TFL & "Managed Decline"

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
775
Are you thinking of the heavily modernised PCC streetcars in Philadelphia?


Or the vintage streetcars in New Orleans (and modern lookalikes)?
Nope San Francisco


How would temporary reduction in bus services have saved money. TfL don't directly pay the drivers. They specify a contracted frequency which a bus company then provides. TfL cannot unilaterally reduce bus frequencies temporarily as a tool to save money.

Planned changes are often written into the tender documents and temporary frequency increases (eg for rail closures) are paid on a premium fixed price basis.

Permanent contract changes are often negotiated with the bus company where by tfl negotiate a reduction in the contract price for a service frequency reduction. This does not happen overnight and would have been inappropriate for a short term frequency reduction due to covid. Particularly with the unpredictable nature of the pandemic.

Crosslinks also mean bus changes are often not simple to just cut. The driver of the night bus . May also drive the early morning school bus, or a non london bus for example with sullivan buses.
We must not forget that some (All?) busses were free during the first lockdown as there was middle door boarding
This farebox loss was to TFL but not the operators
Reducing the service may have persuaded some people to pay to go on the tube
 
Last edited:

gaillark

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2013
Messages
161
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.



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.
Sale of station car parks should be resisted. Khan has created misery as you can't park your car anymore as the station car parks have gone such as Blackhorse Road with well over 560 spaces always full. Waltham Forest Council that is anti car had deliberately run down its adjoining car park to Higham Park station to make it unsafe to park then said it had little use two years later and built flats. What has happended to the intergrated transport policy whereby station car parking was seen as essential in getting people onto public transport as part of a seamless journey. Yes I know Stanmore, Epping and Theydon Bois are very well used car parks and Khan is trying to build loads of flats at Stanmore and Cannons Park which Harrow Council are against.
Are people suggesting that stations say for example only Coventry, Crewe, Rugby, Peterborough and York should have all their car parks closed and blocks of flats built on them. This is what is happening in London. You still need to get to the station and its a non starter taking two or three buses to the station and that is why you still need station car parks. It also bring in constant revenue as selling an assest is a one off and loose all future income (which needs to be replaced from somewhere else). Station car parks often had some wildlife around and provided some much needed buffer space between development which has now gone.

@deltic in post #83 - yes it brings in one off cash but the qaulity of housing provided is all flats which suits any politician as they count the number of units. What London is desparately short of is high qaulity family houses (not flats). Most of the station car parks have done very little in social housing provision.

And as @bramling says above what happens when the railway needs some land for sidings. Stratford's suggested new bay platforms for the proposed new Chingford and Lea Valley turnbacks could be under threat from the sphere planning proposal.
I'm not playing politics here but vast majority of politicians are not looking at the whole wider picture and impact.

 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
70,665
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Are people suggesting that stations say for example only Coventry, Crewe, Rugby, Peterborough and York should have all their car parks closed and blocks of flats built on them. This is what is happening in London. You still need to get to the station and its a non starter taking two or three buses to the station and that is why you still need station car parks.

Two or three buses to the station? Exactly where in the built up area of London requires that?

London is an increasingly anti-car city (and rightly so), so I don't think the removal of these car parks is wrong at all. It is simply incomparable with large regional InterCity stations outside London where public transport is poor or non-existent.

If they are providing parking for anything at Tube stations, it should be genuinely secure parking for bicycles and e-bikes, like the Dutch "bewaakte Fietsenstallingen" with staff there to monitor everything, even if at a fee.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
6,228
Two or three buses to the station? Exactly where in the built up area of London requires that?

London is an increasingly anti-car city (and rightly so), so I don't think the removal of these car parks is wrong at all. It is simply incomparable with large regional InterCity stations outside London where public transport is poor or non-existent.

If they are providing parking for anything at Tube stations, it should be genuinely secure parking for bicycles and e-bikes, like the Dutch "bewaakte Fietsenstallingen" with staff there to monitor everything, even if at a fee.
Couldn't agree more.

People complain about public transport in this country and why it can't be like "elsewhere" yet aren't willing to pay for it through taxation so it can be like it is "elsewhere", as well as being very reluctant to switch from private car however good the alternative public transport offering.

