s plan had been all-electric with diesel haulage of Mark IV rakes to Aberdeen and other destinations beyond the wires?).
@WW
Vauxhall has had a major change a few years ago with a second staircase leading to the busiest platform 7/8. But some very busy stations in the suburbs (outer London) are also suffering severe crowding and steadily losing facilities. As for Waterloo, the concourse can get so crowded, as it was this evening, that it can be impossible to actually get to a train between the time the platform is displayed and the time the train leaves – which is exactly what happened tonight to me. Extra carriages are all very well but some of the stations will be simply unable to cope with 25% more people on each train.
@Graham H
Just caching up (had evening off) Thanks for anthology of nice politicians. Oh well, perhaps. come the revolution, one or two might be spared.
@Caspar Lucas
Hastings line. I well remember the first weekend of electric service , NSE actually provided EPB sets (first and last time?).
The Southern Region (as was) had been accused of being over provided with rolling stock for some years (I identified their profligacy whilst at BRB HQ Pre-sector days). Of course, if you start of with too many vehicles, any investment scheme that makes more productive use is going to look marvellous. The South Eastern actually “went mad” in 1958-1961 period. Far too many CEPS and HAPS (the HAPS were obsolete when built, in many respects, but incredibly well horsepowered), Gone by 1982 (very short life for EMU). They reinforced the overkill with the 1974 VEP build.
WW
How do you significantly upgrade Vauxhall for example?
Not being sarcastic – very expensively.
In that specific case you need to widen the arches – property take, which also means slueing the tracks
And also building more new entrances & exits ( where? )
See also the long-running article & comments on Finsbury Park which is in a very similar situation.
@Alan Robinson
“the HAPS were obsolete when built, in many respects, but incredibly well horsepowered), Gone by 1982 ”
Au contraire, only the SR-type 56xx units were withdrawn in 1982. (And even then their motor coaches were recycled with former 4SUB trailers to make “new” 4EPBs)
Around the same time, the BR-design units (6xxx), which were the majority, were converted to 4 car units, initially for the Coastway services (hence 4CAP), – this involved simply coupling them in pairs, and removing the guards position from one of the pair to create more luggage space. They migrated fairly quickly onto South Eastern suburban services until replaced by the Networkers. The last ones were withdrawn in 1994.
http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/historical-features/brfleet_hap.html
Even that was not the end, for in 1984 ten of the motor coaches had been converted to work the Gatwick Express service and, because of problems with the Juniper stock built in 1999 to replace them, the last was not taken out of service until 2005.
As for horsepower, surely they had the same arrangement (one powered bogie per two cars) as all EP stock, from 2EPBs to 4CIGs?
@timbeau
Yesterday was not a good day for SWT. There was disarray all day with trains running up to 100 minutes late and changes to routes and stopping patterns.
My day out from BTE to CLJ involved six hours of travelling. At least I should get a 100% refund.
So back to your point the masses at Waterloo were the result of exceptional disruption.
@Kit
Having been delayed for over an hour on the way to work and half an hour on the way back, seven hours later, as a result of the incident yesterday, I was well aware that SWT were not having a good day. (They seemed to be coping fairly well, although information was not always as timely as it might have been, which led to some friction between passengers and staff)
But the stations need to be able to cope with the exceptional situations, not just the business-as-usual.
Not sure about your refund – the cause was surely outside the operator’s control?
@timbeau/Kit – apparently, according to TRUST watchers, there were two major incidents yesterday – a would-be suicide about 10.00 and a train failure in the afternoon. How much resilience to how many disruptions can one afford to build in?
@GH
I had understood the train failure to have been earlier in the morning, and had deliberately refrained from commenting on the background to the incident at Earlsfield – on the information available, it could have been an accident.
On topic, as I said, SWT were coping reasonably well, but the crowds on the concourse even when everything is running smoothly, and with the forthcoming platform extensions at Waterloo, double-ending the station becomes not only possible (as the platforms will reach Westminster Bridge Road) but necessary if you want the platforms to be cleared between trains, and to allow enough time for everyone to reach the train and be able to board it (there is no point having ten cars if there is no time to get to the front four).
@timbeau – the inside info was that a suicide was attempted but didn’t succeed. A train failure was certainly recorded in the afternoon in,I understood,in the Weybridge area.{Mrs H was attempting to return from Oxford at that time on the one through train, and was being briefed by Master H who had been tracking the events in an NR office…]
I would agree with you about double ending Waterloo;I can see every advantage in having entrances closer to Westminster. No doubt, the stallholders on the present concourse will be dismayed if half their trade doesn’t pass their door, but… so what?
@ Graham H
“the Board’s motor vehicles were all leased. The actual last rail vehicle we owned was a middle car in a VEP.”
Sorry, I’ve only just caught up with this thread. No doubt the Vep coach was BRB’s last passenger vehicle, but it certainly was not the last rail vehicle owned by the Board. Lists of goods, NPCCS and departmental stock tended to be less complete and accurate than those for passenger vehicles, so not all vehicles were included in transfers to the ROSCOs, FOCs and others. One of the jobs that the Secretary of BRB (Residuary) Ltd had was arranging disposal of vehicles that were found in odd places and which were not listed in any transfer scheme. Among the more prominent were the two vans and tank wagon that became increasingly overgrown in the up sidings south of Alexandra Palace. I also recall the two goods brake vans at North Walsham, and there were others. However, we were satisfied that the BRB had disposed of the long abandoned open wagon that has been in the up sidings at Welwyn Garden City for over a decade – and is still there.
@Londoner in Scotland — I’m not at all surprised – perhaps I should have said “officially”. There is a long tradition in the industry about forgetting vehicles – there is the famous story about the crew dismantling the Longmoor military railway Bordon branch from the junction to the end,only to discover a van there… [By way of amusement, I was one of the advisers to the Tanzanian government onrail privatisation. Their asset register was seriously out of date – still large numbers of steam locos – and in the end I simply had to employ a team to go out and count. We found about 105 of 120 alleged diesels, but only about 1000 of the supposed 3000 wagons].
timbeau, Kit Green,
the cause was surely outside the operator’s control?
If the cause of the delay is suicide or attempted suicide then Network Rail must bear the cost and compensate the TOCs accordingly, If you service is delayed and you were not warned against travelling then there are very few exceptions. The customer is not expected to understand the niceties of delay attribution and nearly always entitled to compensation if the delay thresholds are met.
There is a sort of logic charging suicides to Network Rail. Someone has to be assigned to the cost and if it were the TOCs then this would encourage over-cautious bidding by TOC candidates who would be fearful that a spate of suicides could turn a potential decent return into an almost unlimited liability so would severely put off franchise applications.
Probably more important still, Network Rail are probably in the best position to minimise suicides by a combination of removing crossings, preventing access to the track where possible (e.g. fast platforms where no train is due to stop) and working with the Samaritans to help people contemplating suicide. The cost of a suicide on the railway often reaches six figures or more so there is a big incentive to do what can be done.
@timbeau/PoP – there is the STAR principle in play here,which means in effect that all delays are syndicated via NR (this to avoid a flood of cross-liability)
@double ending Waterloo;I can see every advantage in having entrances closer to Westminster
Certainly it should prove popular with SW London MPs, and staff at DpT on Horseferry Road
@PoP
” preventing access to the track where possible (e.g. fast platforms where no train is due to stop)” As has been done at Earlsfield.
@Graham H
“There is a long tradition in the industry about forgetting vehicles ”
Sometimes what looked like official forgetfulness was actually down to sentimentality/recognition of history by the lower orders. For example the unofficial diversion of The Duke of Gloucester (no 71000, the only three cylinder Standard Pacific) to Dai Woodham’s yard instead of its intended final destination by altering the paperwork.
@Graham H
(15th Feb)
” 64 part* *”Spem in alium” anyone?”
Spem is only 40 – I overlooked the comment at the time as I was singing Alessandro Striggio’s Mass for 60 voices. (I’m doing Spem next week)
@Alan R
” Inter City service (Padd – Worcester – Hereford) 150 miles to Hereford.”
I can’t work up much sympathy I’m afraid. Worcester gets a London train every hour, and Hereford five a day. Over on the other side of the country a city, similar to Worcester both in size and distance from London, (and twice as big as Hereford) gets one* direct London train a night (arrives after supper time, goes back at the crack of dawn). Theoretical journey times similar to those to Worcester, but you are at the mercy of connections.
*a second one doesn’t really count, as in both directions the other one overtakes it!
@Graham H
I really wasn’t asking for sympathy. The unattractive (slow) service to
Paddington doesn’t bother me much as I nearly always travel to London via Birmingham – Euston. So do others, which is my point. In addition, I find that regular business travellers to London from my village have generally transferred to Chiltern, driving to Warwick Parkway or Leamington Spa. It isn’t just Worcester, this line connects three county towns, total pop c 210k, 4 other significant population centres c 100k in catchment area. My observation, on the relatively few times I use the service, is : lonely west of Moreton in Marsh, deserted (almost) west of Evesham. Didn’t used to be like this, but has got slower and more expensive. Don’t think the additional through trains in off peak have compensated for worsened peak hour service. The question of connecting regional centres with the capital is a matter of national transport specification. All county towns (or equivalent) should be well connected to the nation’s capital, to promote national economic cohesiveness, and I propose that mile a minute timings (which were achievable by steam traction pre WW1) are the very minimum required for any longer regional to capital connecting service to have credibility. Some of the Paddington – Hereford HST timings are less than 50mph! The very slowest trains barely achieve 40mph. in 2016!!
I am not banging the drum for ill-treated Herefordshire peasantry,
this is not in the national interest(?) A Failed train service = excess pollution, congestion etc etc.
@Graham H
Just done more research. You are clearly referring to LINCOLN.
Through trains sadly lacking, but good availability of connections all day long offering journey time to London of less than two hours (or a bit more than two) . London – Hereford is THREE (or so) therefore av speeds Lincoln – London c75mph, Hereford c 50mph. If Lincoln journey times were extended by 50% I bet business would drop like a stone. I rest my case. I well remember research by Chief Passenger Manager BRB HQ in 1970s that indicated a “speed elasticity of demand” of UNITY. Works both ways, increase times by 50% you lose 50% of business (everything else remaining constant ) This was certainly used in speed improvement investment scheme business cases. Does this still apply? Is there any more recent research that countermands it?
@AR – I think it was timbeau, rather than me that was handing out the draught of sympathy!
@timbeau – “Spem” -it was a joke by exaggeration, but never mind – I am impressed (a) that you got it, and (b) that you are actually performing in it.
You are right about sentimentality playing a part in vehicle preservation – LU management has a particularly good record in squirrelling away historic items in the guise of works vehicles although they don’t always then make into preservation later. (I’m thinking of things like Met 23, the Rothschilds saloon, and some of the very early tube stock,with L8 and L9 as near misses…)
@Graham H
Sorry, must concentrate harder, and not attempt anything intellectually challenging until I have had my morning fix of caffeine. Please re-direct to Timbeau.
There is a more basic point to make (with significance to this topic).It just can’t be a good business model to have a lengthy service to a capital city with multiple stops at smallish communities. The business (load factors) must strengthen the nearer you get to the capital. Therefore, a viable load factor is theoretically unachievable, unless the last 40 miles or so is at 200% (to compensate for the fresh air conveyed on first 40 miles of run). To get the solid load factors (40% and upwards for whole service) services need to be divided between fast and semi-fast). It is possible to get desired load factors on long runs serving smaller communities, so demand is balanced out and can be handled with (say) a 2 or 3 car DMU. There are quite a few of these, especially on GWT. The ideal passenger rail business proposition is a balanced (bi-directional) end to end load, without daily peak or seasonal excess demand. A “Holy Grail” which , I suspect will inspire many a quest for many years to come!
(Euston – Manchester used to be close, except for bank holiday panic).
Further aside;
“Sentimentality playing a part in vehicle preservation”.
Not supposed to for a PUBLIC museum activity, which is supposed to be justified by its educational value, educational status being the criteria for eligibility as a charity. Private collectors can be as sentimental as they like.
PoP
The cost of a suicide on the railway often reaches six figures or more ….
Really? £100, 000 + ??
How much of this is “actual” cost & how much “attributed” costs … if only because of the fragmentation of what was, previously a “single” operation?
[ again ]
AR
All county towns (or equivalent) should be well connected to the nation’s capital, IIRC Northallerton is the “county town for N Yorkshire (!) Um.
Buckingham? No rail service since 1964(?)
Admittedly, Buckingham is hardly more than a big village ….
Agree re. utterly disgraceful timings to Worcester/Hereford.
2016: 205 minutes to Hereford 1922: 190 minutes
It’s all the fiddling intermediate stops, for all services between Oxford & Worcester that do it … It is to be hoped, that now the line is re-doubled, there will be a separation of “slow/local” [ = Oxford – Worcester/Hereford ] from London services.
If not why not, given the commercial considerations spoken of?
Graham H
Surely the best example of “accidental” preservation was H N Gresley’s of “Old No 1” – carefully put at the back of “Top Shed” under dust-sheets to avoid the scrap-metal hunters during WWI?
Any other services, that people can find that are slower than 94 years ago?
Seriously, this is disgraceful.
Greg Tingey,
There is an easy solution to speed up journeys so that all are faster than 94 years ago. Locate the journeys that are slower and then close those lines. Hey Presto! An improved railway service (by your criteria). The realistic choice is often a slower service or no service. I know which I prefer. In any case it is meaningful without taking into account frequency. One fast train per day is not generally regarded as an improvement over a semi-fast train every 15 minutes. It wouldn’t surprise me if, by your criteria, Brighton (at least 8 trains per hour today) is, in your eyes, worse off than many years ago.
Also, be aware of situations where trains ran slow to X then fast to London. In the passing years the operating pattern has changed – maybe for the better – but individual stations such as X are worse off. This is not a disgrace and I will offer no sympathy if someone tells me that Gravesend got a better service in 1919 than it has today (which, apart from anything else, would be ignoring HS1).
Graham H,
LU management has a particularly good record in squirrelling away historic items in the guise of works vehicles although they don’t always then make into preservation later.
Nowadays there is no need to bother. It is one of the required objectives, enshrined in law, for TfL to preserve its heritage where realistically possible. They can do it openly. Indeed, they are more likely to be queried if it they don’t do it.
timbeau,
As has been done at Earlsfield.
I am a bit mystified as to why you single out Earlsfield. I can think of loads of places on Southern alone and I am pretty sure this is done on the Great Western Main Line and West Coast Main Line. I did hear that it is quite effective and produces results.
The county Town of Bucks is Aylesbury, not Buckingham
@Greg Tingey “slower than 94 years ago”
To a significant degree, it’s a question of be careful what you wish for.
In the case of the London – Worcester/Hereford, there is no doubt that recovery time has been inflated substantially. No doubt that is an unfortunate effect of improvements in Passenger compensation for delays. What might people prefer ? ( if given a choice) Faster trains but no delay compensation?
No doubt, GWT have performed risk analysis assessments of incidence of delay compensation payments on single lines, and have calculated that they are better off by inflating schedules. I can also report experience of number of “termination shorts”, enabling a set to return to London on time. (and short starts, Worcester instead of Hereford, when this happens, hapless passengers are just told “train cancelled” take next one). The Hereford commuters’ life is not a happy one. In addition to that GWT have long regarded the Oxford – Worcester line as suitable for conducting driver training. I caught them out a few years ago, trainee driver practicing entering stations, the “Cathedrals” arrived Great Malvern 40 late in consequence, Furious letter sent to FGW (as was) made them squirm and grovel in their reply as they knew I had “got” them. This sort of thing is why I have mostly deserted this service. (Never happened when Sir Peter Parker travelled in from Charlbury!).
