TFL & "Managed Decline"

[bramling]

What's Johnson got to do with the mayoralty any more? That must surely be a democratic decision for the people of London if not the UK generally.

There is a strong argument (maybe not so much in London where people tend to use public transport anyway) for extending free travel not just to the over 60s but to all.

This is the problem. The mayor of London was created by Blair, and (like the other mainland devolutions) I think it’s fair to say he assumed they would be likely to be Labour strongholds - remember how much of a force Labour was in Scotland at the time.

Personally I was never in favour of it at the time, as it was obviously going to lead to lots of petty meddling, though ironically Livingstone actually wasn’t too bad and at least produced constructive solutions to problems - though the way he has conducted himself latterly suggests misgivings about his suitability for office were absolutely correct, his various remarks regarding concentration camps are very odd as well as unpleasant, and raise serious questions about his character.

The difficulty is that once you give people something like an elected mayor, it’s difficult to take it away - though having said that Boris is sufficiently “out of it” in London that he could probably do it and get away with it, especially as Khan doesn’t seem to be wonderfully popular - people seem to have voted for him as the least worst option rather than any positive reason.

From a constitutional point of view I see no reason why any government could not abolish the mayor of London role if they so desired. No Parliament can bind its successor, so anything Blair created in the 90s can be undone. I suppose it might be politically necessary to let the current one finish his term, but that’s as far as I’d go.

I don't get all these political references to obsolescence on the Bakerloo Line. LUL and by extension TfL own all of the IPR for pretty much every component on that train, the only issue is that they either don't have the wherewithall to get it manufactured or willingness to hold spares from previous fleets. (See. all of the scrapped materials from previous similar fleets).

I suspect obsolescence is more of an issue on respect of the Central Line, both in terms of fleet and signalling. There’s certainly work in progress to address some of this, but I would imagine it is akin to trying to swim ashore in an outgoing tide.

A secondary issue with the Bakerloo fleet might well be depot staff familiarity. We’re already down to a position where the 72 and 73 stocks are the only old-fashioned stocks left on the network. As years go by this could well result in skills retention issues as well.

 

[deltic]

We seem to have gone a long way from talking about TfL and managed decline to scrapping the Mayor, the benefits of which escape me in this context.

I hope talking about scrapping 100 bus routes is in the context of a complete overall of bus services in London. Now we have hopper fares and relatively low daily caps for bus use the network could be drastically simplified. Higher frequency services could be provided on main routes but by only one service with people becoming used to more interchange between services.

 

[urbophile]

To us benighted provincials, what marks out the transport system of London is that it is integrated, and seems to be planned for the benefit of users rather than competing entrepreneurs. In the rest of the country, Thatcher deregulated buses, then Major privatised trains. In London, the GLC first, then later the Mayor and TfL, helped London stand out against that chaos. I'm a bit unsure what happened between the abolition of the former and the setting up of the latter (even though I lived in London at the time), but I know that the city's transport has improved considerably since the 1990s in all sorts of ways.

 

[Non Multi]

I do find it bitterly ironic, that for an organisation that's so very keen on foisting 'the computer age' on its customers, finds itself mercilessly stripped of its prized financial independence by former daily commuters who've truly embraced 'the computer age' by simply... working from home.

 

[Horizon22]

I don't get all these political references to obsolescence on the Bakerloo Line. LUL and by extension TfL own all of the IPR for pretty much every component on that train, the only issue is that they either don't have the wherewithall to get it manufactured or willingness to hold spares from previous fleets. (See. all of the scrapped materials from previous similar fleets).

I'm not sure I follow? You can only cannabilise other fleets and keep life-expired components going for so long. Eventually parts become obsolete (i.e manufacturers stop making or supporting them) or it becomes increasingly costly to manufatcure as they are needed in such small quantities. As others have stated, they are getting on for being the oldest rolling stock in the country. However much you try, you can't flog a dead horse forever.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure I follow? You can only cannabilise other fleets and keep life-expired components going for so long. Eventually parts become obsolete (i.e manufacturers stop making or supporting them) or it becomes increasingly costly to manufatcure as they are needed in such small quantities. As others have stated, they are getting on for being the oldest rolling stock in the country. However much you try, you can't flog a dead horse forever.

Though you can flog it a bit harder if it's not exposed to sea water every day, and the IoW ones lasted long enough.

There are also other ways. Sadiq doesn't want to increase fares, but he arguably shouldn't receive national subsidy for his network if, as is the case, bus fares are much lower than the rest of the country and passholders get much more. Those things are local decisions which should be funded locally. The first step needs to be to get the bus fare up to around £2 to £2.20 which would increase income considerably while still being lower than most of the country.

