TfL push again on rail devolution

Isn't the idea of "metroisation" to improve the frequencies on the NR network, rather than extend the Tube? West Norwood to Brixton currently requires two changes (at Tulse Hill and Herne Hill), with none of the services involved being better than 4tph. (There is a direct service to Balham and Victoria though)

TfL have no experience in maintaining the type of infrastructure involved in south and south east London.

The tracks are used by long distance services.

The DfT has a problem with the southeastern franchise. They may wish to do a deal.

One big thing that TfL have NOT addressed in this is Engineering access.

Basically on lines like the Brighton main line, the engineering strategy for routine maintenance (including rail renewal etc) is built round two of the tracks ALWAYS being available.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that having one authority responsible for the 'slows' and another for the fasts causes problems. What if NR decide to remove the fast line platforms at the likes of Norbury (on the basis that nothing they provide infrastructure for calls there) or TfL decide they can drop the line speed on the slows?

The Crystal Palace - Balham section provides a valuable back up in the event of say, a fatality or major infrastructure fault at Streatham?

I note TfL say that because of fast InterCity services on the ECML, it would be impractical to take over infrastructure on that route (though they don't say anything about the Herford loop, the availability of which performs an important part of the engineering access strategy) - why is the BML not also recognised as a 'main line' in a similar way? is there a magic 65mph ceiling which makes all lines below that speed fair game?

Finally freight traffic requires considerably different permanent way standards to a light weight EMU operated railway. TfL may well have experience of maintaining tracks for passenger traffic but that means nothing when you start to consider the needs of heavy stone or intermodal traffic.


So while TfL are making some very good points as regards service simplification / concession operation - their land grab for infrastructure brings with it more questions than answers and displays a certain nieavity as to the difficulties in managing a rail network truly open to all needs.

Would TFL Rail then be the operator of last resort? There would be a sort of symmetry to that solution....
PS
Fares have now got seriously out of kilter - eg Epping to Holborn single 20 miles £3.10 off peak, £5.10 peak; Woking to London similar distance £11.90

No, Essex CC have not subsidised the tube operation for some 20 years, much as Wikipedia etc state to the contrary. The chaos the differential causes has been pointed out officially by ECC to TfL, who don't seem to care. If s/he doesn't mind a drive, a commuter based at say Writtle, can reduce outgoings from £7000pa via Chelmsford to some £2500 via Debden (not Epping as anywhere within a mile and a half of the station is now a CPZ and the car park charges are exorbitant).

Your regular reminder that the TfL precept on council tax raises a negligible amount of money each year and would barely pay for director salaries never mind fares subsidies to Essex residents. TfL's precept raises precisely £6m per annum and has done for years.

www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/finaldraftbudget_-_part_1_mayorsstatement_2019-20_final.pdf

The issue about actual / perceived fares structure anomolies really has nothing to do with the Council tax precept.

There is not much political congruence between the county councils and Sadiq Khan!

Yes and?

I know you find this immensely irksome as you've raised the issue on multiple forums many times. There are no easy or short term answers given funding issues and the structure of the railway industry. You would need a very significant change of policy with a huge supporting mandate from voters in London and beyond to effect the sort of structural change to fares that you seek. I deliberately mention the wider area because pulling down fares in Gtr London just causes huge "steps" in fares beyond wherever you set a fare zone (or similar) boundary and you would need to change things in bordering areas to avoid ludicrous fares hikes. It is noteworthy that your TOC, SWR, is barely referenced in the TfL report - I assume TfL consider this to be a step too far at this point in time given the remaining duration on the SWR franchise and possible complication of CR2.

And note that I don't disagree with your concerns. A common fare regime would make sense but it will not solve all the issues nor will it avoid new ones being created. Everyone wants lower fares, better concessions but doesn't want to pay the extra in taxation or other charges to fund it. We need to move the debate on the railway, funding and fares out of "fantasy land" which is where it resides with far too many politicians and other commentators. I wonder what people will think after 2020 when they find their tube and bus fares rising faster than inflation? They'll probably demand another 4 years of frozen fares without any regard for the dire consequences.

I really don't think so. The current policy was "bounced" on him by London Labour Party members. It was viewed as being "easy" (it wasn't and isn't) and an antidote to 8 years of increases under Boris Johnson. Politically I can see why Labour liked that but it was a stupid policy. A policy of moderating fare rises and fine tuning things like the product range and caps etc could have offered passengers greater value for money without the attendant huge costs.

I think after 4 years of actually being Mayor he will understand that there is not much more to squeeze out of TfL in terms of staff cuts. The next area would be to start cutting service levels meaning inevitable strike action from the unions as drivers and maintenance staff would be up for the sack. I can't see that happening. I was told recently some of the stuff that has been going on in TfL and I was genuinely shocked. I thought I'd seen just about everything after a quarter of a century working there but it's vastly worse now than when I left. The ability for TfL to actually start delivering on future schemes is, in my view, somewhat imperiled. Even more resource is going to be ripped out of the planning function at TfL in the next round of cuts. There is no point in a Mayor having manifesto commitments and preferred projects if they can't be delivered. You need planners, you need intelligent clients, You need astute procurement people, you need skilled and experienced engineers and project managers, you need informed and motivated operational staff to deliver projects properly. It is as if that lesson has been deliberately chucked out with the rubbish.

The Mayor has made the classic errors of all new Mayors - it all looks very easy when you take over and then you get to year four and find you've done very little because you wasted 2-3 years of the Mayoralty working out what to do. Hence the palpable lack of progress on the Picc Line upgrade, the abandonment of the Northern and Jubilee upgrades, no progress on the Bakerloo Line extension and no large scale station capacity works started. The only things that have been achieved is a bit of work on air quality / ULEZ, some cleaner buses, a bit of cycling work. The headline commitments on air quality won't be met, Oxford St pedestrianisation is dead, far too many bus services have been cut with more due (unless he backtracks at the last minute), new Overground trains are nearly 18 months late and service enhancements are postponed, Crossrail is 18 months late. That is not a good record even if some problems started before he took over. To leave any sort of legacy the Mayor needs money in the next term and TfL is structured to work best by having annual fares increases. It needs to have a growing revenue base. I also believe the DfT and Treasury will make annual RPI (or RPI+) increases a mandatory part of any TfL funding settlement in the upcoming planning round. You can view that as a political move to restrict Mayoral policy but I certainly expect that conversation to happen behind closed doors.

If the Mayor is stupid enough to be "bounced" into a fares freeze policy a second time he will, IMO, severely endanger TfL's ability to operate safely and effectively. The capital programme will have to be suspended barring committed contracts and essential safety justified renewals of track and signals. That's a dreadful place to get to - it will put us back in the worst of the 1980s version of London Transport. Does the London Labour Party really want to be associated with a transport network redolent of the worst years of Mrs Thatcher? I doubt it.

And much may depend on who is in charge as PM> What price Mr Grayling?!

The South Eastern franchise has been kept in limbo with Govia till 10th November 2019 with an option to extend to April Fools Day 2020 (straight face).

Why? It was relevant to the discussion. Unless you are attempting to be humorous?

If your intention was humorous, the use of an emoji or exclamation mark would help to indicate that.