|
|
Post by andypurk on Oct 7, 2012 15:28:05 GMT
Because experience with the London Overground shows that TfL are MUCH better at running the local services which they have taken over from a mainline operator. TfL DO NOT run London Overground. London Overground is operated by LOROL, a joint venture between Arriva UK and MTR. TfL set the terms of the concession just like the DfT set the terms of every other railway franchise in England (bar Merseyrail). Due to the very tough terms of the LO concession, there is no chance of the operation being profitable, so TfL pay LOROL a large sum of money to operate the concession. As a result the financial risk and burden of operating the railway is solely on the (London) taxpayer and not LOROL. This is very different to the franchises offered by the DfT, where a large percentage of the risk of operating the franchises is upon the private company. The DfT also do not pay private companies to operate franchises, the private companies pay the DfT to operate them. The DfT could make franchises have tougher conditions just like TfL has with LO, and we would see significant improvements on many lines. However, this would mean significant subsidies to the national network* (like we see in Europe) and this has not been the policy of the British Government ever since the Stockton and Darlington Railway was opened back in the 1825. TfL are, in effect, running the service as they specify all the details and take all the revenue risk. You are wrong to state that this is currently much different from how DfT run the franchises, as these are so tightly specified that the TOCs can't alter the train lengths, station opening hours, timetable, etc. without getting permission from the DfT. Once revenue no longer meets the forecast on which the franchise was offered, Cap and Collar comes into play (as is the case for nearly all current South East franchises) and the DfT picks up nearly all the shortfall. No, the current TfL budget would NOT be paying for services 50 miles out of London. Any subsidy, if needed, would be transferred from the current TOC. I don't think the aim is for TfL to takeover the likes of the Thameslink Bedford - Brighton mainline services, but the more local services such as Moorgate - Welwyn Garden City/Hertford, Liverpool Street - Chingford / Enfield / Hertford or Luton / St. Albans - Sutton loop and the suburban services south of the river. Few of these travel far outside the current zonal boundaries. All the money paid to Network Rail is doing is reducing the high track access charges of the past, so it is still subsidy to the TOC, but is indirect rather than direct. Additionally, as mentioned above, a lot of money is paid by DfT for revenue shortfalls, which then gets paid back to the DfT to meet the franchise payments agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 7, 2012 16:13:00 GMT
why are TfL looking to take over more rail services outside London? They are not specifically doing so - the proposals generally relate to inner suburban services within the GLA area. However, as the railway map is no respecter of the (more recent) creation of the Greater London, many of these services inconeviently stray outside the boundary. It would make no sense at all for, say, Sunbury and Shepperton to be managed separately from the section from Waterloo to Hampton (it is silly enough that Oyster is not accepted at those two stations). Many of the termini of the inner suburban services (Guildford, Dartford, Shenfield, Welwyn GC, Sevenoaks) are also served by longer distance services, and it is they which provide the principal service into London from those stations. Conversely, there are stations within the GLA area like Barking, East Croydon and Surbiton, where the fast service to London would still be provided by a TOC other than TfL. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Oct 7, 2012 21:20:41 GMT
TfL are, in effect, running the service as they specify all the details and take all the revenue risk. You are wrong to state that this is currently much different from how DfT run the franchises, as these are so tightly specified that the TOCs can't alter the train lengths, station opening hours, timetable, etc. without getting permission from the DfT. Once revenue no longer meets the forecast on which the franchise was offered, Cap and Collar comes into play (as is the case for nearly all current South East franchises) and the DfT picks up nearly all the shortfall. I disagree  As I understand there are currently 10 out of 19 franchises let with the cap and collar arrangements. 8 of these are in "revenue support" but the remaining 2 are in "revenue share", where the DfT and the TOC share the above than expected profits. I believe last year accounting for both revenue supporting and revenue sharing, the DfT didn't lose money, it earned £695 million. It just hasn't earned as much as forecast. This is in addition to the net £1.2bn the DfT gained from franchise payments. So overall the DfT has not lost money by letting franchises and if you take the industry as a whole the DfT is not subsidising the operation of the railways. IMHO this is very different to LO where TfL pays for the operator to run the service regardless of the profitability of the operation. Cap and collar still puts too much risk on the taxpayer and I am glad that the current Government is getting rid of it from new franchises. I believe they will retain the current revenue sharing model. All the money paid to Network Rail is doing is reducing the high track access charges of the past, so it is still subsidy to the TOC, but is indirect rather than direct. Additionally, as mentioned above, a lot of money is paid by DfT for revenue shortfalls, which then gets paid back to the DfT to meet the franchise payments agreed. Reduction of track access charges is due to the regulator and not the Government. We can't say that lower track access charges is an indirect subsidy for TOC. The Govt grants to NR are mainly for infrastructure improvements which NR obviously can't afford. I think EU rules prevent NR charging very high track access charges to fund infrastructure improvements/profits (cf. EU legal action against Eurotunnel). |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Oct 8, 2012 21:35:48 GMT