The cash single had already gone up to £2 some years ago, then Oyster reduced it.

 

[Horizon22]

I do find it bitterly ironic, that for an organisation that's so very keen on foisting 'the computer age' on its customers, finds itself mercilessly stripped of its prized financial independence by former daily commuters who've truly embraced 'the computer age' by simply... working from home.

This isn't so true for Londoners as it is says the Home Counties - sure there's still big swathes in both groups and this is a generalisation, but more Londoners are likely to be in "key worker" type jobs compared to those who commuted in from the suburbs and wider South East every day to their office jobs. And of course tourists did contribute perhaps disproportionately more to London's income than other UK cities - including making silly journeys like Covent Garden - Leicester Square!

Though you can flog it a bit harder if it's not exposed to sea water every day, and the IoW ones lasted long enough.

There are also other ways. Sadiq doesn't want to increase fares, but he arguably shouldn't receive national subsidy for his network if, as is the case, bus fares are much lower than the rest of the country and passholders get much more. Those things are local decisions which should be funded locally.

I imagine there will be a compromise of sorts in the new agreement - broad approval for funding but also a mandate to increase fares by X% each year until the end of the term in 2024.

 

[JonathanH]

I imagine there will be a compromise of sorts in the new agreement - broad approval for funding but also a mandate to increase fares by X% each year until the end of the term in 2024.

A one-off hike to £2 (or even £2.50) with some protection for those on lower incomes, a reduction in the bus hopper time to 30 minutes and increase of the day bus ticket and travelcards would go a long way to improving funding and get the pain over in one go.

Everyone understands why higher fares are needed in London.

 

[johncrossley]

The low single bus fare gets a lot of attention, but for many journeys the bus takes too long so you need to use a combination of bus and Tube. In that case, London is VERY expensive, possibly the most expensive in the world when compared to other megacities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The low single bus fare gets a lot of attention, but for many journeys the bus takes too long so you need to use a combination of bus and Tube. In that case, London is VERY expensive, possibly the most expensive in the world when compared to other megacities.

Yes, true, the lack of fare integration does cause that issue. It's not the only one, though - in Paris a "ticket t+" can only be used on bus or metro, not both.

 

[johncrossley]

Yes, true, the lack of fare integration does cause that issue. It's not the only one, though - in Paris a "ticket t+" can only be used on bus or metro, not both.

They've got a new pay as you go smartcard ticket which gives a combined bus/metro fare for 1.49 EUR

https://www.ratp.fr/en/titres-et-tarifs/navigo-liberte

And thanks to Navigo Liberté +, you save money! If you make a bus / tram trip before and / or after a RER trip in Paris / metro, within one hour and thirty minutes, you will be charged only one trip.

Also, their season tickets are far cheaper. All zones in the Paris region costs 75.20 EUR per month. A zone 1 to 2 Travelcard in London costs £142.10.

 

[gaillark]

We seem to have gone a long way from talking about TfL and managed decline to scrapping the Mayor, the benefits of which escape me in this context.

I hope talking about scrapping 100 bus routes is in the context of a complete overall of bus services in London. Now we have hopper fares and relatively low daily caps for bus use the network could be drastically simplified. Higher frequency services could be provided on main routes but by only one service with people becoming used to more interchange between services.

As a Londoner it is reasonable to say Mayor Khan has failed to deliver immediate budget savings including some cuts. There are too many buses running on the same stretches of road causing lots of congestion.
Mayor Khan should be held responsible as during Covid he was running as full service as possible with no passengers or a couple at best. He should have thinned out the buses to save some cash as well as thinning out the tube.
Services should only have been beefed up with demand was returning. All what Khan can do is to clobber motorists.

As for the night tube, well you can axe that for a start to save some cash. London managed ok before the night tube. Why weren't the fares doubled after midnight to recoup some of the high operating costs?
Trouble with Mayor Khan is that he likes spending bucket loads of tax payers cash. My Council tax element for the Greater London Authority this year went up by 9.5% then the Borough Council and the Social Care precept by another 5% ontop. My Council Tax is touching £2700 a year and the Mayor should be finding ways of cutting services on duplicate routes, reducing overtime and standby, reducing frequency at off peak times and especially on the Grange Hill loop where a service every 30 minutes still would be generous.
@deltic is correct in his opinion above. Thin the buses out and match to demand. Not much of an issue waiting 1 minute longer for a bus to arrive every 5 minutes instead or 4 or a bus every 12 minutes instead of 10.