The question of “Slower than 94 years ago is tricky (apples v oranges and grapefruit etc) . Certainly Kent Coast used to have remarkable fast trains to Cannon St (and back again) running to” gentleman’s hours. Certainly faster than today’s “conventional” service, but HS1 is faster. Hastings might be another contender (SER Hastings “car train”). Another possible is the “club trains” on the Midland from Morecambe to Bradford (plus another originating on Furness). These must have been faster than today’s offering , a DREADED Pacer!
Can’t imagine any Bradford Wool Barons of yore being happy with that.
Greg,
Really? £100, 000 + ??
How much of this is “actual” cost & how much “attributed” costs
I strongly suspect that the attributed costs are a reflection on the actual costs based on lost productivity, value of people leisure time etc. Actually I suspect this is at the low end.
The cost of delays in the Blackwall tunnel (high vehicle gets stuck for instance) is typically costed out at well over £¼ million. You don’t have a TV but if you did you did would have probably seen at past programme on TfL and the fact that they (actually their contractors paid for by TfL) have a maintenance crew on 24 hour standby by the Blackwall Tunnel – such is the cost of delays to the economy.
There are also the tough targets now given to police forces to open motorways after a collision or other incident where the penalties for not doing this as promptly as reasonably possible. Yes, I know it is all wooden dollars but it focuses minds wonderfully not only on reopening as soon as possible whenever possible and also on targetting vehicles and drivers likely to be the cause of such expensive delay.
PoP etc. Cost of suicides. Some years ago, LU was looking at whether there could be a safety case for fitting platform edge doors (rather than as a means to enable driverless operation (NTfL) or to reduce draughts (JLE)). The accumulated actual and social cost is considerable:
The statistical value of a life saved (ignoring the chance that the poor victim might do the deed elsewhere) – last time I looked it was £1.4m
The Lost Customer Hours for what is generally a 1 to 2 hour delay plus dislocation of the service for the rest of the day.
The value of the emotional harm for the witnesses – especially the train driver, who is often off sick for a long time and some never return to driving.
I have probably missed some of the factors especially non railway ones, but the point is that the cost to society of a single suicide on the railway is greatly in excess of £100k.
@PoP
“Attributed costs of delays” lost productivity, leisure time etc.
This is possibly the most contentious issue of all (?). An assumed (high) value of car driver’s time has been used as justification of untold billions expended on allowing cars to go faster. With some highly questionable real results, having failed to take into account delays generated over wider network, and effect on pedestrians (not assumed to value their time). I challenged a friend of mine employed in a County Council Highways dept about the legitimacy of this.
He accepted that “it’s all rubbish, really” but was justifiable simply as a basis of RANKING OF SCHEMES, Identification and prioritisation of almost infinite list of competing possibilities.
Graham H may be able to confirm my impression that the Dft was determined to ban any attempt at time cost benefit analysis in support of BR investment schemes, fearful that all the nonsense would be exposed. Clearly, there must be a cost incurred by any interruption to service. Whether a claimed amount would stand up under eagle eye of auditors is another thing. Also, of course, when there is no contract paying delay compensation to users, then there is nothing to submit as cost to infrastructure owner.
@Alan Robinson – the shocking case of slow “express trains” is GWML – best time in 1938 1hr 45; best time tomorrow 1.hr 39; admittedly,you now have the additional pleasure of calling at some unwanted places en route,but a 6 minute gain on your principal market after 75 years of progress is absurd.A pity that steam traction was so expensive…
Portsmouth and Guildford dawdling highly commended also….
More seriously, on the question of investment appraisal,the cash v CBA argument was frequently played out in the department – at that time, the main practical difference was in relation to station upgrades. I doubt that that would be so now. The real difficulty with applying CBA to the national network was that you ended up chucking money at InterCity (lots of time gains) and NSE (high volumes) and took it away from Regional (neither).
@PoP -but in today’s brave new world, delays on the national network have indeed become monetised and are indeed taken into account in investment appraisal. Of course, the economic valuation of the delay isn’t what’s used,it’s the cash value generated by the contractual matrix – a very different number.
@Graham H
It’s all coming back now, dimly. I remember a presentation/lecture (might have been the RSA) in 222 Marylebone Rd 1982ish (?).
We had a rep from the Dft (wasn’t you) talking about railway investment (and taking a provocative “party line” that investing in UK railways is a waste of public money, because the industry is in natural terminal decline (you’ve heard it before).
As I recall, the Dft rep was soundly “grilled” by likes of myself. One of the interesting things revealed concerned attitude to CBA. The Dft rep was most dismissive of CBA to rail schemes, stating that road schemes would always show a much better return. We countered with the fact that Rail schemes have a sound financial return in the submission, on a commercial rate of return basis on bottom line (otherwise could not be submitted), and if a CBA analysis value was added to the “hard” financial return, the combined result would be stunning , way ahead of most road schemes. This was dismissed, totally as quite unacceptable to Dft, prompting response; why not?
Prodded away, but couldn’t get him to budge. As you state , if the CBA excludes financial effects, then Regional doesn’t score. Add the two together and you get a different picture.
Re station capacity, buried deep in the Wessex route study is a proposal to build a new platform 9 at Vauxhall, outside the down main slow, so that P7/8 will be for used for up direction trains only…
@Greg Tingey (second time today – apologies)
Northallerton is certainly better connected to London than it used to be – I commute on GC services regularly – in addition, there are many more frequent EC stops there than previously since a recent timetable change…
Surely to compare journey times a century ago and now is indeed pointless as it is indeed comparing apples and pears?
– more trains now in terms of frequency and absolute numbers vying for paths
– much smaller network which reduces opportunities for fast trains to overtake slow trains or be routed differently
– more stops which is a correct reaction to public demand which makes travelling by train more attractive when in the past these stops might have been closed to speed up fast services.
Furthermore the long period of underinvestment and decline from say the war to pretty much the start of this century has resulted in a 21st century reliance on archaic forms of signalling, restricting growth, and in the case of the south, an inefficient power system that physically limits speed.
Also without actually building new lines, in the form of strategic bypasses or entire new runs, surely that is our ultimate brake on speed? For example, the SE lines from Victoria/Blackfriars to Bromley South. There’s minimal quad tracking, and stoppers and fasts have to share. Without all stations services the inner suburban routes aren’t viable, and the outer ones can’t be sped up much more without losing the stoppers. OR appropriate new bypasses.
@Anonymous -let me give you a prescription for Dr Hewett’s patent irony pills.
@Alan Robinson – not quite. You must avoid double counting – you can take the benefits in increased revenue (eg from speed or frequency) or you can take them in economic benefits (eg time saved) but not both.
@Graham H
Ahaaaa! The party line is still being maintained!
I don’t see why you can’t have have both. If the PUBLIC invests in something (doesn’t just apply to transport, could be anything). IF there is a discernible commercial dimension, i.e. a bottom line. Then TOTAL public benefit must comprise the bottom line (real money) effect together with the “externalities” (funny money). I interpret this ruling as follows; Road schemes do not have a bottom line (would do if tolled as per the M6 bypass which is a failure commercially). SO the Department of ROADS (AKA known as Dtp in past) is a “jealous god”. Public transport schemes which presented both benefits would triumph!! But, I say:- and why not?
There is a great deal more to economic benefits than just time saved,
just as there is a great deal more to consider in financial benefits than revenue increase. It’s all quite complicated. Many economic benefits can not be recovered from public transport system users, such as reducing pollution and congestion and stimulating dense urbanity and associated commercial development.
@AR – no,it’s mere logic – I fear you have misunderstood the basis of economic benefits. They are the benefits that cannot be or have not been taken as a revenue stream. Their value reflects what people are supposed to be willing to pay for them,it’s just that they aren’t charged for them. In the case of financial benefits, the punters’ willingness to pay has actually been realised. Take for example, the financial benefits of speed – these are,if you wish, reflected in higher fares and a higher revenue stream. If you do not charge higher fares, then you can claim that there are economic benefits to the punters and which are left in their hands to their benefit. But you cannot claim for both:in the higher fares case there is an enhanced revenue stream to be counted;in the samefares case, there are the economic benefits instead. This is not, as you seem to think, right wing ideology, nor DfT dogma, but merely economics.
@Graham H
Sorry, No! No! No! The economic benefits I am referring to are THIRD PARTY. Can’t possibly be recovered from users in higher fares, because it’s got absolutely nothing to do with them. If , due to improved public transport service, an individual abandons car commuting and uses the public transport facility, then there is a discernible benefit to public interest. Surely, you can’t surely charge someone for reducing pollution, I would say, reward is more appropriate (cheap fares to maximise pollution reduction?)
There really is such a thing as the public good, or the common good etc, quite divorced from aspiration of private individuals.
The appointed goevrnment is the body charged with identifying the opportunities to further the public good, and present to the electorate as a recommended programme.
In the 19th cent, Private Enterprise funded railways . Governments did not calculate the “external benefits” these private investments conferred on the public good, but were very much aware that they existed , in concept. Railways were promoted to parliament in terms of “will benefit trade”. It was not thought appropriate to compensate companies as reward for publicly beneficial investment (mostly, there was some, I have discovered that many rural branch lines and light railways in the 1880s and 1890s were part funded with land development grants, a Victorian stimulus spend). Parliament was mostly just jolly glad that private individuals were risking their capital in the public interest (if it worked).
This is what (I think) government never got their head around;-
When the said infrastructure (new railway) is publicly owned, then the public benefit from both aspects, the bottom line (assuming it is a genuinely viable scheme) and the public benefit to “trade”. (economic growth = higher tax revenues).
The sad truth is that for many years , road schemes were progressed on the basis that a supposedly substantial benefit, to the individual, very often the company car driver, whose time was valuable, could not be recovered, so the taxpayer paid for this benefit to the individual instead (jolly nice of them).
I maintain that with both benefits taken into consideration, a very different priority might have emerged.
@Alan , dear Alan, in the nicest possible way, I wouldn’t, if I were you, opine on matters where you haven’t been involved. I really don’t need lessons in economics and appraisal techniques, having been responsible for putting together both financial and economic cases (which of course involved third party benefits which cannot be directly recovered) for roads, railways, and even shipping, as well as non-transport schemes. I’m sorry to sound tetchy but so far,you have spent your time slagging off DTp as the department for roads (not true if you had actually worked there and seen how money was allocated), and talking about “jealous gods” and other such stuff besides giving me an incorrect lecture in economic benefits,as well as making wholly unfounded remarks about how highways are appraised and Victorian railways were funded .
Please can we get AR and GH on stage together in a couple of comfy chairs with their favourite tipple, and then sell tickets for the rest of us?
Re Alan and Greg,
Yet again you seem to be forgetting there is now a larger commuter market for stations closer to London hence more frequent and stopping services to London. The revenue flows in nicely from the daily commuters of the Chipping Norton set rather better than more occasional business travellers from Hereford etc.
Times have changed.
IEP will bring few timing improvements though.
100+ 30
SECONDED!
Provided we also get some beer, or other suitable liquid(s) supplied.
Could be very good fun.
Particularly if we take notes, for using on recalcitrant politicans & the DtP later (!)
@Alan R
I was comparing Lincoln to Worcester, which is about the same size and distance from London. Hereford is further away and much smaller. In theory journey times to Worcester and Lincoln are similar, but connections are a real turn-off. As for journeys taking 50% longer, any regular user of the route is all too familiar with the journey taking nearer three hours than the scheduled two because one or other operator (both currently Stagecoach in reality, despite the branding on the ECML) has not honoured the connection – prompt arrival of the connecting service at its destination being apparently more important than prompt arrival of the people intending to use it.
Connections are a real turn-off, and the timings of the sole direct train are not likely to attract the tourists unless the city’s night life is a much bigger attraction than I realised. (arrive Lincoln 2102, depart next morning at 0730)
(Indeed, even the train doesn’t spend the night there, but incurs 150 miles of dead mileage to Leeds and back- it’s almost as if they are trying to make the service uneconomic)
The Grimsby/Cleethorpes conurbation is even bigger, (and is a county town these days) and has no direct trains to London at all.
Note also that some of the connections are via Retford, for which a higher fare is charged for the dubious privilege of a 25 mile detour on a Pacer.
@Greg
“Any other services, that people can find that are slower than 94 years ago?”
The Shepperton line was electrified 100 years ago last month. Estate agents advertised it as being “40 minutes from Waterloo”. Most trains today do it in 56, although two morning peak services manage 51 by changing at Twickenham
@GH
““Spem” – I am impressed you are actually performing in it.”
After twenty performances, you do start to know your way around it!
@poP
“I am a bit mystified as to why you single out Earlsfield.”
I am aware that similar measures have been taken at many other stations, but Earlsfield was the location of Friday’s incident.
@100andthirty 🙂 Not the “comfy chair”! (I thought we’d done the Spanish Inquisition jokes earlier in the month).
@timbeau – 20, eh!? That must constitute a largeish percentage of all the performances of that work in recent years. Even so, things are looking up – in my youth, a performance was a once in generation thing – usually by King’s College choir, if you were lucky.
Alan and Graham:
Reminicences: fine and welcome
Opinions about railway financing: fine
Statements which could be taken by the other as personal aspersions (even if not so intended): less welcome.
As for the stage encounter: please don’t cast me as referee!
@Malcolm – Quite
Graham H. In the circumstances I suggested, I think you and AR would be the inquisitors!
Ah well, no one expects us …
@timbeau
It’s as simple as this:-
When I moved to Malvern TWO IC (HST) trains to London in peak and TWO back. They took about 2hrs and 5mins each way. They were popular (quite full) . The second IC to London (about 07.20) could be used on cheap day returns (about £12.00) Now, the same IC (HST) service takes about 30 mins longer and costs about £80 return.
The RPI index suggests that 1991 – present is plus 91%, therefore the
1992 fare of £12.00 should be £23.00. Result, empty trains (all eight carriages of them) west of Evesham). This, I submit is NOT GOOD !
@Graham H
OhBoyohboyohboyohboy!11
I suggest this matter could be settled democratically.
Never mind about economic appraisal and stuff (although I do posess a degree in the subject from London University) and have been
involved in investment appraisals in respect of the Provincial/Regional sectors and the PTES contained within them.
I certainly would not wish this dispute to degenerate into any disreputable “slagging off” (leave that sort of thing to politicians).
I will simply appeal to all LR readers/contributors;- please respond.
Who thinks ir is appropriate for direct financial and external benefits to be aggregated together when evaluating transport investments funded publicly, and who thinks that this suggestion is nonsense?
Lets have a tally, come on now, let’s hear from you.
Let’s get away from Railways etc for a moment;-
AIRPORT POLICY : It is held that we need to provide enhanced airport capability for London because it will “BENEFIT TRADE” just like the 19th cent railway proposals. Therefore there is an EXTERNAL BENEFIT. But : Airports are supposed to be profitable.
Does anybody seriously that the profitability potential of whatever is adopted will be disregarded , NO NO NO , It will be added to the “externals” of course. Railways should be no different.
Re incentives for re opening roads after accident. I believe it followed an incident a few years ago (at least 10) on the A4 near Hammersmith. After an accident the Police decided to close the A4 for nearly 8 hours so they could properly record skid marks to aid a prosecution. The resulting gridlock was infamous, with most of West London out to the M25, locked solid well into the evening. After that I believe words were exchanged at a ministerial level.