TfL are, in effect, running the service as they specify all the details and take all the revenue risk. You are wrong to state that this is currently much different from how DfT run the franchises, as these are so tightly specified that the TOCs can't alter the train lengths, station opening hours, timetable, etc. without getting permission from the DfT. Once revenue no longer meets the forecast on which the franchise was offered, Cap and Collar comes into play (as is the case for nearly all current South East franchises) and the DfT picks up nearly all the shortfall. I disagree As I understand there are currently 10 out of 19 franchises let with the cap and collar arrangements. 8 of these are in "revenue support" but the remaining 2 are in "revenue share", where the DfT and the TOC share the above than expected profits. I believe last year accounting for both revenue supporting and revenue sharing, the DfT didn't lose money, it earned £695 million. It just hasn't earned as much as forecast. This is in addition to the net £1.2bn the DfT gained from franchise payments. So overall the DfT has not lost money by letting franchises and if you take the industry as a whole the DfT is not subsidising the operation of the railways. Conveniently forgetting the £billions of subsidy to Network Rail. By point about the similarity is the amount of decision making that is in the hands of TfL or DfT. The original franchises had a lot more freedom to adjust train lengths or hire in more stock, if needed, than the current agreements. I still think that a model with the government saying "we want this service, what will it cost?" is better for services which need a subsidy. With a profit share scheme for the 'profitable' services. Not all franchises are alike. No, in the past most of the money for Track Access charges went to Network Rail via the TOCs, now only a part of the original variable component of the access charge is paid by the TOCs, to fund some of the wear and tear for running the services. The direct payments to Network Rail are not just for infrastructure improvements, but also for renewals (and renewals are higher than enhancements). Many of the improvements are 'paid for' by increasing the regulatory asset base. EU rules definitely don't prevent access charges being used to fund improvements, see the Chiltern Evergreen projects for an example of how increased charges are being used to pay for enhancements. Indeed, funding enhancements directly with Network Rail may also been seen as a hidden subsidy and be frowned upon by the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcentral on Oct 13, 2012 10:45:34 GMT
There is now a campaign for a faster service at www.mettimes.orgThe distant customers are getting organized at last. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Oct 14, 2012 6:59:18 GMT
There is now a campaign for a faster service at www.mettimes.orgThe distant customers are getting organized at last. little point in such a campaign. The faster service will have to wait until the track and signalling has been updated. The existing timetable is to allow for some daytime work on the project |
|
|
|
Post by plasmid on Oct 14, 2012 18:49:46 GMT
There is now a campaign for a faster service at www.mettimes.orgThe distant customers are getting organized at last. little point in such a campaign. The faster service will have to wait until the track and signalling has been updated. The existing timetable is to allow for some daytime work on the project Agreeable. We are agreed. Track lasts 40 years, replacement is underway and probably going to be on-going for many years. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Oct 14, 2012 19:13:36 GMT
little point in such a campaign. The faster service will have to wait until the track and signalling has been updated. The existing timetable is to allow for some daytime work on the project Agreeable. We are agreed. Track lasts 40 years, replacement is underway and probably going to be on-going for many years. The current project is much more than traditional track replacement. The new signalling and better track are needed provide many more trains than the old timetable. It can't happen overnight or a few weekends. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2012 20:50:58 GMT