Another saving that ought to be introduced is to withdraw free universal bus travel for under 16's. Lots of kids using the bus for just one, two or three stops: They could walk that. They should be charged a token rate of say 30p per journey. This would reduce bus planning requirements resulting in further financial savings.

Khan has squanderd income as he has closed down many station car parks. Crazy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another saving that ought to be introduced is to withdraw free universal bus travel for under 16's. Lots of kids using the bus for just one, two or three stops: They could walk that. They should be charged a token rate of say 30p per journey. This would reduce bus planning requirements resulting in further financial savings.

Or just revert to half-fare for 15 and under, as per the national sort-of-standard.

 

[johncrossley]

As a Londoner it is reasonable to say Mayor Khan has failed to deliver immediate budget savings including some cuts. There are too many buses running on the same stretches of road causing lots of congestion.

There has already been quite a bit of rationalisation along those lines in central/inner London. A lot of people on here have complained bitterly about that, because of the loss of some direct links. I would agree that there is still a lot of duplication. A lot of people use the bus to save money on the Tube, which is daft. With a fully integrated fare system, a lot of bus usage would go onto the Tube. The main argument against that was Tube overcrowding, but that is less of an issue now.

 

[Horizon22]

As a Londoner it is reasonable to say Mayor Khan has failed to deliver immediate budget savings including some cuts. There are too many buses running on the same stretches of road causing lots of congestion.
Mayor Khan should be held responsible as during Covid he was running as full service as possible with no passengers or a couple at best. He should have thinned out the buses to save some cash as well as thinning out the tube.
Services should only have been beefed up with demand was returning. All what Khan can do is to clobber motorists.

A lot of the service patterns were actually mandated by the government during Covid for "key workers". I agree it was overkill at times but you seem to have a bit of an anti-Khan agenda, yes he / TfL are partly to blame but there's also a significant amount of blame to be placed on the government for trying to politicise it too when they know full well how vital passenger income is to the financial viability of TfL.

 

[Nym]

I'm not sure I follow? You can only cannabilise other fleets and keep life-expired components going for so long. Eventually parts become obsolete (i.e manufacturers stop making or supporting them) or it becomes increasingly costly to manufatcure as they are needed in such small quantities. As others have stated, they are getting on for being the oldest rolling stock in the country. However much you try, you can't flog a dead horse forever.

But it's old enough and they have all the drawings so you can simply. "Make more of something". There's just a lot of lacking in will.

 

[Horizon22]

But it's old enough and they have all the drawings so you can simply. "Make more of something". There's just a lot of lacking in will.

I don't think there's any "simply" about it. Manufacture can be tricky for certain parts and will need to be replaced a lot more often. Costs of older fleets naturally go up after 30+ years. All technologies have an age at which it becomes uneconomic to keep going as opposed to buying a new model.

 

[43066]

I don't think there's any "simply" about it. Manufacture can be tricky for certain parts and will need to be replaced a lot more often. Costs of older fleets naturally go up after 30+ years. All technologies have an age at which it becomes uneconomic to keep going as opposed to buying a new model.

This is all very true of course. Albeit, strictly from an enthusiast point of view, the longer the Bakerloo and Piccadilly stock lasts the better!

 

[Nym]

I don't think there's any "simply" about it. Manufacture can be tricky for certain parts and will need to be replaced a lot more often. Costs of older fleets naturally go up after 30+ years. All technologies have an age at which it becomes uneconomic to keep going as opposed to buying a new model.

I don't see what's tricky about it. But I do tend to know a fair amount about them. The majority of the obsolescence issues can be planned out with a proper, phased managment plan (unlike what is currently in place).

For example, a switch can fail, have the replacement for this ready to go once stocks look difficult, including the assurance paperwork, then once they become unreliable, campaign replacement. It's honestly not complicated if it's properly managed.

Arc chutes are another, they have the drawings, just get them made out of non asbestos materials like they've been doing for years.

 

[londonteacher]

As a Londoner it is reasonable to say Mayor Khan has failed to deliver immediate budget savings including some cuts.

Whilst this is true, he alone is not the only reason why budget cuts have not been made. The government in their bailouts has set out expectations for service levels and he has to follow them or not get any more funding. What we need is City Hall, TFL and DfT to work together to agree rather than a local government vs government or labour vs conservatives.

There are too many buses running on the same stretches of road causing lots of congestion.

