TFL & "Managed Decline"

[philosopher]

This is "Managed Decline":

• No Step Free Access schemes other than those which are currently in construction
• All fleets would need to be life extended as much as possible, as currently happening on some trains.
• Bakerloo and Central line fleet replacement pushed back to 2030s/2040s; Jubilee line replacement would not start until mid-2040s, at significant cost.

The Bakerloo line by the late 2030’s will have trains that are over 60 years old! At that age surely there is a risk that many trains are too knackered to operate and the Bakerloo line can maintain some sembelence of a service by cannibalising other trains.

 

[reddragon]

In London the buses run at a profit and subsidise rail operations.

Before deregulation most bus fares were cheaper but only cities make a bus profit, the bigger the better.

 

[Horizon22]

The Bakerloo line by the late 2030’s will have trains that are over 60 years old! At that age surely there is a risk that many trains are too knackered to operate and the Bakerloo line can maintain some sembelence of a service by cannibalising other trains.

Definitely - there’s a lot of references to “obsolescence” in the report. Simply put, the fleet will become less reliable and there would be more delays / cancellations / lower frequency service on the Bakerloo.

 

[matt_world2004]

In London the buses run at a profit and subsidise rail operations.

Before deregulation most bus fares were cheaper but only cities make a bus profit, the bigger the better.

Otherwise around tube makes a profit which subsidises the bus operations. But concessionary travel is heavily expanded on buses

 

[deltic]

In London the buses run at a profit and subsidise rail operations.

Before deregulation most bus fares were cheaper but only cities make a bus profit, the bigger the better.

Pre-pandemic London buses covered 80% of their operating costs

 

[urbophile]

Differences between London and other cities which are frequently overlooked are:
[1] astronomical housing costs which mean many more people are cash poor than elsewhere. (I doubt if even subsidised social housing is as cheap as in other parts of the country)
[2] as a consequence of this, many people on minimum wage jobs are forced to travel long distances to work from cheaper areas, probably by bus because it's cheaper.
[3] the vast size of the city means the average distance travelled per passenger is greater (often much greater) than elsewhere.
[4] the impracticability, as well as the unaffordabilty, of cars for many more people.

 

[Bishopstone]

The level of traffic in London suggests that motorists don’t find the current regime of congestion and parking charges to be onerous, so I would keep increasing and expanding these until they pay for the public transport improvements London needs.

 

[bramling]

The level of traffic in London suggests that motorists don’t find the current regime of congestion and parking charges to be onerous, so I would keep increasing and expanding these until they pay for the public transport improvements London needs.

You can get away with that if the Conservatives have essentially decided to write London off electorally.

However it’s worth remembering what happened in 2017. A majority *isn’t* a given for the Conservatives, and next time round there’s no Corbyn and no Brexit. The Conservatives might just need those few remaining London seats.

 

[Horizon22]

The level of traffic in London suggests that motorists don’t find the current regime of congestion and parking charges to be onerous, so I would keep increasing and expanding these until they pay for the public transport improvements London needs.

In Greater London yes, but the congestion charge doesn't go that far out.

 

[deltic]

The level of traffic in London suggests that motorists don’t find the current regime of congestion and parking charges to be onerous, so I would keep increasing and expanding these until they pay for the public transport improvements London needs.

What public transport improvements does London need? Many of the schemes that are possibly being dropped are no longer needed as congestion relief is no longer a requirement

 

[bramling]

What public transport improvements does London need? Many of the schemes that are possibly being dropped are no longer needed as congestion relief is no longer a requirement

Stuff like Holborn and Camden Town station congestion reliefs I'd suggest are still very much necessary. In the case of Camden Town there's a need for crowd control measures every weekend, and a lot of Holborn's congestion is centred around interchange which is still an issue. Meanwhile, how old can the Bakerloo Line's 1972 stock be expected to last? It's already well past the nominal 35-40 year book life of a train. Then there's the Piccadilly Line signalling which can't last forever, although to be fair a certain amount of work has happened over the last few years so this may now be quite the issue it once was. There's also the Central Line to consider - 1990s trains, signalling and control system, lots of money already being spent to keep it all going, time will tell if this is successful or merely a loose-fitting sticking plaster.