Alan: I think your question may have got to the hub of the recent misunderstandings between you and Graham.
If a section of track on which trains carrying two different categories of passengers is to be upgraded (say Perth to Inverness), then it seems to me to be perfectly OK to add the increased fares paid by London-Inverness grouse-shooters, and the (uncashed) benefits to local travellers (whose fares cannot be increased for social reasons). I think this is the sort of addition you had in mind. What Graham may have understood you to be advocating, though, was adding the increased grouse-shooter fares to the monetised benefits of the grouse-shooters’ time. Clearly not on.
So your question is unclear as you do not define exactly which benefits are to be “aggregated together”, and appropriateness depends on that.
But let’s move on a bit…
@GH “a largeish percentage of all the performances of that work in recent years”
Not so recent: my first was 26 years ago
“usually by King’s College choir”
KCL is who I’m helping out this time (but I suspect you meant some provincial establishment!) Dragging this kicking and screaming back onto a transport-related topic, the work was first performed at Arundel House, where Aldwych Tube station now stands.
@Graham H
I am prepared to accept your challenge (I take your casting of nasturtions re my professional expertise as constituting glove in face)
At Dawn, location to be determined;-
I get to choose the weapon;-
PTE GRANT CLAIMS (WHICH I CAN SUPPLY)
Heavy and Bulky, and quite lethal when aimed expertly.
@Malcolm/AR – quite so, all the public sector investment cases I’ve seen have been a mixture of cash and economic benefits and of course they should be aggregated, the only problem is avoiding double counting.
@timbeau – Yes, KC Cambridge definitely a parvenu college.
@ Alan Robinson & Graham H & others
We still don’t have an answer to “what is the railway for?”
When we do, we can discuss techniques for choosing between competing projects.
My starting point would be that the railway is the ‘handmaid of commerce’. It makes an offer to the transport market for people and goods.
The buyers evaluate that offer and buy (or not) accordingly.
To make the offer, the railway needs a good understanding of its direct costs and an appreciation of the benefits it offers its customers.
Interventions by the public policy tribe need to be thoroughly thought through.
‘External’ (to the railway) costs and benefits can be monetised to some extent but such techniques are necessarily imperfect.
The railway should accrue a “project pot” from positive cash flow from operations, after maintenance.
Projects should be ranked according to direct costs and estimated benefits over a reasonably foreseeable horizon (5-15 years).
My second point is that, in current circumstances, there are external financiers who march to the beat of a different drum. These ‘policymakers’ provide finance with public policy strings.
To the extent that they provide committed finance with understandable strings, they are welcome. To the extent that the finance is uncertain or the strings are not understandable, great care is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Dawlish, is absolutely right to warn of the dangers of double counting. I understand the strength of feeling expressed by the honourable representative from Malvern, drawing on experience.
My vote is for Graham H.
@Malcolm
May I respectfully suggest that you too have misunderstood what I am
getting at. Absolutely nothing to do with any assumed benefit to an individual. Transport is GOOD. Better transport is GOOD, it benefits society, i.e. the public good, national interest. etc. This is what I mean by “benefits trade”. This may or not be quantified.
However, I experienced this “brick wall” moment whereby a Dtp rep said it was “either or or” Commercial rate of return or quantified external benefit. In all my experience with Provincial/Regional only
internal financial benefits were taken into account. “At a commercial rate of return in terms of improvement to bottom line and therefore PSO”. Graham seemed to be taking this firm line “either or” but , in his recent post “all the public sector investment cases I’ve seen have been a mixture of cash and economic benefits”. seems to accord with my suggestion as appropriate. but it was certainly NOT the case in 1980s. Unless Graham H can point to any evidence otherwise).
BR investments were evaluated on internal (bottom line) only.
I don’t know how it is now, perhaps somebody with current experience can enlighten. SOME PTE schemes were evaluated by the PTE on external benefit, but in BR we had no involvement with this.
(They were seeking funding from all sorts of different sources).
@Alan: yes, I may be misunderstanding you. I certainly do not understand how anything can benefit society, the public good, the national interest, without benefitting individuals.
I do accept that when trying to quantify benefits to this ‘public good’, the approach of analysing which individuals will benefit, and by how much, could be tricky.
Transport does tend to be GOOD, as you put it. But only because people want to move about, or to have things moved for them. If a particular group of yellow-robed monks happens to prefer to stay at home, and live off local produce, it’s not up to us to tell them “Get moving: transport is GOOD”.
As for your dtp rep, he presumably thought (as Graham did) that you were trying to count your cake both before and after eating. Obviously you know you had no such intentions, but I presume he did not.
For the most part, BR investment cases made sense financially and there was no need to invoke economic benefits (that was the point of the PSO grant – it was only necessary to prove that you were better off with the scheme), with the grant being a proxy for economic benefits,* although we sometimes faced investment cases that required a mix of both. the problem was that the advocates of such schemes weren’t very good at identifying the economic benefits. Even for disinvestment cases such as Settle-Carlisle, we ended up having to invent the economic benefits ourselves because no one else would or could.
*Yes, of course, we didn’t undertake a formal economic appraisal of the PSO block grant – a task that would probably be impossible even today, but we did justify it in economic terms. Politically,we would have been reluctant to put too much flesh on that, for the reasons I set out in an earlier post – it would have reshaped the railway network in ways that few would have liked. Sleeping dogs and all that.
@Malcolm
We are departing from a strictly transport brief now and entering the terrifying murky world of political thought. I don’t recommend we go any further (will cause upset). Simply to say. that, from my studies, the public (or national) interest is not simply the aggregate of individuals’ interest.
Rather, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (I did warn you). i.e. Individuals are subject to the public good, which may conflict. The most extreme example is being conscripted to fight a war. (and getting killed).
Libertarian types will disagree. (?) (stop here!).
I could quote Plato. Aristotle, Hobbes, Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and a few more). Adam Smith is my hero. (read what he had to say on the virtue of public funding of desirable infrastructure that could not obtain an adequate rate of return for private investors).
@Graham H
Pleased that we have both calmed down. I agree. the whole thing is a minefield. I just tend to feel that over much of the 20th cent roads have been favoured. Of course, once BR had disgraced itself with the failure of the 1955 modernisation plan, perhaps it would have been asking too much to get a truly objective assessment of the shambles that remained.
I’m not sure that references to “irony pills” are particularly useful and help only to alienate those who may not be as experienced or well informed on transport matters as some of the people on this forum. Are we here to discuss London transport issues or to demonstrate how clever we are to each other?
But as the mods point out,we are not here to slap insults around either .
@AnotherAnonymous
Of course this site is to discuss London’s transport. However over the past few years, I have gleaned that some of the regulars are not just knowledgable but collectively have an amazing breadth of relevant experience and dare I say more than a smidgin of (no doubt painfully acquired) wisdom. Just because the discussion may appear to veer off into the philosophy underlying the economics beneath the forecasting and accounting arguments presented to he politicians….. and in the words of the King of Siam “et ctera, et cetera, et cetera” don’t be put off, just watch and learn.
As to how the decisions are actually made, “Is a puzzlement”.
@AR – in fact, the annual public expenditure round in DTp throughout the ’70s and ’80s was characterised by trimming back spend on highways to protect local transport and BR.Timeand again,Ministers of allstripes were only too willing to trade highways for other spend. By the mid-80s there was hardly any new capex for highways at all.The culmination came when we ceased to have a chief highways engineer and the Director general of Highways was a career administrator.
It’s interesting to see the way that franchise spend is handled for this purpose and even more interesting (and alarming ) to see the way that addons to franchise offers aren’t being justified /prioritised in either financial or economic terms.
Back on thread, there will be a further issue -if ever the PAC is clever enough – about the way in which TfL justifies changes to its expenditure compared with what was spent by DfT on the preceding franchises.
So ‘devolving’ now includes outright sale of major assets, including those which have just had massive amounts of cash spent on them. I believe the line is “Show me the money!” ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/network-rail-earmarks-18-major-stations-for-privatisation-in-bid-to-tackle-debt-a6886551.html
The key point is that everyone here thinks that the topic is important and worthy of reasoned discussion. In the event that comment becomes immoderate, the moderators do their stuff. It seems to work most of the time. ‘Nuff said.
Is this a private argument or can anyone join in?
@Graham H
“KC Cambridge definitely a parvenu college.”
KCC may be provincial, but can hardly be called parvenu
The K in KCC is Henry VI – founded in 1441, contemporary with Gutenberg
The K in KCL is George IV (as it is in Kings Cross) – founded in 1829, contemporary with Stephenson’s Rocket.
@AW
“Experts and ministers think that managing these stations has distracted Network from its main task of making sure the track works properly and safely.”
Why not just put the goalposts on castors.
@Graham H
Thanks for insight. I am thinking more of the late fifties and sixties, when so much of our provincial urbanity was flattened to make way for huge US style road schemes. This happened to Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds (proudly self described as the Motorway city of the1970s). I well remember purchasing both the Beeching report and the Buchanan report in 1963 (they are both in my bookshelf behind me as I type this). Buchanan is still very valid. His brief was to suggest how to increase road capacity and effectiveness, but came to what was probably (at the time) an unwelcome conclusion;- The absolute necessity of maintaining public transport , so that cars did not account for more than 50% of modal split (it went beyond quite soon in many cities). At about same time, Beeching proposed the elimination of ALL stopping services outside London. The phrase “lack of joined up thinking” hadn’t entered the vocabulary at that time , but that was what it was. It got to me (still does). I was very pleased to play a part in the revival of Local train services in the conurbations under PTE auspices, which as you say, did constitute something of a reversal. I think that the current extraordinary popularity of rail commuting (and generally) could not have happened without the good foundation provided in last days of BR.
@Nameless – indeed, there’s no consensus even amongst experts on how to value economic benefits or whether to prioritise financial over economic benefits. In the end,it depends on whether you think (as most UK politicians think) that economies should be managed on the basis of monetary aggregates or on the basis of economic benefits. I guess most people would answer that there are compromises to be made – and what Alan and I have been edging around is the nature of that compromise – politically, of course,the precise balance has shifted in recent decades.
Decision-making? Even the Treasury doesn’t understand how that works in other departments – about a dozen years ago, faced with yet another demand from Manchester to extend Metrolink, the Treasury proposed a consultancy study into Manchester’s (and DfT’s) rationale for bringing forward and approving the scheme. There was much discussion in the consultancy trade at the time as to whether it was (a) possible, and (b) wise to pitch for the project.In the end, the Treasury didn’t receive any acceptable bids and left matters alone.
@Nameless
Transport is politics to a large degree. I agree, we can’t just discuss high level economics and politics all the time. But it’s just not totally inescapable either. Although LR is about London, London is not entirely isolated from UK transport policy as whole. I submit to wisdom of Moderators, if “over the top” cut, cut, cut.
@timbeau -as recently as 1441, eh? Some establishments are a good deal older than that. (Peterhouse 1284)
@Nameless – not merely on castors. Some us recall that the “hidden treasure” alleged to be locked in stations was behind Heseltine’s intervention in the privatisation process which added the main stations to railtrack’s portfolio, to enable them to realise all this value. What goes around easily comes around on castors…
A propos the difficulty of valuing non-user benefits for the purposes of investment, readers may be amused/shocked/irritated to see the statement today from John Cridland, who is in charge of the Northern Task Force, to the effect that the Northern Powerhouse infrastructure programme is a “leap of faith” and that he has no way of demonstrating that it will generate the jobs and growth claimed. To mention HS2 would be simply indecent…
Graham H,
Sometimes you just have to do it. Many years ago a lot of research was done into how managing directors of commercial companies went about decision making. They got the business analysis and read it for sure but the conclusion was that at the end of the day they went with their gut reaction – or “leap of faith” as we would call it.
Business analysis definitely has its place. In particular to score the benefits of one similar project against another but sometimes you have have to go beyond that – i.e. cycle superhighways.
I don’t think Noah or Steve Jobs were overconcerned by business analysis yet it did them no harm (in the latter case perhaps he should have taken medical analysis more seriously).
@PoP – point taken although it is probably a special case of Napoleon’s remark about one of his generals, on being told how good he was “Yes, but is he lucky?” For every Noah (he had to rely on poor forecasting) or Jobs, there’s a thousand Sinclairs we never hear about, obviously, not to mention the long list of political leaders who had a “vision” and who have vanished without trace.
Having worked in both the public and the private sectors, I would agree with you about business leaders going all too often on “gut” instinct – the unnecessary and failed acquisitions, the new product launches that flopped, and so on. Fortunately for us all, it’s only the shareholders’ money that’s at stake there.
Graham says “Fortunately for us all, it’s only the shareholders’ money that’s at stake there.”
Unfortunately for an increasing fraction of us, our thrusting (and undefined-benefit) pension providers are prominent among those shareholders…
[See moderator’s note at the end of this message.]
@Graham
“Business Leaders” This , in my humble opinion is the problem.
Just as the “unseen hand of market forces” requires a multiplicity (effectively infinite) of buyers and sellers, so does enterprise. “Monopolies” of enterprise, i.e. tycoons or “business leaders” are the antithesis of a market economy, whereby decision making should surely be as disaggregated and impersonal as possible.
If we were really serious about combating monopoly and promoting markets, then we would laws that restrain individual share ownership to (say) no more than 2% of any one enterprise, and above all. an end to the disgraceful confiscation of individual’s shares owned by means of a takeover bid. This has happened to me five times now, and, am I mad, I didn’t want to relinquish them, and as far as I am concerned, they were my personal property. (and so on).
By same token, no one trade union should be able to act as agent for more than 2% of workforce. The basic theme is that individual prominence is dangerous and likely to fail, collective enterprise better, and I mean a collective private enterprise. Better than a company (in original true sense) than a king.
[I have left Alan’s words untouched, after seriously considering deleting the whole message. All this is interesting, but has moved out of London Reconnections’ scope. Would readers please refrain from commenting. Discussion on the transport impact, particularly in and around London of this area of economics and politics can continue. Malcolm]
[conjectural and rude comment about particular police action snipped. Malcolm]
AR
Adam Smith is my hero. (read what he had to say on the virtue of public funding of desirable infrastructure that could not obtain an adequate rate of return for private investors).
Precisely
The so-called Adam Smith Institute & the IEA carefully pretend not to acknowledge that Adam Smith ever said or wrote such a thing, don’t they?
And, as we all know, they are wrong.
Um
Alison/ Nameless
This proposal seems totally Upney & rapidly-heading towards Upminster Bdg …
I presume these private companies will install their own “security” guards, deep joy (!) & prohibit photography & rip us all off & … err …
As Graham H (& others) talking about goalposts-on-castors don’t actually say, but do imply:
It didn’t work last time, indeed failed utterly disastrously, so let’s just give it another go shall we?
Also, of course this is entirely political & dogma-driven, with zero connection to what we laughingly call “reality”.
[Let’s refrain from any further comment about proposals to remove some responsibilities from Network Rail until and unless there is firmer evidence of them being taken seriously by anyone in a position to make them happen. Malcolm]
Back on topic but with a small risk of crayonism. It would be of interest to the LR fraternity/sorority to understand the cost and complexity of turning the busiest South London routes into Tube-style high frequency services. We have had tantalising glimpses in previous articles on Herne Hill, East Croydon and Clapham Junction.