Yes this is true. But take the buses in my local area, the 180 and 177 run together between Plumstead High Street and Greenwich. This is highly congested but the buses are always (except extremes of the day) really busy so although they could be reduced this would turn people away from public transport and back to their cars. Not everyone can afford trains in London, especially those whose fares are out of TFL control. Another example is the 53 and 453 which run together from Deptford High Street to Lower Marsh (Waterloo), again both busy routes.

Mayor Khan should be held responsible as during Covid he was running as full service as possible with no passengers or a couple at best. He should have thinned out the buses to save some cash as well as thinning out the tube.
Services should only have been beefed up with demand was returning.

As someone who used public transport throughout the pandemic (buses and tube/dlr) the services where definitely reduced. Local bus routes that were every 7/8 minutes went to every 15. Yes there were occasions where these were quiet, but overall reductions were made.

All what Khan can do is to clobber motorists.

I'm assuming that this is aimed at the ULEZ expansion. Yes, Khan started this back in his last mayoral term but again this was part of the government bailout conditions. Road closures for LTNs were also happening across the country at the suggestion of the government.

As for the night tube, well you can axe that for a start to save some cash. London managed ok before the night tube. Why weren't the fares doubled after midnight to recoup some of the high operating costs?

The government themselves have been lobbying for the reintroduction of the night tube. The Night Tube could bring in a large income if marketed well and connections from key stations used well.

Last week Minister for London, Paul Scully, urged Khan to reinstate the night tube. Speaking to The Telegraph he said: “The Mayor needs to give people convenient, affordable choices about how to travel home safely at night. It’s not enough to talk tough on social media. Leadership in London requires action.”

Trouble with Mayor Khan is that he likes spending bucket loads of tax payers cash.

Whilst this is true, the same could be said for all previous Mayor's of London (Boris - Cable Cars, Garden Bridge, NBfL..., I was too young to understand what Livingstone did but I am sure similar).

Another saving that ought to be introduced is to withdraw free universal bus travel for under 16's. Lots of kids using the bus for just one, two or three stops: They could walk that. They should be charged a token rate of say 30p per journey. This would reduce bus planning requirements resulting in further financial savings.

Rather than withdraw free travel for under 16s why not restrict it to Monday to Friday from 6am - 7pm. Any other time, they have to pay a reduced fare. Not only that but at the same time reduce/remove the railcard discounts (travel is already cheap), make free travel for those over the age of retirement.

 

[Horizon22]

I agree there's been a lot of central government demands and press quotes (like the one from Paul Scully above) and then somehow being galled by the fact they are then being asked for money to cover those costs...

 

[londonteacher]

I agree there's been a lot of central government demands and press quotes (like the one from Paul Scully above) and then somehow being galled by the fact they are then being asked for money to cover those costs...

Exactly! Don't get me wrong the Mayor and TFL do need to make significant cuts but we also need the government on board with these discussions and in agreement. Rather than each party briefing against each other!

 

[deltic]

As a Londoner it is reasonable to say Mayor Khan has failed to deliver immediate budget savings including some cuts. There are too many buses running on the same stretches of road causing lots of congestion.
Mayor Khan should be held responsible as during Covid he was running as full service as possible with no passengers or a couple at best. He should have thinned out the buses to save some cash as well as thinning out the tube.
Services should only have been beefed up with demand was returning. All what Khan can do is to clobber motorists.

As for the night tube, well you can axe that for a start to save some cash. London managed ok before the night tube. Why weren't the fares doubled after midnight to recoup some of the high operating costs?
Trouble with Mayor Khan is that he likes spending bucket loads of tax payers cash. My Council tax element for the Greater London Authority this year went up by 9.5% then the Borough Council and the Social Care precept by another 5% ontop. My Council Tax is touching £2700 a year and the Mayor should be finding ways of cutting services on duplicate routes, reducing overtime and standby, reducing frequency at off peak times and especially on the Grange Hill loop where a service every 30 minutes still would be generous.
@deltic is correct in his opinion above. Thin the buses out and match to demand. Not much of an issue waiting 1 minute longer for a bus to arrive every 5 minutes instead or 4 or a bus every 12 minutes instead of 10.

Another saving that ought to be introduced is to withdraw free universal bus travel for under 16's. Lots of kids using the bus for just one, two or three stops: They could walk that. They should be charged a token rate of say 30p per journey. This would reduce bus planning requirements resulting in further financial savings.

Khan has squanderd income as he has closed down many station car parks. Crazy.