For all its faults the public transport network in London is better than anywhere else in the UK and has to be one reason why less than 50% of households own a car. Where else in the UK is that the case?
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
1,522
Location
Wilmslow
Just reported in the Evening Standard, the latest escalation from TFl,
  • An entire tube line may have to close (implied Bakerloo or Jubilee most likely)
  • A Section 114 notice may have to be issued, effective "bankruptcy"
  • 5% fare rise predicted for January (RPI + 1%)

TfL crisis latest: entire Tube line may have to close and bankruptcy notice issued

TfL chief says problems are ‘even worse than Crossrail’ as bumper fares hike looms

Closing an entire Tube line is among the options that Transport for London may have to consider as a result of its financial crisis, it has been revealed.
TfL finance chief Simon Kilonback said the failure to secure Government cash for long-term repairs and upgrades would have a disastrous impact on the capital’s transport network.
Last week TfL warned that 18 per cent of bus services and nine per cent of Tube services were facing the axe, which would mean removing 100 of 700 bus routes and reducing services on 200 more.
Mr Kilonback told the TfL finance committee on Wednesday that TfL could be forced into the “full closure of a line or part of a line or smaller reductions across the whole [Underground] network”.
He did not name the line most likely to be closed but the Bakerloo and Jubilee lines are reportedly at risk.
The Metropolitan and Hammersmith & City lines could also be options due to lower passenger numbers and overlapping rail or Tube services.
DLR and London Overground services are also at risk, Heidi Alexander, the deputy mayor for transport, told the committee.
Mr Kilonback said there was a risk that TfL would have to issue a “section 114 notice” - effectively declaring itself bankrupt and handing responsibility for services back to the Government.
This would mean it would only commit to providing services required by law, such as school buses, taxi licensing, certain road repairs and the Woolwich ferry.
It would also be likely that TfL would seek to run only services where it made a “profit”, he suggested.
Mayor Sadiq Khan has requested an urgent meeting with Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, but has yet to receive a reply.
TfL commissioner Andy Byford told the TfL finance committee there was “less than three weeks to save TfL and the London recovery”.
He said: “I never thought I would say this but getting the Elizabeth line across the line seems a darn site easier than trying to sort this one out.”
He has written to the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport requesting the start of negotiations. He said he was desperate to avoid what happened in the last bail-out, when agreement was only reached with “11 minutes to go before the deal expired”.
Passengers are also likely to face a bumper fares hike from the New Year. TfL’s plans expect a rise of the RPI rate of interest plus one per cent.
This is likely to mean an extra five per cent on fares, though Mr Khan has the final decision.
TfL ticketing chief Shashi Verma said: “This is the city with the highest public transport fares in the world to start off with.”
Mr Kilonback said: “I think we unfortunately face the situation we first faced back in May 2020, where we are going to have to consider what is required under statute, and say that under S114 of the local Government Finance Act we cannot see a way to balance the budget.
“That requires us to commute all expenditure other than that which is required for statutory purposes, which are very limited in terms of the transport services we operate, and to continue to run things that contribute to getting out of the problem and to stop anything which makes the problem worse.
“Whereas in the past, certainly the Tube and some of our rail services were covering their operating costs. That isn’t the case today. This is not a threat. It’s the reality of the statutory position we are in, given the lack of certainty over funding.”
A TfL spokeswoman, asked whether London’s fares were the highest in the world, said: “In London, 72 per cent of the operating costs of running the TfL network are covered completely by fares and another 14 per cent by other commercial revenues.
“Other cities cover a much larger proportion of their costs from government subsidies or dedicated taxes.”
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
70,665
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What a load of tripe. All they will need to do is reduce frequencies commensurate with reduced demand, and increase bus fares to a similar level to other cities rather than the penny-levels they are at now. Plus, if they want, add locally funded subsidy.

This is just bluster to try to get more money from central Government.

If they did want to kill a Tube line the Waterloo and City would be the one, but I'm unconvinced that is necessary.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
3,154
Location
London
Jusr reported in the Evening Standard, the latest escalation from TFl,
  • An entire tube line may have to close (implied Bakerloo or Jubilee most likely)
  • A Section 114 notice may have to be issued, effective "bankruptcy"
  • 5% fare rise predicted for January (RPI + 1%)

The actual article says “full closure of a line or part of a line or smaller reductions across the whole [Underground] network”.

I'd suggest the latter is much more likely and is posted on a equivalency basis (x% reductions across all lines may well be the same as completly closing one line).
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,644
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
The actual article says “full closure of a line or part of a line or smaller reductions across the whole [Underground] network”.