@Malcolm
Point Taken : However, you do say that “discussion on the transport impact, particularly in and around London” can continue;-
‘Ere we go;- Given that it is proposed (suggested?) that the scope of the Greater London Transport should be extended, is it really a good idea for so much power to be vested (?) in one powerful individual, the Mayor (Boris). I tend more to the view that a collective wisdom on a committee (or corporation in old days) is a better (safer) proposition than a powerful mayor. OK, if we do appoint a mayor, how much executive decision making should reside with this individual? PTEs (with overall control by a PTA) were carefully designed (in the legislation) to try and avoid domination by a powerful personality (though this has been known).
I rather think that LBM is able to report that a powerful mayor with executive control did produce alarming results in Toronto. Could happen here.
Or, Have I over-emphasised the Mayor’s powers?
This is what prompted my initial concern over the extension of the Overground, apparently to territory outwith Greater London. The combination of a strong Mayor driven body determining services outwith of that Mayoral electoral franchise raises alarm bells with me. (Could cause a rumpus).
Alison at 2137 on 21 February
The picture, captioned St Pancras, is blatantly London Waterloo.
We would do well to remember that this is the deal that was done to keep electrification a-live (pun intended).
It is an instance of my point elsewhere that public financiers need careful handling. I would be interested to hear from those name-checking stations at the eastern end of the District line how they propose funding the current work programme.
Sir Peter Hendy noted in an interview with ‘Rail Review’ that “The brewery has been locked up – now we’d better sober up.”
He also said “If it looks stupid and it is stupid it’s something we should not do.” I imagine many of you will want to persuade Sir Peter that the proposals which eventuate fit that criterion.
@nfandroid
“cost and complexity of turning the busiest South London routes into Tube-style high frequency services”
Problem with most of them is that although they may already be high-frequency in inner London (e.g from Raynes Park, Balham, Lewisham) they fan out into a large number of much lower frequency routes, most of which extend far beyond the GLA boundary. Improving the frequency on any one of them would have to be at the expense of another, unless you provide more capacity in inner London – such as Crossrail, or Tube extensions. And then the problem is that very few outer suburban lines could ever expect to generate sufficient traffic to justify a Crossrail on their own. Hence the hydra-headed appearance of Crossrail 2, and the wrangling over where (or indeed if) the Bakerloo should continue beyond Lewisham.
Just one comment on selling stations – there will always be a conflict of interest between the function of a transport terminal as a shopping mall and its function as a way of getting as many people through it and away as quickly as possible, and that conflict is best managed by having a train operator (NR or a TOC) manage the station. The removal of retail units from Waterloo’s concourse showed how the priorities changed after NR took over from the property-focussed Railtrack (although the concourse is all too frequently recluttered by pop-up promotional stands, carol singers, or other non-operational paraphernalia.)
Here is a coffee shop with a station tucked round the back
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/20/12/2201228_8aa80acc.jpg
fandroid says “… cost and complexity of turning the busiest South London routes into Tube-style high frequency services..” (my emphasis)
I think this depends entirely what you mean by it. These routes already do share some of the characteristics of a tube line (frequent services, Oyster, sliding doors, etc), and the ones that they lack (mostly underground, red roundels, on the tube map, visits from less-intrepid Northlondoners) are a bit of a mixture of fairly insignificant branding issues, with probably some real differences mixed in.
There are of course people in places like Catford or Camberwell who may have even more pressing transport needs than branding, but needs which are rather more tricky to address than people living near already-busy lines with acceptable or near-acceptable turn-up-and-go frequencies.
@Malcolm/fandroid
“cost and complexity of turning the busiest South London routes into Tube-style high frequency services.”
For most of them, the limiting factor is probably terminal capacity (including approaches). You clearly can’t dedicate the same number of platforms at Charing Cross to, say, the Hayes line as you find at Stratford for the Jubilee or Elephant for the Bakerloo, or Bank for the DLR.
@Timbeau
My first job was actually a summer temp in the Economic Survey office of the Southern at Waterloo HQ 1969 (I was an economics undergraduate, wrote off asking for a job). I well remember “Kicking around” the whole question of terminal capacity with the Economic Survey Officer (a Mr Peter Glassborrow). It was well stated then that Charing Cross and Cannon Street were hopeless, actually attempting to run far more trains than practical, especially with regard to Borough Market Jcn.
The solution? (never progressed) To put everything west of London Bridge in a tunnel balloon loop, Cannon St, (possibly Liverpool St) Charing Cross, Waterloo. This would greatly improve capacity of system, about 30 trains ph in both directions, with Charing Cross and Cannon St both released for redevelopment, to help finance it. Never progressed, but made sense to me. I have often thought that the real priority for a Crossrail is from the South East, to take out two dead end terminals and awkward flat junctions and sharp curves.
Dream on!
Alan Robinson,
A sentiment I have heard many times and first suggested (to my knowledge) in the Abercrombie Report – can’t remember whether the 1943 or 1944 one.
Nice idea but not but, to put not too fine a point on it, a load of bollocks when actually examined in detail.
Charing Cross station is superbly located for the West End with many people walking to their destination. To put it underground would mean it would be very deep as you would have to go under the Thames and the Northern and Bakerloo lines. This would not be passenger friendly.
There is another problem in that there is paranoia about what would happen if an unknown unexploded World War 2 bomb were to be found near the Bakerloo line which is only just below the surface of the river. Wartime bombs are generally quite safe if left undisturbed. You may like to look at the design of the Hungerford footbridges which had to be redesigned so as not to require additional footings in the Thames.
Given that Charing Cross can handle 29tph and will even manage 28tph with 12 car trains I am at a loss to know how this will greatly improve capacity – 2 tph! This would seem to be an awfully expensive way of achieving very little.
Charing Cross already has oversite development and also the arches underneath are extensive and well-used for non-transport purposes. The platforms and concourse do not occupy much land space. The platforms in particular are partly located over the road called Embankment and partly on the bridge over the Thames. Not a lot of potential commercial space there.
As the Thameslink Programme has shown and everyone (except Kate) agrees you really need 4 platforms at London Bridge to serve trains to Charing Cross. Either these are underground (incredibly expensive and don’t forget the underground lines there) or you are going to face one almighty challenge getting them under the Thames.
However, despite this, I would argue that the situation at Cannon Street is worse. Cannon St is probably quite capable of handling 30tph. It is the three track approach through London Bridge and at the station throat that reduces capacity. So you would need 4 more underground platforms at London Bridge (8 in all if the Charing Cross ones are included) because so many people use London Bridge and two platforms couldn’t cope. Like Charing Cross, Cannon Street already has oversite development and the arches underneath are well used. The platforms extend over Thames St (Upper or Lower, I can’t remember which) and onto the bridge so not a lot of redevelopment opportunity there.
Then we have the issue of finding a route between Charing Cross and Cannon Street and the fact that there is nowhere for trains to make up time if they are running late and the consequences of an incident on the loop – with two termini you can keep some of the service going.
This is just off the top of my head. I am sure I can think of pages more to write.
Thank goodness the Economic Survey Officer was not let loose anywhere near railway planning.
Re PoP,
It appeared in the 1943 plan as Project B, then dropped from subsequent London plans…
A crossrail and Charing Cross /Cannon Street is what is really needed.
@Pop
This was 45years ago, and it was only a “conceptual investigation”, never seriously proposed for reasons you identify. At the time, the London Bridge -Charing Cross/Cannon St overload was really intimidating. There was a double flat junction at Borough Market. All the trains were slam door, and the activities of the door slamming/crowd pushing platform staff rivaled those at Tokyo. I think I am right in saying the evening peak was more extreme in those days, so many city clerks put their pens down at 17.00 sharp.
I must defend the reputation of Mr Peter Glassborrow whom I recall as very astute, incisive and knowledgeable. Perhaps he tossed it at me to see what I would make of it. I think there are benefits that you may have overlooked, interchange with GE at Liverpool St. Certainly, by running continuously around a loop a significant number of vehicles would be saved, together with possibility of more productive train crew diagramming. The excruciatingly slow speeds between London Bridge and Charing Cross never have been solved. And, London Bridge (South Eastern) would have had to have gone underground, too, freeing up another valuable development site. Plus savings of structure maintenance and renewals Hungerford Bridge and Cannon St, which could have both have been demolished, I would guess that by replacing above ground dead ends with a through terminal, quite a lot of platform staff could have been saved too.
Even after all these years, not totally daft, I would say. A “More research needed project”, but I do accept, a bit daunting.
Alan Robinson,
This all sounds like a case of a problem (in this case Borough Market Junction in the early 1970s) looking for the most complicated over the top solution rather than do the obvious relatively cheap solution of getting rid of the junction conflicts – which was successfully done in 1976. Once that was done this becomes largely a solution looking for a problem.
I am sorry but I feel like challenging a lot of the statements you make.
a significant number of vehicles would be saved
But platform occupation time at Charing Cross is only around 12 minutes and Cannon St is not much more. Actually that is time between two successive trains arriving on the same platform. So by the time you factor in the necessary dwell time there is probably only about 8 minutes to be saved on terminating time at Charing Cross and 12 minutes at Cannon Street but I suspect you will use that much going around the loop. And of course if the trains were slam door as you say they were (and non-walk through) you would have had to have replaced the entire stock anyway.
together with possibility of more productive train crew diagramming
Not a lot of scope here either. Quite a few services already go around a loop (or rounder as SouthEastern calls it) on the Dartford lines. You have to terminate somewhere sometime – if only to give the driver a chance to go to the toilet.
The excruciatingly slow speeds between London Bridge and Charing Cross never have been solved..
I think this is more perception and memory than reality. When was the last time you actually travelled from Charing Cross and through London Bridge? Not fast but I would hardly call them extruciatingly slow. Even if the track was straight and fast the station stops would normally prevent much speeding up of your journey.
London Bridge (South Eastern) would have had to have gone underground, too, freeing up another valuable development site
So that would be six platforms and a passing loop then. You might note that there is no oversite development at London Bridge in the current rebuild. This is because it was presumed that there wouldn’t be a lot of value in doing so! I don’t think in the 1970s the area around London Bridge was seen as aspiring or having potential development value.
ground dead ends with a through terminal, quite a lot of platform staff could have been saved too
Baffled by this one too
Re Alan R,
The 1943 plan was just 4 stations on the loop:
Cannon Street, Blackfriars, Charing Cross, Waterloo (East) with the Loop splitting North-West of London Bridge.
Borough Market Junction was partially solved in the 1970s rebuild see operation London Bridge video.
London Bridge – Charing Cross speed issues have effectively been resolved from the start of 2016 with the new track and viaduct.
[Safer signalling arrangements have reduce the number of trains to the SE termini since 45 years ago too but they used to be shorter too. Commuter numbers fell from the peak in cicra 1970 to a low in 1983 just about recovering by 1989 then getting hit by the recession.]
Getting away from the specifics of Cannon Cross and UXBs in the river, the whole concept of a new-build underground balloon loop replacing a terminal is, nowadays, pants.
For the same amount of digging, and underground station building, you can have a new crossrail.
And, while the issue of making provision for driver breaks (toilet or otherwise) is important, it should not be allowed to determine whole layouts. Whatever the layout, loop, circle line or whatever, arrangements can be made for drivers to be relieved (in the sense of stepping back!) at any station anwhere.
timbeau/fandroid
We’ve been round this one before.
The limiting factors in having a “proper” tube-style service in S London are:
1] Terminal capacity – which is what CR2 is about
2] Very large number of flat junctions where services cross over each other. Even tube lines with junctions, have these “well out” &/or flying.
Meanwhile a very large money-pot + political will is going to be needed to sort out:
Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Windmill Bridge (in the pipeline) Lewisham ( long discussion here ), Streatham, Sutton (?), Dartford, Barnes (?)
Oh & Blackfriars, of course (!)
AR
That’s CR3 ( also known as “route F” ?? )
PoP
Cannon St is probably quite capable of handling 30tph. It is the three track approach through London Bridge and at the station throat that reduces capacity.
Err – small but vital correction: Much worse than that, it’s a TWO track approach – only for about one 10-car trainlength, but enough to royally screw it I’m afraid – look at Carto Metro & the LB “final” plans.
It could be re-opened back to 3 tracks all the way through, but a return to the days of yore with 4 ain’t on (at present)
@poP
“So you would need 4 more underground platforms at London Bridge (8 in all if the Charing Cross ones are included) because so many people use London Bridge”
Would so many be changing there if all trains served both CSt and CX?
” Cannon Street platforms extend over Thames St (Upper or Lower, I can’t remember which)”
Upper – the switch is at the point where the road passes under London Bridge (the actual bridge, not the station). Cannon Street station is upstream of it.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5096999,-0.087043,3a,15y,353.03h,92.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2qJcs1PTPcEC4lex3RBEJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D2qJcs1PTPcEC4lex3RBEJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D294.28702%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
Agree it’s unlikely to have washed its face economically, but on the likely timescales, a project that started in 1969 would probably have been completed around the time slam door stock would have been phased out anyway – the PEP prototypes were 1972, I think, and it would have been quite possible to convert the SE side to sliding doors instead of the SW side as actually happened. I suspect one reason it was done the way it was was because of the need for ten-car trains on the South Eastern, and the large number of relatively new 2EPBs to accommodate this. (The older 4SUBs tending to be on the Central and SW)
Greg,
If I could correct your correction …
ngh and I have spoken to people in Network Rail who really know about this. The two track approach isn’t the problem and doesn’t need widening – same as two tracks for the Charing Cross line at Borough Market isn’t a problem. The problem is the three track approach to Cannon Street which was reduced from four track when Networkers came in to get the clearance necessary. It is the conflict immediately outside the station that needs sorting out. However, there is no point in doing so as long as you only have three Cannon Street platforms at London Bridge as that is roughly an equal constraint. The problem there is that you have two platforms for peak direction flow (which is fine) but all the trains in the other direction have to use a single platform.
There is no point in referring to Carto Metro because it doesn’t cover Network Rail lines in Central London in detail.
@Malcolm
“The whole concept of an underground balloon loop replacing a terminal is pants”.
I AGREE. A crossrail is likely to be more productive, and yield a better case. back in the1960s though, this was just totally unthinkable, except for the wildest dreamers. The basic reality is that the SE had one of the world’s most heavily used commuter railways, but one that had developed piecemeal and in a very restricted fashion leaving a basic mismatch between (theoretical) track capacity on the approaches and terminal “turnback” capacity. Q what to do? (given that there was appalling (and in my experience seriously unsafe) excess of passengers. It is difficult to describe just how terrible it was.
I once (summer of 69) changed at London Bridge in morning peak from Cannon St train to a Charing Cross. Felt a sudden boot on my backside then forcibly squeezed into an EPB compartment so packed that not only were my feet unable to touch the floor, my head popped out through the dropped window. A surge inside the compartment projected me even further out of the window so my head only just cleared the girders at Borough Market Jcn. Happy Days! Tell it to kids of today and they wouldn’t believe you. Paris got the right idea with their RER. The regional geographical compartmentalisation of BR in those days could probably not cope with a crossrail concept, not that anyone tried, to best of my knowledge.
Alan refers to the “wildest dreamers”. Obviously hindsight now, but I reckon the Charing-Street loop was a pretty wild dream at the time anyway, it’s difficult to see how some sort of crossrail would have been any wilder*. It does make me wonder which of today’s promising ideas, though, will seem as seriously sub-optimal from a 45-year-on viewpoint, and which insights (which may then seem obvious) we are currently missing.
* (Maybe it would have been joining a Southern Region service onto that belonging to another Region which would have then merited the extra wildness grade.)