It's always worth pointing out when "The North" moans about its rolling stock, that London still has plenty of 1970s / 1980s trains in service, some of which have no replacement in sight.

 

[urbophile]

It's always worth pointing out when "The North" moans about its rolling stock, that London still has plenty of 1970s / 1980s trains in service, some of which have no replacement in sight.

They're mostly longer though. Very few two-carriage DMUs in Greater London.

 

[bramling]

They're mostly longer though. Very few two-carriage DMUs in Greater London.

Yes they're longer, as well as demand being greater.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes they're longer, as well as demand being greater.

But as I outlined upthread, the simple fact that they are longer means that they have more flexibility to deal with unplanned peaks in demand.

 

[Horizon22]

But as I outlined upthread, the simple fact that they are longer means that they have more flexibility to deal with unplanned peaks in demand.

Don't think Tube stock can be so easily or readily attached and detached (not got much knowledge here so feel free to correct me!)? They are basically fixed length units.

 

[bramling]

Don't think Tube stock can be so easily or readily attached and detached (not got much knowledge here so feel free to correct me!)? They are basically fixed length units.

Essentially correct. They have been detached in the very distant past, but today's operation isn't set up for this in a number of ways, not least that pretty much all the current fleets don't have middle cabs, and those that do either only have a small number of units so equipped, or on the case of the Bakerloo fleet the middle cabs don't have all the safety equipment which has been added over the years.

Uncoupling went many years ago because it caused more problems than it solved, and in any case off-peak demand is nowadays sufficiently high that it would lead to massive overcrowding on a pretty much constant basis (as opposed to the occasional football match or when all of the north decides to do their Christmas shopping on the Saturdays leading up to Christmas!).

 

[Taunton]

They're mostly longer though. Very few two-carriage DMUs in Greater London.

There are actually more than you may think. The Marylebone lines are well known for sending 2-car sets out all day and throughout the weekend, sometimes considerably crtushed, and it surprised me too that from London Bridge to East Croydon I was presented with a 2-car dmu in the morning peak - it had been a longer formation coming in from Uckfield, but most of that was sent off empty to Selhurst depot, leaving just two cars, crush loaded again, to operate a service out to East Croydon, and beyond.

 

[Horizon22]

There are actually more than you may think. The Marylebone lines are well known for sending 2-car sets out all day and throughout the weekend, sometimes considerably crtushed, and it surprised me too that from London Bridge to East Croydon I was presented with a 2-car dmu in the morning peak - it had been a longer formation coming in from Uckfield, but most of that was sent off empty to Selhurst depot, leaving just two cars, crush loaded again, to operate a service out to East Croydon, and beyond.

Marylebone yes is an oddity in its regular 2-3 car DMU working. Paddington used to have this also with 3-5 car DMUs which were totally unsuitable. Now they are often 8-cars or Crossrail 7/9 cars. That 2 car DMU at London Bridge though sounds like a significant amendment. Even 4 cars in London can be very busy in the off-peak. The Tube often has solid 70%+ capacity during the off-peak Its like comparing apples to oranges when it comes to cities in the UK. As @Hadders rightly says, a better comparison is to other major cities in Europe / US / Asia.

 

[Snow1964]

The TfL Board Finance committee papers (for meeting Wednesday 24th) have handy graph on last page.

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s16899/fc-20211124-item06b-finance-report-appx.pdf

Quite simply spending lots more than getting in revenue, the graph shows projected cash position (in green), the yellow line is Government covid bailout (currently ending 11th December). TfL uses 13 periods of 4 weeks starting 1st April, ending 31st March

The red dashed line is minimum cash balance. This is what is needed to pay suppliers, salaries, etc and keep servicing the borrowing. If cash goes below, then credit rating might fall, which could mean problems rolling over maturing bonds, or lenders requiring higher interest rates.