There is now a campaign for a faster service at www.mettimes.orgThe distant customers are getting organized at last. little point in such a campaign. The faster service will have to wait until the track and signalling has been updated. The existing timetable is to allow for some daytime work on the project That sounds very reasonable. BUT...LU have said nothing of the sort to pasengers; all that's been said is that 'demand has changed over time' or words to that effect and there has been no indication at all of any intention to bring back fast trains in the future. in fact, I have a letter from Mike Brown sent via my MP about the timetable which says we have 'no plans to change it'. That might have been a good opportunity to say something more positive about the longer term plan... A public statement to that effect might get people on side but the reality has been very different: we had a timetable quietly slipped out with hardly any notice and minimum effort to explain its impact; auto announcements on platforms saying 'some trains will call at all stations' (as opposed to 'all off peak') and constant denial that the all stations trains are significantly slower than the fasts. Should LU decide to engage officially with its passengers in some reasonable detail about its post-upgrade service plans, that might begin to repair some of the damage caused by this poorly communicated decision. Until then, campaigns like this one will continue and no doubt become more vocal. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Oct 14, 2012 21:15:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2012 21:33:09 GMT
But that sort of illustrates my point; it's all about overall improvements rather than what they mean specifically for users. What will the service pattern be, how long will it take from Amersham to Aldgate, how frequent will the trains be? LU must have some idea of the answers to these questions as I can't believe they are spending billions without some idea of specific outcomes for services and what they hope to achieve. That's what people want to know, otherwise it just sounds like vague aspirations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 6:41:17 GMT
Interesting article in Rail this week (issue 707) about the Met line. Barry Doe highlights ridiculously slow journey off peak from London to Amersham and Chesham and questions the waste of infrastructure off peak when passengers actually need fast services.
Questions LUs 'obsession' with running a bog standard all stations service despite it not being appropriate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 19:03:24 GMT
Interesting article in Rail this week (issue 707) about the Met line. Barry Doe highlights ridiculously slow journey off peak from London to Amersham and Chesham and questions the waste of infrastructure off peak when passengers actually need fast services. Questions LUs 'obsession' with running a bog standard all stations service despite it not being appropriate. I for one am glad this is being highlighted. Hopefully a result will happen soon |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Oct 18, 2012 19:14:52 GMT
Posters are now up about the work and the improved service to follow
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 20:22:01 GMT
Posters are now up about the work and the improved service to follow Do the posters go into detail about the future planned service? A comparison of journey times, pre-Dec 2011 and post-upgrade would be useful. So far, all we've been told is 'improved journey times'. Well, if you slow the service down to an unusable crawl, it doesn't take much to improve it! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2012 20:05:19 GMT
Seems that opposition to the all stations timetable is widespread and growing and from some unexpected quarters.
Of interest to some here might be that Chiltern are almost certainly revising their timetable with the effect that Chiltern services will no longer connect with Chesham services in either direction at Chalfont.
I can only imagine that the effect of this will be to strengthen the calls for the return of fast off peak Met line trains.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2012 21:53:45 GMT
No notice on Chiltern Railways about proposed changes in December but doing a train time check for Monday 17th Dec (after the change) produced new off peak timings of xx.12 and xx.42 from Marylebone but still old timings xx.26 and xx.56 from Amersham.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlebrute on Oct 31, 2012 23:12:09 GMT
I must be the only person who thinks that all stations is a good idea, it's a bit ridiculous having to wait 10 minutes for a train at Northwick Park in peak hours
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2012 18:14:34 GMT
I must be the only person who thinks that all stations is a good idea, it's a bit ridiculous having to wait 10 minutes for a train at Northwick Park in peak hours The all stations trains are off peak. Think chances of all stations peak trains from Ricky branch are zero. There would be an awful lot of very angry people! And how do you think Chesham people feel about a 30 minute service at peak time... |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Nov 1, 2012 19:08:57 GMT
I must be the only person who thinks that all stations is a good idea, it's a bit ridiculous having to wait 10 minutes for a train at Northwick Park in peak hours The all stations trains are off peak. Think chances of all stations peak trains from Ricky branch are zero. There would be an awful lot of very angry people! And how do you think Chesham people feel about a 30 minute service at peak time... Better than the old shuttle service |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 1, 2012 21:30:04 GMT
Is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2012 21:47:08 GMT
My thoughts exactly! It's slower, more tedious and the trains are getting progressively more empty north of Ricky. Quite how carting 8 carriages worth of fresh air about while Chiltern services are packed out can be considered a good use of public funds I don't know! |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 1, 2012 23:26:13 GMT
I don't really know the answer to my question as I'm not a user but I'd be unhappy if I lived up there. Perhaps my plan of semi-fast chesham trains isn't so bad....