@Malcolm – not merely another region but , in fact, another railway company altogether at the time of the Abercrombie Plan.
Missing insights – – I noted in another thread a supplement to this morning’s Grauniad devoted to the “Smart City” – the p3 advert for EQTIN is well worth reading* – apparently we are all guilty of pursuing Victorian solutions to city planning when we should be pursuing impactful technical initiatives which enable us, amongst other things, to connect digitally with our inner athlete. Insightful or not?
*But you should have a stiff drink handy for afterwards.
@PoP
Saving vehicles:-
With continuous flow around loop @60 or so trains per hour and about 8 mins , that translated into what I would call a significant saving. In addition, one might presume that the running time in tunnel would be substantially faster than that on surface: viz;-
Charing Cross – London Bridge. I have long experience of travelling on this section of route. Commuted from Headcorn – CX 1976 – 1991, have friends in Kent and travel out of Charing Cross about 5 times a year.
The standard running time is 21 minutes !!!! (to traverse 2km) that is 10.5 kph, slower than a 1880s horse drawn tram. I don’t have 1970s timetables to hand, but I reckon it has increased since then. By comparison, 21mins after leaving Euston, I am passing Hemel Hempstead! or , I could be at Ebbsfleet after departing St Panc.
Trains are expensive, and they mostly clock up costs on a time basis.
Running them at 10.5kph is a terrible waste. (offends the likes of me).Platforms:
Probably would save 4-6 in total (compared with dead ends). In 1970s there was an extraordinary number of staff to deal with doorslamming etc. One platform was about twenty posts, inc usual overheads .In today’s money that is going to be about £2.4m pa. Of course slam door stock was an obsolete nonsense. Every other railway in Europe (apart from a few very backward ones) knew this.
The LMS produced modern sliding door stock for Merseyrail back in 1938.That the SR didn’t follow suit is a total mystery to me. Can anybody explain?
Alan Robinson,
What you were probably unaware of was how Southern Region was working away at solutions to the Borough Market/London Bridge problem this at the time. Indeed it has been a problem since the early 1920s at least and there have been progressive solutions to deal with it – until the next phase was need. It needed some money but not a vast sum. What it really needed was political in an era when the perceived wisdom was that railways were in decline but passenger numbers at London Bridge suggested the opposite.
In 1969 Southern introduced many small but vital changes and some clever timetabling to get more trains through London Bridge. I imagine this was implemented with the May timetable change but maybe it was the September timetable change that saw the improvements. By then they were probably already working on the next solution which was implemented in 1976 and saw a dramatic improvement. This served well until the latest boom in the economy so major changes (conveniently coinciding with the need to replace the signalling anyway and the Thameslink Programme) are needed yet again.
The point of this is that you saw a problem but, like most problems on the railways, it was a recognised one and a solution had been properly investigated and could be implemented subject to the money being available. Southern had an excellent record on this. Traditionally the Deputy General Manager’s job was to plan for the future (and live with the consequences of his plans should he become the General Manager). It didn’t need people from other departments to dream up solutions.
I imagine Mr Peter Glassborrow wouldn’t be too happy if the chief rolling stock engineer came up with suggestions as to how to run Economic Surveys but for some reason everyone seems to think that there isn’t a department on the railways that plans things and takes it upon themselves to come up with ideas based on hunches.
Perhaps Alan, Malcolm et al would care to provide a Robinsonian-Malcolmian Wildness Level measure, similar to a Beaufort Sea State scale, to indicate the wackiness of such schemes, taking into account technical, geographical, political and institutional challenges…
Alan Robinson,
Either I am misunderstanding something or I am struggling to relate your experience of travelling in and out of Charing Cross over the years with mine.
The standard running time is 21 minutes !!!! (to traverse 2km) that is 10.5 kph, slower than a 1880s horse drawn tram. I don’t have 1970s timetables to hand, but I reckon it has increased since then.
Unfortunately there is no easy way to look up the standard running time today between Charing Cross and London Bridge but for many decades it has been around 7-8 minutes with a stop at Waterloo East. Of course going into Charing Cross it was often slow and congested. It will be interesting to see what it is come August 2016.
I … travel out of Charing Cross about 5 times a year.
But have you travelled out of Charing Cross since the New Year?
What I need to shout at you is CAPACITY, CAPACITY CAPACITY. You are an economist so you prioritise cost but the main concern is capacity. This means you have to plan a different sort of service than the one that may appear to be the best one to run from an economic point of view.
Incidentally when Chris Green introduced Networker stock he quietly added a few minutes to each journey to cater for increased dwell time. All stations Hayes to Charing Cross used to be 38 minutes with slam door stock. Now the fast trains (fast Ladywell to Waterloo East) can take 45 minutes. Where does that fit in with your abhorrence of slow journey times?
On the subject of slam doors, I suspect Southern was the last to go for these because of dwell time which also affected, you’ve guessed it, capacity. It also may be a reliability issue. You rarely got a slam door failure taking trains out of service. Yes it was a pain to shut the doors at the terminal stations and the improved dwell time elsewhere came at a price.
The danger of your argument is you are addressing a problem with a totally unnecessarily over the top solution. If the problem is slam door stock then replace the slam door stock – don’t go digging tunnels under London just to achieve that.
60 trains an hour saving about 8 minutes
So 8 trains then. So lets assume 12-car and at current prices at £18 million each. £144 million. It sounds a lot but would be peanuts compared to the cost of these tunnels and, more especially, stations. This is no Thameslink, cobble together the join for £4 million. I suspect £1 billion per station in today’s money with substantially extra if you need to put platforms at London Bridge underground – assuming that were possible. The Thameslink Public Inquiry had an excellent explanation in one of its Proofs of Evidence why it would be extraordinarily difficult to do this at London Bridge but sadly is no longer online.
@PoP
Oh dear, What have I done. I really didn’t want to cause any upset or anything. Just saying that, very briefly and not all seriously, the possibility of this balloon loop thing was mentioned, no more. I am very aware of the extraordinary efforts were made by SR with some success to tackle this problem. The economic survey section was a division of the Regional Passenger Manager’s dept and mostly provided market intelligence. It collated fare sales trend info (in days when computers were not yet sophisticated enough to do this) monitored loadings by train counts, but was also required to provide some “blue sky thinking”, in purely conceptual terms.
In any large and complex organisation, innovation cannot be just bottled up within each individual functional department. There is a need for a section that takes a broad view. I have conducted dozens of investigations into the workings of technical departments, and found that ,with the right approach, engineers and operating managers can be very appreciative. This is essentially today the preserve of the “business analyst”, used to be the management accountant, or even cost amd works accountant. In the early 1960s BR went wholeheartedly into the latest craze “work study” manic teams of work students were unleashed with clipboards!
It was precisely this lingering defensiveness of technical departments (sometimes known as the “Barons”) that Sectorisation was intended to challenge, along with a few other objectives.
^This is essentially today the preserve of the business analyst” – Not really: the TOCs don’t employ planners or similar such, nor business analysts. In NR, the overview and drawing together of the various technical inputs is undertaken by the Route Development Managers, most of whom have an ops background; none that I have come across so far has an economics one.
@Graham H
No business analysts ! In the days of the joined up railway, going back yonks, there were business analysts who reported back to the board re all kinds of proposals, from conceptual to detailed for submission.
This the main reason why I decided not to continue my career in 1996.
I was told that the new unjoined up railway doesn’t need people like you anymore. So I became a country gentleman of leisure. Seems like I was right. For a time we had the Strategic Rail Authority intended to
fill this gap, but didn’t last.
To be more specific. How can a business that sells the infrastructure capacity that it produces (at great cost and long term commitment) do so with expectation of earning a profit if there is no business analysis taking into account the entire business case? Just don’t get it
For the record, my final attempt to continue a railway career was with an embryonic outfit set up in 1996 intended to be a Railtrack Watchdog /Whistle blower. They wanted business analysts to analyse things and make sure that Railtrack couldn’t possibly fail.
I had three interviews in summer of 1996, seemed promising, and then, was told, it’s all off, the government has decided that the market will provide , no need to worry about Railtrack getting it wrong. At this point, I swore I would never have anything more to do with railways professionally. This is the nearest I have got in twenty years. It’s really wonderful not working and not having to “kow tow” to anybody or anything. After twenty years I am totally fearless!
@PoP
OK you win. I give up. No the balloon loop thing doesn’t seem to stack up. Just ONE thing left to challenge. The running time Charing Cross to London Bridge. Do an enquiry on National Rail site. I did and it says 21 minutes (one or two trains are twenty).
Functional railway managers have been criticised (by likes of me) as people who know the VALUE of everything but the COST of nothing .
Money Rules OK. In the world of the financially blind the one eyed accountants are the KINGS.
@Alan Robinson – I think the point is that “business analysts” can come from almost any background given the right subsequent experience and training. It’s the old story about generalists v specialists.
Alan Robinson,
Not upset at all. Although this does not come up with the frequency of “extend the Waterloo & City” it is surprising how often this sort of proposal comes up. A popular variation is to loop back to Victoria. Another is to link with Liverpool Street. A third alternative that is a favourite with someone here is to rebuild the Charing Cross platforms on Hungerford Bridge and somehow dive down (rather like at Blackfriars).
Each time the person seems to think they have hit upon something no-one has thought of before. From experience the only way to kill it is to launch a sustained initial salvo of difficulties otherwise we get week long Chinese water torture of drip feeding of ideas, difficulties, work arounds, rebuttal of the feasibility of the work around etc.
We keep talking about (but never get around to it) producing standard links for the “why don’t they …” popular suggestions.
Not sure why you would need an economist. You only need to ask “are the trains full”? And then it comes down to costing engineering solutions, which requires an engineer.
Alan Robinson,
The running time Charing Cross to London Bridge. Do an enquiry on National Rail site. I did and it says 21 minutes (one or two trains are twenty).
Look Carefully! There are no direct trains from Charing Cross to London Bridge. The journeys you see on the website have the word TRANSFER by them and there isn’t a train symbol. Actually get on a train at Charing Cross and you will be passing through London Bridge 7 minutes later. In August you will be able once more to get a direct train to London Bridge from Charing Cross and I will put serious money on the running time not exceeding 8 minutes.
@An economist speaks -and that is very much how NR planners (and indeed NSE’s and InterCity’s planners work(ed),pulling together inputs from a wide variety of disciplines. The key skill is the ability to understand and integrate what the specialists are telling you. But then I suspect you knew that anyway!
@Alan Robinson. The 20 /21 minutes you quote for Charing Cross to London Bridge is for the current timetable, when, err, there are no direct trains from Charing Cross that call at London Bridge.
The time you quote is the official transfer time, using the tube and changing.
The timetabled running time from departing Charing Cross to passing London Bridge, including a one minute stop at Waterloo East, is 6.5 minutes.
@Graham H. You can’t have met the NR South East strategy and planning team recently. Some economists there, transport economists to boot. I’m sure they’d be happy to talk about Goodhart’s Law over a cuppa.
@SFD – and in other NR planning teams,not so. My point was – and perhaps I should have put it in a more nuanced way – you do not have to be an economist to be a railway planner, although you could be (and many are).
@An Economist speaks
In fact, why do we need economists? I am still perplexed, I studied the dismal science because I have (I suppose) a natural curiousity re about how everything fits together. It takes on board almost every human science, even some of the arts.
There is actually very little demand for the this specialised knowledge/expertise in world of employment. Hopefully, it is a discipline that stimulates the grey matter to engage in objective thought. But economists are generally thought to have a capability for financial analysis. (Ha Ha , how many rich successfull economists are there?
@GrahamH
YES total agreement “wide variety of disciplines”. understand and integrate, you need a certain amount of individual detachment to do this.
@PoP
AAAAAAAAAAAArggh !!! I am undone. Must read timetables more carefully, or get new specs. Mind you, 8 mins is only 15 kph.
I think you will find that London Bridge-Cannon St/Charing Cross was an even worse problem before WW1. No EMUs all steam!
Engines had to be released and then turned on the triangle, with reversals to go back into the terminal creating even more scheduled movements per hour, after stopping for watering too.
Not only that there was a direct PASSENGER Service Waterloo East – Cannon St ! And : there were pea-souper fogs. All semaphore signalling (Sykes?) no AWS, That there weren’t more collisions now seems miraculous.
“The standard running time is 21 minutes !!!! (to traverse 2km) that is 10.5 kph”
No it isn’t, it would be less than 6kph.
The 2007 timetable to hand shows CX to LBR as seven or eight minutes, and the distance as 1 3/4 miles, (which is nearly 3km). A hardly spectacular 11 mph (including the Waterloo stop), but still three times faster than your claimed 21 minutes.
The Southern Region’s continued dedication to slam-door stock also influenced design of electric units on other regions in the early BR era. Until 1975, the only sliding door stock built by BR was a repeat order for the Wirral (which included underground stations) to the same design as the pre-war LMS-built units, the Shenfield and Glossop units designed by the LNER, and the Glasgow Blue trains, again intended for use at Underground stations in central Glasgow.
There were several reasons why the Southern stayed with slam door designs. It reduced dwell time, maximised seating capacity, and allowed the SR to continue its make do-and-mend policy that started with old steam stock bodies on new electric frames in 1916, and continued with new (slam door) bodies on those frames all the way up to 1960. (Trigger’s Broom or Theseus Ship may be good economy, but it does make it difficult to introduce step changes in design)
Even today, the “new” 458/5s are heavily modified older units and the 442s use traction equipment from the old 4 REPs which were themselves converted from BR Mark 1 loco hauled stock.
@Alan R#
“Engines had to be released and then turned on the triangle,”
There was a turntable at Belvedere Road on the South Bank – removed to make way for the Festival of Britain in 1951.
Alan Robinson,
Hate to be even more argumentative but actually there were quite a lot of collisions west of London Bridge in the old days. The archive of accident reports are full of them. The reason you probably think there were few because they were generally slow speed collisions – for obvious reasons – and so rarely caused loss of life.
What most people don’t realise is why Southern were so keen to electrify and get rid of the steam trains. Hungerford Bridge is not that strong. Even today the platforms on the bridge are lightweight ones. There were strict rules as to how many locomotives could be on the bridge at one time. So replacing loco-hauled trains made a dramatic difference. Never mind reducing engine movements. Emus enabled all tracks on Hungerford bridge to potentially be used simultaneously. Combine all factors together and it was practically a no brainer to electrify as soon as possible with the method that got it done as quickly as possible.
We have covered the pea-souper fogs on a number of previous occasions. The St Johns Accident Report (1957) aka Lewisham Accident Report describes just how disruptive these were and of course the ensuing collision showed how potentially dangerous they were if they resulted in a signal not being read.
Don’t forget to include the numerous freight services that until 1922 was routed via London Bridge and Metropolitan Junction.
Not only that there was a direct PASSENGER Service Waterloo East – Cannon St
Yes it disappeared in December 2015 when some late night departures no longer went via Cannon St so that they could call at London Bridge during the Thameslink work. Of course it isn’t timetabled but it was not unusual on a Sunday to find it running due to engineering works. I have used it on quite a few occasions without planning to do so.
I am slightly loath to return to the subject of appraisal but back in times past I used to be Client for, amongst other things, implementing the annual LU fares revision. A delightful “appraisal” to write because it was stonkingly profitable (get tens of millions in the till for several thousand quid updating the system, publicity, staff info etc). It was also a “no brainer” in terms of any organisational politics. Similarly gating schemes were, back then, another profitable project because the money generated from reduced fraud / higher ticket sales outweighed the running costs plus the implementation costs when evaluated over a suitable appraisal period. We never ever got to the point of evaluating “customer or third party benefits” because you simply did schemes that made a profit. Why wouldn’t you?