TfL's hands are tied to some extent as services are tendered for generally 3 year periods - changing contracts cost money

The Night tube has not yet recommenced - given the leisure economy is recovering strongly it may cover its costs when a couple of lines are meant to start next weekend

Not sure the Mayor has spent bucket loads of cash - he has overseen substantial cuts in TfL staff

The sale of station car parks raises far more money and helps address London's housing problems than they bring in as car parks

Not sure where clobbering the motorists comes in - he was effectively told to increase the congestion charge and its hours of operation as part of the bail out while the extension of the low emission zone was also pushed by central government and failure to address poor air quality would have led to legal action.

 

[bramling]

The sale of station car parks raises far more money and helps address London's housing problems than they bring in as car parks

Until such time as the railway needs some land for something like some sidings or whatever, then all of a sudden there's a problem. Getting rid of the car parks, especially those which are well used, is short-termist, and does nothing to encourage people to use TfL. Pre-Covid at least, the likes of High Barnet, Cockfosters, Stanmore and Epping were booming. Obviously Khan wouldn't care as many of these users would be non-Londoners, so back to parochial policymaking again.

Not sure where clobbering the motorists comes in - he was effectively told to increase the congestion charge and its hours of operation as part of the bail out while the extension of the low emission zone was also pushed by central government and failure to address poor air quality would have led to legal action.

It seems fairly apparent the idea of expanding the congestion charge is another example of Khan being forced to do something unpopular, with the hope that this would dent his popularity as mayor. This seems to be completely pathological, as it seems unlikely such petty stuff would make sufficient dent in the vote share to actually make a Conservative mayor likely.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It's amazing just how much has changed in less than 10 years. I remember the halcyon days of 2011-2016, when London needed something like "1 trillion pounds worth of rail upgrades to meet 2050 demands". The R25 was a thing, the "high-speed doughnut" line around London was thrown about by the then Mayor (name escapes me), London Recconections were churning out exciting articles about the future - "the Bromley North branch will need to be six-tracked by 2030" etc etc. Sad to see things go the other way so very quickly. But oh well, so is life.

 

[Dent]

The cash single had already gone up to £2 some years ago, then Oyster reduced it.

You're re-writing history there, the cash fare was only £2 after Oyster cards were widely used and the PAYG fare was much lower. The cash fare was never £2 when cash was the only option.

 

[philosopher]

It's amazing just how much has changed in less than 10 years. I remember the halcyon days of 2011-2016, when London needed something like "1 trillion pounds worth of rail upgrades to meet 2050 demands". The R25 was a thing, the "high-speed doughnut" line around London was thrown about by the then Mayor (name escapes me), London Recconections were churning out exciting articles about the future - "the Bromley North branch will need to be six-tracked by 2030" etc etc. Sad to see things go the other way so very quickly. But oh well, so is life.

Personally I can’t see any major developments occurring on London‘s transport network for the foreseeable future now. There may be a few smaller schemes such as new cycle routes, making some stations step free access and if it can be funded by a developer, perhaps the odd new station. However larger schemes such as the Bakerloo Line extension and Crossrail Two I suspect now will either never happen or be a very long time coming.

 

[Cdd89]

TfL not offering good bus+rail interchange fares (other than capping) might potentially be a false economy. By creating an incentive to use one mode of transport as much as possible, they may find themselves having to provide more buses for longer routes than would otherwise be necessary, in order to meet induced passenger demand; especially in the off peak.

 

[johncrossley]

TfL not offering good bus+rail interchange fares (other than capping) might potentially be a false economy. By creating an incentive to use one mode of transport as much as possible, they may find themselves having to provide more buses for longer routes than would otherwise be necessary, in order to meet induced passenger demand; especially in the off peak.

The 25 was the classic example of a bus running at ridiculous frequency despite running parallel to rail for its whole distance. Too may people were (and probably still are) staying on it for long distances instead of changing onto the tube or train as appropriate. There is no equivalent of the 25 in west or south-west London, probably because those areas are more affluent and are more willing to pay higher tube fares.

 

[jon0844]

A one-off hike to £2 (or even £2.50) with some protection for those on lower incomes, a reduction in the bus hopper time to 30 minutes and increase of the day bus ticket and travelcards would go a long way to improving funding and get the pain over in one go.

Everyone understands why higher fares are needed in London.

How about an Oyster card for key workers, or even workers in general, that gives a discount to people who work in London? Then you can increase fares for everyone else (including tourists) without impacting those on low incomes.

It could be a scheme operated through employers, although obviously this introduces red tape and the chance of abuse (but perhaps no more so than people sharing free Oyster cards with family and friends illegally today - something you can protect through proper enforcement).