It seems that revenue is still about 60-71% of pre-pandemic depending on mode. But costs have not really fallen very far to date.

There is obviously a political spat, Government is fed up bailing TfL out (especially whilst mayor keeps giving free tickets to many that can afford it (commuters over 59, police, peak hour travel to those over 66, friends of TfL staff etc). Mayor is sensationalist as part of his grovelling with begging bowl.


My own hunch is Bakerloo line (now not being extended in near future) will get some new trains, by simply transferring those for 24 to 27 tph (trains per hour) Piccadilly line fleet, which is already ordered, and topping up to cover rest of 1972 fleet. A fudge where Piccadilly stays at current frequency (thus allowing signal improvement to be deferred). This is my speculation, but highly likely as fixes multiple problems for least short term extra cost.

 

[Busaholic]

There is obviously a political spat, Government is fed up bailing TfL out (especially whilst mayor keeps giving free tickets to many that can afford it (commuters over 59

So Sadiq Khan is unwilling to lose votes by undoing the populist and totally unnecessary free travel for 60+ policy introduced by Mayor B. Johnson in 2012.

 

[bramling]

So Sadiq Khan is unwilling to lose votes by undoing the populist and totally unnecessary free travel for 60+ policy introduced by Mayor B. Johnson in 2012.

I *so* wish Johnson would simply have the courage to do away with the mayoralty altogether. It’s so frustrating all this petty mayoral politics gets tangled up with TfL.

Having said that, even in LT days the politicians were never too far away, but at least most of the time (GLC days excepted) you didn’t have London transport caught in the middle of a spat between *two* lots of politicians, which is what we have at the moment.

 

[popeter45]

suprised nobody has brough up the idea that on the day they reach minimum level if TfL dont get a deal they just shut up shop still funding is agreeded?

 

[Busaholic]

I *so* wish Johnson would simply have the courage to do away with the mayoralty altogether.

Can't see him being the person to do it, but I've never been in favour of mayors, other than for largely ceremonial purposes like in the City of London. As bad an idea as Crime Commissioners, an almost complete waste of time and public money.

 

[Sm5]

I understand why people compare London to other cities in the UK but this really isn't a helpful comparison simply because London is so much than any other city, even more so when you add in its hinterland.

London really needs to be compared to other similar places such as New York, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo etc.

Totally agree.
But that assumes tourists return and business travel picks up.

Until there is a long term vaccine for Covid, thats going to remain a dream.
2022 / 2023 is going to be much the same as 2020/ 2021. Still too many unvaccinated, airlines put five year plans into place as soon as this started, based on their insurance policies which are based on huge amounts of science for a reason… even then that hopes 80% of the populations are herd immune (infected or vaccinated within the last 6-9 months).

London could be empty for a while, TFL should be working on similar 5 year assumptions at this point, and perhaps using 1990’s era (pre-internet, pre-free movement) ridership figures as a starting point, and revise down based on “Zoom”.

The Bakerloo line by the late 2030’s will have trains that are over 60 years old! At that age surely there is a risk that many trains are too knackered to operate and the Bakerloo line can maintain some sembelence of a service by cannibalising other trains.

Worked fine on the isle of wight…and they were outside for the last 30 years!

 

[philosopher]

Totally agree.
But that assumes tourists return and business travel picks up.

Until there is a long term vaccine for Covid, thats going to remain a dream.
2022 / 2023 is going to be much the same as 2020/ 2021. Still too many unvaccinated, airlines put five year plans into place as soon as this started, based on their insurance policies which are based on huge amounts of science for a reason… even then that hopes 80% of the populations are herd immune (infected or vaccinated within the last 6-9 months).

London could be empty for a while, TFL should be working on similar 5 year assumptions at this point, and perhaps using 1990’s era (pre-internet, pre-free movement) ridership figures as a starting point, and revise down based on “Zoom”.

I agree remote working will significantly impact TfL ridership for the next few years, to what degree remains to be seen

However, tourists, particularly those from Europe are already returning. Go to Central London now and you will see / hear quite a few tourists. Now that travel to / from the US is allowed, US tourists, which is big market for London should return to a large degree next year.