Obviously there were (are) a load of other works where they make a financial loss but that loss is legitimately countered by the evaluation of customer / third party benefits. Hence you get a ratio of benefits to cost. That was precisely on the basis Graham H set out – an assumed willingness to pay more or avoiding disbenefits to others. LU / LT’s appraisal manual was signed off by the DfT IIRC. I expect TfL’s is as well. There may, at some point, have been differences in approach or emphasis between BR, LT and other modes controlled by the DfT but it’s always been straightforward to me even though I was one of those very rare Clients in LU that had purely profitable investments in his portfolio of projects. We still had to fight our corner for budget because there’s no point having a nice ticketing system if the trains aren’t running because they’re all knackered, the signals are conked out and the tracks have snapped. Clearly having an operational railway that is safe is the priority but you do still need to take the customers’ money!
Having had a little dig around I found the TfL Business Case Development Manual and there is a comprehensive document on Transport Assessment Best Practice. If they don’t show how thorough the work is and how detailed it can get then I’m not sure what will.
PoP
So, you’re saying that, in spite of all the time & money & upheaval spent, the LBG – CST layout needs complete remodelling? Including a 4th platform @ LBG?
Eeek!
AR & PoP
Try the on-line Working Time Tables (WTT)
That says, (i.e. the WTT says) Start-to-Pass CHX – LBG = 7.5 minutes, & including stop @ WAE
We keep talking about (but never get around to it) producing standard links for the “why don’t they …” popular suggestions.
Maybe you could franchise it out?
I’ll volunteer to do the “Extend the Drain” one, for starters, provided other people will do others, so there …
timbeau
According to the invaluable “NLS” on-line maps, there were also a two turntables just on the S bank outside Cannon St, too.
Greg,
The work to improve the throat to Cannon St is, I understand, a relatively small job if it ever became worthwhile to do. The would be little advantage in including it in the London Bridge works.
The other work needed would be an extra Cannon St platform at London Bridge. I suspect you could physically do this as platform 1 will be a single face platform under the new arrangement. You would have to go outside the footprint of the existing station and take some of Tooley Street and the curves would be wicked. I doubt if this would be generally acceptable for the limited amount that it would achieve.
This is very relevant to the balloon loop proposal as clearly the capacity of the loop is the capacity of the lesser of the route to Charing Cross and the route to Cannon St so, unless you are very careful, you reduce capacity.
I don’t think the failure to cater for additional trains to Cannon St is that significant. It is primarily a peak period station and furthermore the evening peak on Southeastern is less intense (but longer) than the morning peak in terms of trains run. So you are really only talking about the morning peak. They hope to get 25tph in the high morning peak once the Thameslink work is complete. Pushing it up to 30tph is a lot of work and in any case you might encounter problems elsewhere – Lewisham or the Sevenoaks tunnel for example.
There is also the suggestion that you could run a lot of the Cannon St trains in the contra-peak direction fast through London Bridge or out of service altogether so as to minimise dwell time at the single platform servicing them. I don’t know how effective or acceptable that would be.
@Alan R/poP
“Not only that there was a direct PASSENGER Service Waterloo East – Cannon St”
As built, the intention was that all trains would run via Cannon Street (reverse), with a smaller (and therefore presumably lighter) locomotive taking the train between CSt and ChX. The arrangement of the Borough Market triangle with only two tracks on what is now the busiest side is a legacy of that plan – only now being rectified 150 years later.
The CSt/ChX shuttle did not survive after the District Line was extended beyond Mansion House, providing a much quicker route between West End and City.
Somewhere buried in the LR archive is a discussion of the use to which “ladies of negotiable virtue” (as the late great Terry Pratchett described them) put First Class compartments on the shuttle until the opening of Waterloo Junction made it impractical.
@pop
“Cannon St ……. is primarily a peak period station ”
This is changing. It is now the only London terminus with direct trains to/from the Greenwich line and to/from New Cross, and forthcoming changes at Bank station will also improve access from it to the Central Line.
@pop
“There is also the suggestion that you could run a lot of the Cannon St trains in the contra-peak direction fast through London Bridge or out of service altogether so as to minimise dwell time at the single platform servicing them. I don’t know how effective or acceptable that would be.”
Although this will be necessary as a temporary measure during the rebuilding, it won’t be popular, as New Cross and Greenwich line passengers need the London Bridge call to change to/from Charing Cross (or if their journey starts there)
Dwell time in the contra peak direction is much less than in the peak direction – that is precisely why there are two platforms in one direction and only one in the other.
Re Greg and PoP,
The main limiting issue currently is the signalling rather than the track layout.
Conveniently the signalling is being replaced in 2016 & 2017 so could have an ATO overlay similar to the TL core which would solve many of the issues. (However no suitable stock)
ARS for Cannon Street lines being added in Xmas 2017 blockade should help a little too.
Anything more and you soon start hitting issues at North Kent East Jn, New Cross – St Johns in addition to what PoP mentions.
The opening of Crossrail to Abbey Wood is an alternative solution (as is running services at 12 car!) to lots more expensive works CST via LBG to ???
And it extension further to Dartford / Gravesend even better.
1967 Peak Hour Frequencies:
Note some of the tricks used to squeeze the maximum out of the infrastructure as it then was more e.g. more pm peak departures from CST as fewer junction conflicts.
Frequencies relied on a large number of shorter services so junction blocking times were reduced.
The counter peak direction services effectively being provided by Charing Cross Services only.
Charing Cross
AM
30tph arriving
22tph departing in service (8tph ECS)
PM
21tph arriving in service (9tph ECS)
30tph departing in service
Cannon Street
AM
26tph arriving
2tph departing in service (24tph ECS) [a number of ECS via Blackfriars]
PM
2tph arriving in service (29tph ECS) [a number of ECS via Blackfriars]
31tph departing in service
timbeau,
I realise that. I wasn’t proposing it – merely pointed it out is had been suggested. The people involved could of course catch a train to Cannon St and pick up the service there but I understand why that might not be popular too. It would also make sense to remove the stops from trains to places that did have an alternative service from Charing Cross rather than the Greenwich service and those that called at St Johns and New Cross.
I am very aware that dwell time in the contra peak direction is much less than in the peak direction and of course is precisely why there are two platforms in one direction and only one in the other but the point is that it is (in the morning peak) getting outbound trains through the one platform rather than getting inbound trains in through the two platforms that is the problem and limiting factor. Not stopping them would make a considerable difference because as well as the actual stationary dwell time there is the stopping and restarting time compared to a steady 20mph through the station.
ngh,
Yes but I think the signalling improvements (Automatic Route Setting) had already been factored in to get the service back up to 25tph without relying on the curve from Cannon St to Metropolitan Junction (or Borough Market West Junction whatever it is called) to get the empties out of Cannon St.
If you had the rolling stock equipped with ATO and autoreverse you could even use the above curve to get access to the Thameslink down line and get the trains out that way through platform 4 at London Bridge during gaps in the Thameslink service (8 five-minute gaps an hour) – may be problems further down the line though.
Your details show how much has changed and the significance of the contra-peak flow now compared to fifty years ago. The trouble is that it was probably never really taken into account when drawing up plans such as Thameslink.
There is still ECS running to/from CST in the peaks…. Some come from Blackfriars but some others run through LBG….
What’s ARS?
Southern Heights,
I thought the Blackfriars ones no longer ran but cannot be sure. In future they will all have to run via London Bridge. To get them all through one track through the station you would have to have more either Empty Coaching Stock or have scheduled trains not calling at London Bridge.
ARS is Automatic Route Setting. It should do a lot to ensure that the Cannon Street throat is not a restriction.
Re PoP,
It thought the default post Jan 2018 was 22tph for CST – the same default as before without the Western curve but it would be better 22tph i.e. less stop-go on the approaches and that there would be the opportunity to increase that by 1/2 tph if everything settled down and worked as expected. Above the 23/24tph ARS limit would require ATO…
Also worth noting on the above figures that Cannon Street had another platform in 1967 (8 instead of 7 currently).
(The biggest problem with is getting trains out of P7.)
@PoP
“I thought the Blackfriars ones no longer ran but cannot be sure”
There was a train coming up the spur from Metropolitan Junction when I passed through this morning. It didn’t actually go as far as Blackfriars, but parked in the siding on the east side of the formation.
(I had plenty of time to watch from my Wimbledon loop train, as we were stuck waiting for the through platform to clear – if we had been terminating at Bfrs, we would have had a clear run in.)
CHX to LBG used to be timetabled as 7 minutes, but was changed to 9 about 5 years ago, as they always left LBG late. It will be interesting what gap they choose in 2018. Its Blackfriars to LBG that always felt it was quicker to walk.
The opening of the Jubilee extension changed my view of the network completely. With a 9 minute advantage, aiming for LBG rather than CHX from across London could often get you an earlier train.
There is still a train from CHX to LBG late at night, it goes into CST and reverses out…
Will CST (and its tube station) remain open in the late evenings and weekends from 2018 because of the Greenwich changes then? That’ll be handy, as I’ve started using it a lot more.
I remember the delights of slam door stock at LBG, the train could never leave because there was always just one more person boarding.
John B, Cannon Street tube has been open in the evenings and weekends for some time now
@’John B
“There is still a train from CHX to LBG late at night, it goes into CST and reverses out”
Are you sure it’s still there? I can’t find it on the NR journey planner.
But there are still, as timbeau suggests, e.g. five am ECS departures on weekdays from Cannon Street via Blackfriars carriage siding and on to a depot.
Since the opening of the new viaduct, I believe the CHX-CST route is no longer planned for use. Certainly P87 of the good ol’ Infrarail presentation shows only the ECS link towards Blackfriars remaining in use from the western curve out of CST at this phase.
As well as scheduled services using it, I was on a late-ish train once with a (presumably minor) fault in the driving cab at Charing Cross. So rather than being taken out of service, it went round to CST and carried on with the good cab leading. That confused a lot of people.
I am sure that the Cannon Street – Charing Cross link has by now been disconnected. In theory and as publicly timetabled at the time, the 00:48 Charing Cross to Orpington early on Sunday 13 December was meant to be the last passenger train between Charing Cross and Cannon Street. However, I learn that they did continue running because of engineering work, late evenings Mondays to Thursdays, for a further two weeks. The last train was the 00:50 Charing Cross to Orpington via Cannon Street early on 24 December (source: Southern Electric Group’s “Live Rail” magazine).
@Old Buccaneer: I rather think that LBM is able to report that a powerful mayor with executive control did produce alarming results in Toronto
Interestingly Rob Ford had surprisingly little impact on transport in Toronto – he cancelled his predecessor’s light rail projects on coming to power (sound familiar?) but most were later reinstated and are now being built (not so familiar). In a way the lesson of Toronto is that the Mayor can literally be a crack-smoking drink-driving barely functioning alcoholic with family connections to the informal recreational pharmaceuticals industry (and for all this to be public knowledge) and it won’t stop the trains running on time.
This is reassuring and worth bearing in mind when people claim that the election of this or that mayoral candidate would spell imminent doom to London’s transport network.
On the other hand an executive Mayoralty does provide a platform for individuals to emerge and develop a political profile who are not dependent on central government for political patronage. There may even have been some examples of this dynamic at play recently but I had better say no more. Whether this is a good thing or not is a matter of taste but the movement of power in the UK these days seems to be centrifugal.
@timbeau:The K in KCC is Henry VI – founded in 1441, contemporary with Gutenberg
About the time that things really started to go downhill, or at least that is what the fellows of some colleges seem to believe…
@Malcolm: the whole concept of a new-build underground balloon loop replacing a terminal is, nowadays, pants.
If you want a bit of theory to substantiate that, have a look at page 122-123 of this document, which illustrates, complete with diagrams, why Melbourne’s 4(!) balloon loops, completed in the 1980s, are inherently wasteful of capacity and would be better reconfigured into two “crossrails”. The problem is that trains entering the loop in the morning peak are overloaded but then by the time they get to the final leg of the loop they are all but empty – whereas a crossrail type line has trains coming in from both ends and some passengers will go all the way to the far end of the central area.
Melbourne is now about to build a crossrail type line. The business case, released this week, explicitly cites Crossrail as a model.
The City Loop in Melbourne was an example of a bad idea that had been kicking around since the 1920s that got taken up in the 70s because Something Needed to Be Done about terminal capacity and it was the only Something to hand. It’s shows that just because an project proposal (fill your own preferred London examples in here) has been around and discussed for a long time, that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily “long overdue” or that the failure to build it is evidence of a failure of the system.
@IanJ
Centrifugal circumstances might only apply until you want approval or money or control – then you might need to be centripetal to secure your objectives!
Nice loop comments. Parallel examples in London are
(a) the Embankment tram loop – really there only because trams weren’t allowed to cross many parts of Central London, and only expensively when they did (Kingsway Subway)
(b) the relative reduction in passenger volumes on the Met and Bakerloo services across the centre as they terminate on the far edge of the central area rather than serving other destinations
JLE is the classic opposite extreme, with heavy loads outside the conventional central area because of Canary Wharf and Stratford.
Suburban orbitals have a different functionality and can also be very busy, eg Croydon-Wimbledon Tramlink, and the various Overground xLLs such as NLL.
Jonathan Roberts,
I don’t think it is quite like you describe it. The important thing, surely, is to terminate somewhere busy which is a destination in it own right. The distance out doesn’t matter too much. So Reading not Maidenhead, West Croydon not Addiscombe, La Défense not Porte de Nowhere in Particular.
@PoP
Didn’t think I was arguing for termination at a passenger-lite station, rather the opposite!
Ideally (perhaps) a town centre/office hub/really useful interchange, which fits your examples, though one can think of other options (airport, theme park, parkway, etc).
Part of the optioneering is likely to be about how many effective round trips can a costly 12-car train make in the peak and shoulder peak, and at what point offpeak maintenance starts to be important.
That might be one tactical advantage of a terminal loop – but about the only one and also dependent on a fast return to the suburbs, where that element (to be shown by CR/EZ’s Liverpool Street High Level-Gidea Park shuttle) may be at least as important as a quick exit from a terminus, if you have a strongly one-way passenger flow. Of course, contra-flow is rising in importance in the London area, and so the debate continues about a happy (or unhappy) optimum.
A balloon loop can, sometimes work, if there’s a a “passing loop” station in it.
So a single-track loop has a two-platform station & a 2-track, both-ways loop has a 4-track station in it.
Expensive, though.
@Pop
La Defense = Porte de nowhere in particular.
This would be Porte de Maillot, Interchange RER C and : New extension of orbital Tram 3 announced. Bit more somewhere than nowhere. But, point taken, I was puzzled as to how it would be satisfactory for inner suburban services to be controlled by Tfl when they must logistically terminate at a major junction or population centre, which would in many cases be outwith Greater London.
A balloon loop can be a solution, for example where there is not room for double tracking through busy streets (Croydon), or where the main destinations are not distributed in a nice neat line (e.g Liverpool, Wirral line; Heathrow T123/4)
But if dwell times are likely to be lengthy, you would need two platforms to allow one train to arrive before the other has left, so there is little advantage over a dead end terminal.
Re PoP et al.