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Nov 1, 2012 23:59:52 GMT
Chiltern Railways are putting out posters saying "More Seats on Busiest Trains" - the exact opposite of LU policy. No wonder they're destroying their "customer base" north of Harrow!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2012 10:19:19 GMT
Chiltern are changing their timetable in order to better connect with Chesham trains...
Southbound, Chiltern trains will call at Chalfont only 7 minutes after the ex-Chesham leaves, as opposed to the few minutes before the train leaves at the moment - meaning you have to wait almost half an hour for a diesel if you don't want to go on a Met into London - not really viable.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Nov 2, 2012 10:49:10 GMT
It would be an improvement, currently every 32 minutes in the morning.
Chiltern would be carting a lot of fresh air if they ran trains of the same length as LUL
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Nov 2, 2012 17:03:06 GMT
This was the proposed timetable for Chiltern services from December published on their website in May: www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/december-2012-timetable-consultation======== On David Gauke's - MP for South West Herts (this includes Moor Park, Rickmansworth and Chorleywood) and Government Minister - website: Judging from my constituency correspondence, the Metropolitan Line continues to be a major cause for concern. I am very grateful to one reader of this column who pointed me in the direction of an advertisement for Metroland properties in 1925 boasting of a 26 minute service from Baker Street to Moor Park. He also provided an extract from a 1980s’ timetable showing the journey at 28 minutes.
Now, the quickest journey is 31 minutes and it is 35 minutes outside the rush hour. As my correspondent noted, it takes 35% longer to transport passengers from Moor Park to Baker Street than it did 87 years ago!
In September, I put it to London Underground that the current timetabling was based on some inaccurate assumptions. For example, their numbers of passenger users suggested that the number of passengers using Chorleywood was as little as a 1/10th of the numbers using Rickmansworth station. Rickmansworth station has a ticket barrier at its one exit, Chorleywood does not for its main exit and I think we can be sure which number is wrong.
London Underground have responded saying that ‘manual surveys [of passenger numbers are] undertaken every few years’. It seems to me that it is time for another survey!
There is more I could say about the response from London Underground. However, rather than go into all of this in great detail, I have put the correspondence on my website including my latest reply. Do have a look and if you have further points to make or evidence in support of increasing the number of fast trains, please let me know.The correspondence between David Gauke and Mike Brown: www.davidgauke.com/pdf/London_Underground_Correspondence.pdf |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Nov 3, 2012 0:21:59 GMT
This whole situation is a joke. What was wrong with Northwood-North Harrow having 6tph? Nothing! I was a Northwood resident for years and I NEVER complained with 6tph. Because of various groups they have destroyed the entire Met service and turned it into a Mickey Mouse service. Sort it out!
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Nov 3, 2012 9:46:12 GMT
so it seems that most people here don't want the track and signals upgraded.
Close the whole line every weekend?
Alternative of adding a few stops and minutes to off peak journeys while work on the fast lines takes place seems more sensible
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Nov 3, 2012 12:40:49 GMT
so it seems that most people here don't want the track and signals upgraded. Close the whole line every weekend? Alternative of adding a few stops and minutes to off peak journeys while work on the fast lines takes place seems more sensible How much work can be done on the fast lines during off-peak considering that the lines are still operational with 2tph Chiltern services? Surely not much? |
|