 

[Horizon22]

suprised nobody has brough up the idea that on the day they reach minimum level if TfL dont get a deal they just shut up shop still funding is agreeded?

They won't do exactly that - there is a section 114 notice that would be introduced as they are the equivalent of a local authority in their framework. I think it's all but "shut up shop" though - a few buses for school children, the Woolwich Ferry, and licensing taxis. That's about it - no Tubes or the Overground and few buses. These were originally highlighted around May - September 2020 until the first "bailout" came with its various restrictions.

I would suggest if it gets to a poor stage that the Night Tube reopening needs to be reconsidered, although evenings & night times are in many ways as busy as ever. Night buses are often flying through many stops with people waiting and has indirectly lead to extortionate taxi / Uber fares.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

suprised nobody has brough up the idea that on the day they reach minimum level if TfL dont get a deal they just shut up shop still funding is agreeded?

Because then you are into territory of failed African countries - civil (or public) servants not being paid salaries for months on end.

OK, large companies (eg Tarmac) do go bust and 1,000's of staff are left high and dry overnight with recourse only to Government funded redundancy payments etc. If funding breaches it's lowest level, either someone appoints an administrator in the place of the current senior management - who will decide what to keep running, which staff to keep on etc or the banks will cease to process payments.

Much as we might debate the merits of the level of public transport support in London versus the rest of the country, I think most people would accept that London needs it's public transport network to function. Also that the rest of us need London to function. [persons of the devolved nations may differ on that point!].

 

[Goldfish62]

That's a highly partial view of the influence of London mayors on TfL operations. I'd like to highlight some (by no means all) of the things that Johnson did which impinged on TfL operations, NOT in any particular order:-

A) Getting rid of bendybuses (this, admittedly, was a feature of his manifesto, so could be said to be done with public approval)
B) Commissioning the building of the 'New Routemaster' bus and signing orders for hundreds of them (again using the manifesto, but this time as a smokescreen when it quickly became clear that hop on/hop off was NEVER going to be reintroduced except in the most limited way and, even then, for a very limited time)
C) Pushing for the extension of the Northern Line branch from Kennington to a derelict site in Battersea that wasn't on TfL's Top Ten list of new Underground projects, that quickly gained approval
D) Refusing to sanction the extra train services to Bellingham that had been agreed as part of the undertakings around the withdrawal of the South London Line
E) Jumping on the Joanna Lumley bandwagon, together with George Osborne, over the Garden Bridge fantasy, which has cost London Council Taxpayers dear
F) The Emirates skilift
G) Agreeing with the Treasury to phase out government subsidies for TfL's public transport operations almost as soon as he knew he'd be out of office

Even the so-called Borisbikes were a Ken Livingstone initiative that Johnson was happy to glory in, aided by his cheerleaders at the Evening Standard.

The elephant in the room which is conveniently (for him and his administration at the Shard) never mentioned is, of course, Crossrail and who knew what before Khan was handed that particular poisoned chalice immediately after his own election. I don't believe for one second that Johnson didn't know everything was not hunky dory.

Just to add to the list of worthy projects that Johnson stuffed:
- cancelled the Cross-river tram
- cancelled the DLR extension to Barking Riverside (although belatedly sanctioned extension of the Overground to there instead)
- withdrew the western extension of the Congestion Charging Zone because his mates in RBKC asked him to.

 

[urbophile]

I *so* wish Johnson would simply have the courage to do away with the mayoralty altogether. It’s so frustrating all this petty mayoral politics gets tangled up with TfL.

Having said that, even in LT days the politicians were never too far away, but at least most of the time (GLC days excepted) you didn’t have London transport caught in the middle of a spat between *two* lots of politicians, which is what we have at the moment.

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.

 

[Nym]

Definitely - there’s a lot of references to “obsolescence” in the report. Simply put, the fleet will become less reliable and there would be more delays / cancellations / lower frequency service on the Bakerloo.

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).