I do wonder if post completion at LBG in 2018 there might be a slight reduction in counter peak CST services at LBG with an increase in ECS to optimise the throughput in the counter peak direction if they aim to increase tph in the peak flow direction especially as dwell times / throughput at the Charing Cross platforms will effectively no longer be an issue and provide a suitable alternative?
Access from the CHX lines to CST is now definitely gone, I saw it last week. This is why the new double crossover was installed in 2015 (at easter?), the old one has been removed…. The ballast is being replaced now…
@timbeau
Balloon loops. There are three apparent advantages of a through layout v dead end terminal. Is there are an example of a turn round time at a dead end being of similar duration to even extended dwell time on a through layout. It would surely require a crew change on every working.
secondly, conflicting movements. unless you have a very expensive grade separation entrance and exit to platforms (is there an example?)
thirdly, cost of complexity. I have always found this to be under appreciated. The “black art” of infrastructure costing has somewhat declined under Railtrack and NetworkRail. In “my day” we were able to provide very precise costs for individual route sections. Each turnout or crossing had a specificindex value calculated by Civil and Signal engineers, from detailed, ongoing studies of staff costs and other expenses, including renewals, which at the time were not capitalised. I used to conduct considerable investigations to lead to meaningful presentations of cost of track layouts, rather like setting out the cost of a “train set”. This was particularly appreciated by PTE finance officers, who obtained a good appreciation of the cost of “their” network, and likely projected ongoing effect on grant claim payments resulting from changes.
Complexity i.e. switches and crossings are VERY EXPENSIVE !!
Broadly, the total cost (annualised) of a turnout is equivalent to ONE
MILE of plain track (including signal equipment of course).
Therefore, the replacement of complexity (dead end) by through layout achieves massive savings. Although, the figures I am quoting from are those of a quarter of a century ago, I do not believe that much can have materially changes in the basis of the calculation.
It’s fairly scientifically based.
As I suggested at the time, these facts suggest that rail systems should be run as unconnected individual routes, avoiding complexity. Not, I submit, as “wacky” as you might think.
Thirty turn outs equate to 30 miles of plain track. Costs in present day
prices suggest circa £700k pa compared with simple layout. and that’s just one terminal.
I can hear the screams already! For REGIONAL railways, with relatively infrequent short trains, these potential savings are more attractive vis a vis obvious operational restraints of this concept
when applied to London.
Re Alan R,
1. Concrete switches and crossing with almost double the lifespan and slightly lower maintenance requirements have changed the maths since your calculations
2. How you sure the ““black art” of infrastructure costing has somewhat declined under Railtrack and NetworkRail.” It might have under railtrack but I’m sure several individuals will be along shortly to highlight how sophisticated NR are at it.
For example the London Bridge area rebuild the TOCs actually specified extra S&C for flexibility when things go wrong etc because the options had been fully costed and they reckoned the extra was worth it over the long term.
The pay back period from reducing the S&C vs the cost of 5 underground stations (only 2 releasing over build sites) and 20 miles of single track tunnel would be very very long. It is different if you were starting out on new build now.
@Ngh
Thanks for observations, very worthwhile.
(1)
I was stating the observation that there is a cost of complexity which may be compared to a plain line option. I accept that this ratio may change over time, although I don’t quite see how concrete v timber can affect the calculation to a very large degree. My understanding that most of the costs (both asset cost and routine maintenance) were always in the metallic content.
(2)
The “black art” of infrastructure costing , developed gradually over many decades, was essentially to fulfil the requirement of total actual cost exhaustion to train services, by a method sufficiently robust to withstand audit, i.e. to satisfy auditors of the PSO and PTE grant claims. This also applied to budgets, outturns, strategic plans etc.
I do no doubt that NR are able to accurately and expertly identify the cost of an infrastructure asset in total, but I am not aware of any method that is able on a logical basis to apply the resulting costs to a multitude of users. Present day TOCs pay access charges. These are not back to back with actual costs. Hence the demise of the “Black Arts and the Wizards who practised it, like me. (I was burned at the stake).
I did suggest that for London, with very high utilisation, and very income from fares too, the costs of extra complexity may well show a payback. In the case, of Regional Railways two car services rather less so. I was able to demonstrate that the cost charged to PTE in respect of areas of complexity, i.e. major terminal approach, actually nearly equalled the gross earnings of the train services using it!
Suggesting that many PTE might have improved results by conversion to tram trains and avoiding the area of terminal approach complexity by running on street instead. This actually happens in some German cities, and I do understand that the avoidance of terminal infrastructure is a major factor in the business case.
Can’t think of any obvious London applications though.
@ngh – 5x major underground stations would be £2.5-5bn (probably nearer the latter given the locations) + a few miles of tunnel (say £1bn) . You could buy a hell of a lot of S&C for that. A payback period approaching infinity? BTW, my conversations with those employed by NR planning suggest that they do have specialist costing engineers these days.
@Alan R
“conflicting movements. unless you have a very expensive grade separation entrance and exit to platforms (is there an example?)”
You could operate Welwyn Garden City as a terminus in that way. Doubtless there are others with a similar layout.
A temporary “balloon loop” will be in operation for the next few months in Glasgow whilst Queen Street High level is closed, with local trains from the Stirling direction looping round from Cowlairs via Springburn, Queen Street Low level and Anniesland (where a new connection to the Maryhill line has been installed) back to Cowlairs, and trains from the Falkirk direction going round the loop in the other direction. (West Highland services will use the same loop from Westerton, via Maryhill, Cowlairs, Springburn, Queen Street Low level back to Westerton).
That these can be shoehorned in between the intensive electric services running through Queen Street Low Level is quite an achievement
Longer distance trains from the Highlands will run to Glasgow Central, via Cumbernauld and Carmyle (using the northwest side of the Whifflet triangle, so bypassing Whifflet itself)
Re Graham H,
Indeed, I didn’t even both calculating properly as with quick mental arithmetic the answer is longer than the next several ice ages…
Costing – and several of them happen to read LR!
@Alan Robinson
Ealing to Greenford (tram tracks to suburban town centre, underused railway) would have worked if the West London Tram hadn’t been such a disaster.
Graham refers to “a payback period approaching infinity”. It is of course possible for a payback period to go well beyond infinity, the savings need only fail to meet the interest payments (or of course, a fortiori, the savings may be negative). In either such case, the mathematics would produce a negative payback period, pointing to some date in the past. I can’t get my head round what this date means though.
@The future’s bright
Yes, here’s a bigger one . Euston – Watford (dc). Avoid Euston , onto Eversholt Street, then down to Holborn and Waterloo as Cross River Tram scheme(remember that?). The current Overground frequency suggests that a higher frequency (long vehicle) tram train operation might work.
@timbeau
Thanks for that, it’s stirred immensely nostalgic yearnings for the days when Strathclyde PTE took up much of my time, being the biggest and most complex rail system.
Are you aware of the 1947 Fitzpaine plan? This was a prototype Manchester Metrolink Phase 1. It was proposed that Glasgow’s tramways be completely recast by taking over suburban railways but avoiding all dead end terminals and associated costs by cross city on street running. It would have featured PCC single deck cars in multiple formations. Not surprisingly, it sank without trace.
Not only was there no money for that sort of thing in 1947, the LMS and LNER were somewhat unenthusiastic. Today, it doesn’t look anywhere near as wacky as 1947, especially not to Mancunians.
Alan Robinson,
Although I agree with the others about order of magnitude of tunnelling costs v a few sets of points I have to agree with you that, compared to plain track, points are very expensive. Apart from capital outlay, I believe they also make up less than 1% of track but account for 20% of the maintenance cost.
Clearly there is a balance between flexibility and cost. There is also the issue that a set of points that is hardly ever used has a negative reliability effect as they bring risk of failing in such a way as to cause operational problems without the corresponding benefit of getting you out of operational problems due to added flexibility. I know someone here who has strong views different to mine as to where that balance lies between flexibility and cost/risk but suffice to say there is no perfect decision and at the end of the day it is a judgment call.
@PoP
I used to do all sorts of theoretical “blue sky” exercises trying to discern optimum design characteristics for the “perfect” railway.
Armed with unit cost data (from my PTE accounts) I was able to build conceptual models, which indicated SOME circumstances whereby the minimum points option scored. It is not just the cost of the points and crossings themselves, it is the signal and ops control cost that really does it. Modern signalling systems are very capital intensive, but the capital costs element (depreciation) tends to be overlooked. In the 1980s BR did not capitalise infrastructure renewals (only new assets) . I found it difficult to convince those involved in scheme design that a nominal depreciation (if applied) in excess of the previous payroll costs indicated that the project did not wash its face (assuming everything else unchanged). Interestingly, this did become recognised, which is why, to my surprise, there is so much 19th cent signalling left. On the lower density lines, difficult to get a payback.
@Malcolm
“a negative payback period, pointing to some date in the past. I can’t get my head round what this date means though”
I think it’s the date (some time before you actually started building it) at which you would have had to start raising money for the project, and paying negative interest (i.e earning interest) on that money, in order to raise enough money to build it.
(Common practice: “we must put up your fares this year to fund the improvement work we are planning for next year” – a classic ponzi con).
Easier than borrowing the money and funding the loan from the extra revenue the improvement is supposed to bring, but only possible with a captive market)
Or it’s possibly the time it takes for the accumulated losses on running the thing to start to exceed the capital cost of building it in the first place.
timbeau,
Or that when you draw a pair of lines to show on a graph to calculate the payback (where the lines intersect) you find that where the lines meet represents a time in the past.
Or to put it another way the only solution (time in future) is negative.
Obviously you don’t want a negative solution. Reminds me of the monkey and coconut problem. To me the answer is obviously -4 which avoids a lot of complicated maths but no-one seems to accept my solution that means they started off with -4 coconuts.
@pop
Indeed, but what do the lines on the graph represent in the physical (or economic) world?
Plotting money against time, and assuming the capital cost to be all spent at time zero, the intercept on the y axis is the capital cost and the gradient is the excess of running costs over income (negative if you are running at a surplus). The intercept on the x axis is the payback time. If the gradient is positive, the intercept on the x axis is at a negative time, before the capital costs were incurred. You can look at that in two ways: by similar triangles, you can show that it represents the time for accumulated operating losses to equal the capital cost. or, if you can cope with going a bit subjunctive, it’s the date in the past at which, if you had started putting money aside at that rate, you would would saved up enough to pay the capital costs.
The monkeys and coconuts – if you have access to more coconuts than you actually own, it is quite possible to possess -4 (and for a monkey to steal one so you end up with -5). reducing the number by 20% means finding a coconut and adding it to the stock.
Why is the value gradient a flat line for ever? Don’t think this is necessarily so in the real world. It might mean that companies such as the LSWR were exceptionally far-sighted in building flying junctions in lots of places (except Woking) in the late 1800s, where the benefit are still being achieved more than a century later on an unforeseen high-density service pattern impossible to calculate then…? Or that they overspent then? (Presumably someone estimated the merits of such schemes then and justified them somehow…)
It may not be a straight line gradient – I used it in my example for simplicity. The value may increase over time, or it may become worthless because of later developments. And of course running costs can vary – notably at the point where the loan is paid off and you can stop paying interest.
@ Alan R 1016 – I do not understand why you are (still) puzzled about TfL controlling rail services that terminate outside of Greater London. This has happened for decades with the tube and several years for the Overground with more recent additions last year. I have yet to see anyone having any great concern about what is being provided or how things are being controlled at a strategic level. We have been through several times that key stakeholders in bordering counties are content with the idea of TfL taking over more suburban services. We also know that the proposed arrangements retain safeguards in terms of the buck stopping with the SoS. ORR control path allocation and TfL has no overriding rights and the DfT have said paths for longer distance services will be protected. I really don’t see the problem over accountability and representation. The biggest problem actually sits with TfL and that is public expectation running vastly ahead of TfL’s finances and ability to deliver significant improvement quickly. A lot of people expecting instant improvements are going to be bitterly disappointed.
@Alan Robinson: conflicting movements. unless you have a very expensive grade separation entrance and exit to platforms (is there an example?)
Euston has the former carriage line diveunder (Line X), now used to grade separate entrance and exit to the fast line platforms.
Suggesting that many PTE might have improved results by conversion to tram trains and avoiding the area of terminal approach complexity by running on street instead… Can’t think of any obvious London applications though
Moving the Wimbledon-Croydon trains out of East Croydon station and onto the street outside? And in the future, moving the other end of the line out of Wimbledon station to avoid the cost of accommodating it during
Crossrail(insert new name here) 2 works? But in both cases less about avoiding maintenance costs than about freeing up capacity for other purposes.@Walthamstow Writer
You don’t understand why I am still puzzled;———–
Perhaps I am one of those people who seek a perfect ordered world where everything is in its place, possibly excessively so , I concede.
Part of this perfect order that I manically crave is that Public support and accountability are coterminous with political definition, i.e electoral constituencies , a variation on “no taxation without representation ” etc. Otherwise there could be implied tensions.
My experience of PTE accounting, whereby train service support and service and fare specification was effectively defined geographically by the PTE boundaries, being in turn the local authority boundary.
You will no doubt wish to draw attention to cross boundary trains. That is so, but under BR (don’t know how they do it now), services were “split” into two profit centres and precise costs and revenue attributed. Infrastructure costs likewise were actual costs up to the PTE boundary. There was a reasonably accurate logical split of public support resulting PTE/PSO. The proposed arrangements for Tfl seem “untidy” to me. I can’t abhor untidiness! despite the appalling state of my study, which my wife continually threatens to tidy up.
@ Ian J
Euston : grade separation in station throat. I confess that I mischievously tossed this forward to see if anyone would spot it. (and also out of curiosity to see if anyone actually bothers to read my manic ramblings). Well done , collect zillions of points.
Tram Trains
Yes Croydon does fit. I was talking conceptually. Removing trains from platform to street (or subway as per Cross, I mean Lizrail) provides two outcome possibilities. Either heavy rail terminal is rationalised , or, vacated platforms are used for other expansion.
I am waiting to hear this penny drop re Birmingham New St (Cross City), Manchester Piccadilly (East Manchester , Glossop/New Mills etc) and Leeds, Ilkley, Harrogate. By this means HS2 might be able to access existing terminals , saving squillions. (and improving access to city centres). If Euston Watford DC was to go tram train on street, this should release two platforms. Might this enable HS2 works to be reduced a bit, more squillions saved?
@ Alan R – OK fair enough it’s your own obsessive tidiness that’s the issue not the reality of TfL having long controlled rail services outside of Greater London.
We are, of course, now in the absurd situation where neighbouring counties (Essex and Herts) are threatening to withdraw their small levels of support for cross boundary TfL contracted bus services into their areas. The result? Bus users in the areas *outside* London are begging TfL to find the money to avoid cuts to the routes. Therefore they are completely happy to have servics run for them with NO representation whatsoever. Why they aren’t kicking the door down of their own County Halls I don’t know.
Meanwhile within London several Assembly members are also begging the Mayor not to cut the same services because of the impact on people *within* Greater London. The backdrop to these risks is the cutting of central government grant to both TfL and County Councils. You couldn’t make it up. Personally I’d just axe all the cross boundary services and leave the counties to mop up the mess they’ve created. The problem for TfL is that if they do fund the shortfall without any service cuts then all the other authorities that pay TfL some money for their cross boundary services will cut their funding in the expectation that TfL will make up the gap. There have to be consequences for the areas proposing funding cuts otherwise it becomes a lottery.
WW of course identifies that travel generally doesn’t respect political boundaries in general and particularly across local authority boundaries. Can you imagine having to build bus laybys each side of county boundaries for people to get off one bus and change to another? Even worse if it were to be trains.
Really, this is just a symptom of the problems of local government funding, which is having much bigger impacts than a few cross border bus services.
Perhaps we should campaign for a TfLHC authority…… Transport for London and the Home Counties
@Walthamstow Writer
Ahaaaaa! you are stating the motivations for my obsessive tidiness re specification and funding of passenger transport. (with ref to buses in Essex & Herts). The good citizens of those counties are doubtless quite relaxed about buses being provided by Greater London, as long as the benevolent citizens of Greater London pay for them!
Local Authorities can operate services across their borders quite satisfactorily until : there is a need (demand?) for support, It then gets much more fraught. Who pays? for what bits. As you say, “I’d cut all cross boundary services” Precisely. The same scream up might emerge with regard to cross boundary trains.
Just had a taste of this “oop north”. Blackpool Borough council’s tramway runs across boundary to Fleetwood (Lancs CC). Lancs has made a modest funding contribution to Blackpool, and in return Blackpool has allowed Lancashire seniors to travel on trams free.
Under current local government finance pressure, there was a “Mexican stand off” (sort of) Lancashire gave notice of withdrawal of support for tramway, Blackpool responded by banishing Lancashire resident seniors (who could use competing bus for free, and overloaded it) . Blackpool even threatened to abandon the newly modernised tramway in Lancashire. Eventually, some money was found by Lancashire, and their senior citizens can enjoy free tram rides again. This is the sort of thing that bothers me.
@100and thirty
“perhaps we should campaign for a TflHC authority”
This is exactly what I HAVE been campaigning for, on LR and elsewhere, and made the same observations thirty years ago as the greatest PTE of all. (things to come).
In general, response has been lukewarm at best, and mostly very sceptical Why should this be? (anybody got any ideas, I’m getting bored spouting away on this one).
@WW 🙂 We have been here so many times before,haven’t we? (I recall sitting in on negotiations between the then junior minister, John Horam, and Essex CC leaders about the funding of the 20 and 254 buses, forty years ago. ) The trouble for Alan is that wherever you draw the boundaries, there will be services that cross them -or the links will get broken. LPTB was no saint in that respect – Grays had been a frontier town until bus privatisation,when the two halves of the town were rapidly reconnected. Horsham,Guildford, and dartford would be other examples. Nor were the PTEs models to be followed for crossboundary services – WYPTE and SYPTE particularly liked terminating former through services in the middle of the countryside (Darton as I recall) because they couldn’t agree on funds.
Fortunately for us all, the rural bus network is about to collapse so the problem will largely go away….
@ Alan R – the point though is that thus far *all* taxpayers have funded TfL to support investment and the provision of services. In specific cases there is localised support for cross boundary services. That’s perfectly fine. Now the national taxpayer revenue support is going and some elements of the local support is proposed for withdrawal. As you say this forces people into an insular view of what gets funded and how. Perhaps that’s the point behind the funding reductions and devolution? There is zero possibility for your dreamed of regional authority – it’ll never happen and would be hopelessly politically compromised. It would make “cats fighting in a sack” seem like a pleasurable concept.
@Walthamstow Writer
I don’t really live such an ivory tower academic secluded life that I am unaware of the difficulties of establishing regional transport authorities.
As to “it’ll never happen” : All depends upon whether we , England that is (Scotland and Wales can do their own thing) eventually see the logic of regional local government, county councils too small for economies of scale and also not big enough to make a stand against the rapacious machinations of central government. (this answers the question, Westminster doesn’t approve).
@Graham
yup, it’s getting to be academic, although, strangely, there are some extraordinary cross boundary survivors in my neck of woods, mainly because the respective county councils are wary of winding up each other. My bus service is a case in point, Long may it run. (established in 1928, has run with same service number ever since, 417).
@130
We could just call it Transport Home Counties… or THC for short. I’d be happy to do a licensing deal for the name. 🙂
THC
@Graham H
“WYPTE and SYPTE particularly liked terminating former through services in the middle of the countryside ”
and WMPTE: Blake Street was another example – and as the trains couldn’t reverse there, they ran – empty – to the next crossover, which was at the end of the line at Lichfield.
timbeau
Styal to you too …..
@THC
“I’d be happy to do a licensing deal for the name.”
As my surname begins with “L” I am impressed with the number of stations I seem to have franchised – West Hampstead TL, Kings Cross TL, City TL etc, but I haven’t seen any royalties yet (or royalty, come to that, or is that a different topic?)
@All LR
Study just published in Transport Journal : Author Dr Caralampo Focas Research associate Oxford University.
Principal conclusion : London is suffering severe (life threatening) pollution from outside the M25, and the recommendation;-
A Greater London transport authority charged with the task of restraining car use and promotion of low or zero emission vehicles, with the improvement and encouragement of public transport as a vital component in the strategy.
He makes the point that it is isn’t only London that is suffering , but that our capital is a very bad example, requiring urgent action.
It is no great surprise to read that vehicle emissions in the South East are so excessive outside of the M25, that even with commendably low car use within the M25, pollution from outside is driven by wind to affect the urban core, dangerously so.
The basic message is that large scale suburban sprawl is unsustainable, to the point of serious threat to life,
@ Alan – surely the message is that large scale suburban sprawl *that is reliant on fossil fuelled private transport* is unsustainable? There are always choices. I’d also argue that transport authorities don’t act on their account – they do what their political controllers require. Therefore the policy emphasis is on the politicians’ shoulders in the first instance and the voters’ in the second instance. We get what we vote for.
@Walthamstow
Much of the criticism of sprawl is that it is simply incapable of supporting viable (by whatever definition) public transit, and that due to low densities, average journey distances tend to be too long for walking and cycling. In addition, sprawl development results in road design incompatible with bus operations (cells connecting into major highways, link roads to motorways etc.
Sprawl = large scale car usage = pollution (unless IC vehicles eliminated). Even if pollution problem is tackled, sprawl will result in private transport being overwhelmingly dominant, large land area taken by roads and car parks.
We reap that which we sow, If planning policies permit, even encourage sprawl development, then you get cars, lots of them.
Trains may take you to a distant metropolis, i.e. London, but nothing much else works. I would suggest that this is the biggest transport issue of the 20th century – present, and exactly as outlined by Sir Colin Buchanan in his 1963 report.
You are quite correct, transport authorities —- do what their controllers require. Dr Caralampo is concluding that we have countenanced the growth of sprawl and car use to a (literally) unhealthy degree, and that to manage this, a “Greater” London transport authority is needed, to extend far beyond the M25.
He does not say just how far it needs to go, but I have reported his findings as being of relevance to the question of extending Tfl boundaries for specification and support.
I detect a certain political schizophrenia here. Politicians instinctively detect that cars are “popular” and don’t want to be seen to be restrictive or condemnatory, but there is a growing concern that the effects are worrying , to say the least.
Nothing can be built without permission granted by a public body, so what should we permit? In reality, we have sleepwalked to sprawl.
Alan and others: some limited discussion of this report will be tolerated, but let’s not allow it do get too unfocused, or too far away from the original topic of devolving London’s Railways.
Re Alan and WW,
You effectively have a broad background pollution level that is wind borne from a wide area (e.g. beyond the M25 and as far as oil refineries in Rotterdam etc.) with localised peaks in pollution (to above dangerous levels) from local sources such as in the well publicised locations Heathrow, Marylebone Road, Putney High Street which then push the pollution locally above dangerous levels.
Background pollutant levels being elevated from sources outside the M25 isn’t news and wasn’t a decade ago either…
So 3 possible solutions:
a) cut background levels – this will required France Belgium Netherlands and Germany to get involved too!
b) cut local pollution sources where it is above permitted levels e.g. LEZ and Hybrid Buses in London (also feeds back into A) becasue sort A is too hard
c) Both A and B which is where the policy direction is going on in reality
If you create a new pollution source e.g. R3+T6 at Heathrow then you end up sorting most of the pollution issues in the local area as you are the marginal polluter
As my little contribution (to the limited debate), public reporting of this research seems to have allowed the classic confusions to continue: CO2 emissions are bad, and toxic emissions are also bad, but for entirely different reasons. Concern about CO2 emissions really only makes sense on a global level, whereas toxic emissions are much more localised in their effect. Some discussions blur this distinction, which is not helpful.
@ Alan R – I can’t access the paper online without forking out a lot of money which I can’t spare. I’ve read the summary and what’s in the Standard and I’m going to sound uncharitable but my main reaction is “duh?”. It’s hardly ground breaking that being surrounded by strongly car dependent counties is going to increase pollution. Neither is it ground breaking that development congregates around new road infrastructure. That you then get pollution just makes me want to go “duh” again. Err, hello, we’ve known all this for decades as you say by citing Buchanan. We aren’t going to get a larger regional transport authority because the counties won’t cede their “independence” to London. Anyway a transport authority without controls over planning and development AND *enormous* sums of money would be completely pointless.
Heck TfL has a lot of power and influence and money and it can’t get cycle lanes built on Kensington High Street nor can it speed up the creation of “quietway” cycle routes on the back roads in some boroughs. If TfL can’t make those relatively simple things happen how on earth could an even bigger, more politically compromised authority hope to constrain development around, say, a new Thames Crossing not far from Dartford? Answer – it couldn’t. So sorry to say that “Mr Academic” has undoubtedly had a nice time writing his paper but the outline conclusion doesn’t take us anywhere new (IMO, of course).
@Walthamstow Writer
I commend you. You have just provided a brilliant précis of the British failure to learn from the Buchanan Report of 1963, and act accordingly.
It’s essentially a political failure, lack of co-operation turf wars etc e
Quite so. I just know that there is evidence of better practice in other European member states. (but not entirely so). Things have changed a bit in last twenty five years or so, with attractive new higher density development starting to manifest itself, after about thirty years of almost total reluctance to entertain it.
Is it really too late, ? could be .
With regard to pollution, within my life time, absolutely awful pollution from coal fires, foundries etc was dismissed in terms of;-
Aye , where there’s muck there’s brass !! with implication that any proposal to limit it is just “academic”. I remember the great London smog of 1952.
WW
[Political rant with no bearing on the original topic snipped. Malcolm]
AR
I also remember the smogs of 1952 & 1955 – & even now the death-figures attributed to those is deliberately (?) undercounted.
AR and Greg:
Just a reminder about the 50s smogs. They were indeed serious, and of serious interest to historians and maybe others. However, they have little bearing on current pollution problems, which have entirely different causes, consist of different pollutants, require different evidence, and require completely different approaches to their solution. The so-called “Great Smog” occurred in December 1952, which is over 63 years ago.
This may be peripheral to the subject of this article, but possibly relevant (and I couldn’t find anywhere else recent to post it).
It has been announced that Siemens will supply 25 additional 6-car class 700 units for use on the Great Northern routes into Moorgate, replacing the class 313s currently used. It seems that they have been designated class 700/2, which suggests that there are only minor differences (train length, seating layout) between these and the Thameslink stock.
Now according to Wikipedia the 313s have various special features to allow them to run through the “tube” tunnels between Drayton Park and Moorgate. In particular, they are built to a smaller loading gauge than similar units (the roof is lower), and they have end doors to allow evacuation in the single track tunnels.
Does anyone know whether a class 700 has been tried in the Moorgate tunnels, or are we likely to see some red faces before long.
@Malcolm& Greg
Ahaaa ! Great Smog of 1952, thought that would get you going.
I remember (just) spending a night in my father’s 1933 Standard, “somewhere in South East London” the smog being so bad it wasn’t possible to make any further progress. I vaguely remember my father trying to follow a bus, and the bus eventually finished up in
a cul de sac!
Malcolm is correct in that the cause and nature of the 1952 smog is very different to that of today, which is less obviously visible.
The circumstances are not so very different, a threat that has arisen, not initially recognised as a great danger to health, and therefore tolerated until ;———- the cry goes up “something must be done”!
The question demonstrates just how wide ranging transport policy needs to be, involving not just movement, but urban design (land use planning) and public health too!
In the case of 1952,something WAS done, after the slimy yellow smog actually invaded the House of Commons, stopping proceedings.
(Rather like mid 19th century, when the stench of sewage in the Thames prompted the construction of proper sewers and sewage works.).
What might it take to prompt serious IC engine restraint?
Anonymous 19:03,
and I couldn’t find anywhere else recent to post it
The answer is simple. If the is nowhere obvious to go then it probably doesn’t go anywhere! We are neither a news site nor a site for posting questions. I will let this go but not encourage replies.
Does anyone know whether a class 700 has been tried in the Moorgate tunnels, or are we likely to see some red faces before long.
Please give the people who run the railways some credit. This is always taken into account. And yes I do know the 1973 stock incident where there was still a problem and we can argue (yet again) who was to blame for that. Contrary to press reports from time to time along the lines of “it didn’t fit” gauge size is always a consideration where relevant.
Alan Robinson,
Great Smog of 1952, thought that would get you going.
Please, no comments intended to be provocative to encourage debate. There are quite enough genuine issues to discuss and moderate. Comments like that have not gone down well with the moderators (or at least this one) in the past. [Seconded by Malcolm. I’m not asking for sympathy, but moderation is hard enough even in the default situation when commenters seem to be broadly on our side. Deliberate winding-up of anyone, even if playful, is not helpful.]
Re: London Smog generally.
We have done this to death (pardon inappropriate phrase) a number of times. Notably in St Johns part 2 when at least it was relevant.
Further comments here will be expunged.
The image on the Siemens press release shows an image of a train with what looks like emergency access at the ends. The paragraph mentioning a smaller loading gauge in the wikipedia Class 313 article is unreferenced, and I’m not sure it’s correct – AFAIK these trains are the same size as the other 1970 “PEP” designs, such as the Class 315, 507 and 508 (and the smaller coaches used on some of the Class 455 when the 508’s went north).
The Class number seems a mystery – Siemens don’t mention it in their press release, railtechnologymagazine mention “Class 700 variant” but as the comments below that article say, this is saying its a variant of the Thameslink train, rather specifying the class number. Today’s Railways UK March 2016 (Issue 171) list it as 7XX.
@Pop
If LR is not a news site or for posing questions, please tell me what it is.
This is not a wind up, I really would quite genuinely like to know.
Alan Robinson,
London Reconnections is a site for discussing various transport issues. These tend to be the ones we write about. The are loads of forums out there for posing questions out of the blue. Yes, of course, by all means ask here about something relevant to the subject in hand. We go for depth on limited number of issues and do not attempt to cover the broad spectrum of all transport issues in London.
In a similar vein there are loads of sites for posting news and in any case the really keen people will have already looked at the TfL press releases, Network Rail media centre press releases etc. so we don’t want a blanket repetition of everything posted there just in case someone missed it elsewhere.
For the Underground I can heartily recommend District Dave which we do not regard as a rival site. It is a complementary site – it is a bit of a pity, but understandable, that you have to register before you can post a comment. Other sites are available.
We have some very good quality comments here and we really appreciate the background information that, amongst others, you and Graham H bring. We do not want that diluted with stock reports, wildly off-topic subjects of no interest to our followers, repetition of press releases, factless speculation, rants and a whole load of other topics that put people off reading the relevant and informative comments we get.
@Pop
Thank you for elucidation, Will follow guidance.
@Anon/Edgepedia
District Dave have discussed the Moorgate Siemens units here
http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/26167/siemens-supply-northern-inners-trains?page=2 (on topic for that site because of the line’s history)