I'd suggest the latter is much more likely and is posted on a equivalency basis (x% reductions across all lines may well be the same as completly closing one line).

Always be suspicious when the word “might” is used.

It is time the government and mayor worked together to sort this. Evidently Boris was absent on the day Eton taught that governments are supposed to govern in the interest of everyone, not just the people who vote for them.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
6,228
In the video embedded in the ES article it's worth listening to Andy Byford from 13:40 onwards.
 

JonathanH

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
9,270
For what it is worth, the loss of the Bakerloo line for a few years probably wouldn't be a disaster as many of the journeys that can be made on it are covered by other lines and passengers changing between routes in different places.

Once Crossrail is open, its function in moving people away from Paddington falls away.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
70,665
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
For what it is worth, the loss of the Bakerloo line for a few years probably wouldn't be a disaster as many of the journeys that can be made on it are covered by other lines and passengers changing between routes in different places.

If we're talking "what can we lop", you could lop it at Queens Park instead of running to Harrow, which would save a couple of diagrams.
 

JonathanH

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
9,270
If we're talking "what can we lop", you could lop it at Queens Park instead of running to Harrow, which would save a couple of diagrams.
No, just take it out completely. How many stations on the Bakerloo line south of Queens Park don't have another station within a reasonable walking distance? Even from Marylebone, Baker Street isn't very far away. It would be interesting to know how much saving could be made without the Bakerloo line, particularly given that the 72 stock could be withdrawn.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,644
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
If we're talking "what can we lop", you could lop it at Queens Park instead of running to Harrow, which would save a couple of diagrams.

This would be dubious because of the depot being at Stonebridge. Yes it would introduce some element of saving, but it would also introduce new issues - especially with an ageing fleet you are more likely to want the depot on hand than not!

No, just take it out completely. How many stations on the Bakerloo line south of Queens Park don't have another station within a reasonable walking distance? Even from Marylebone, Baker Street isn't very far away. It would be interesting to know how much saving could be made without the Bakerloo line, particularly given that the 72 stock could be withdrawn.

It would actually offer a neat solution to a number of problems - deals with the issue of 72 stock fleet replacement, the drivers could be redeployed elsewhere resolving the current shortages, and as you say many journeys can be covered by other means. Though there might be capacity issues on the Queen's Park to Harrow section, the current Overground service probably isn't quite sufficient to get peak loads into central London.

The idea of the Jubilee closing is ridiculous though. South/east from Baker Street it's one of the busiest lines.
 

Egg Centric

Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
242
Location
Watford (not for long!)
Just to run with the Bakerloo idea a bit further for a bit of fun, how much would it cost to get it restarted again? What would you propose doing with the current Bakerloo staff? Redundancy?
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
2,834
Reducing tube services on a few lines saves a few drivers wages and nothing much else.

Shutting a line down allows mass lay offs of drivers and managers and all non interchange stations to be closed.

Please note, this is not a statement in favour of the above.
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
1,701
A few people on social media are calling for the Hammersmith & City to go instead, which does make sense considering it's duped by the District & Circle line. Isn't the H&C normally the first to go during disruption?
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,644
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
A few people on social media are calling for the Hammersmith & City to go instead, which does make sense considering it's duped by the District & Circle line. Isn't the H&C normally the first to go during disruption?

I'd say in places it's busier than the Circle. There's quite heavy demand from the top side of the Circle towards Barking nowadays. If you were going to get rid of one of the C or H, I'd actually get rid of the Circle.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
70,665
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
A few people on social media are calling for the Hammersmith & City to go instead, which does make sense considering it's duped by the District & Circle line. Isn't the H&C normally the first to go during disruption?

Surely as the H&C has only a tiny section of its own infrastructure this would only give a saving in the order of a percentage reduction across the board? No infrastructure nor rolling stock could be abandoned.
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
1,701
I'd say in places it's busier than the Circle. There's quite heavy demand from the top side of the Circle towards Barking nowadays. If you were going to get rid of one of the C or H, I'd actually get rid of the Circle.
True, a through journey from Liverpool Street to Tower Hill could be done via a change at Aldgate East
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
70,665
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'd say in places it's busier than the Circle. There's quite heavy demand from the top side of the Circle towards Barking nowadays. If you were going to get rid of one of the C or H, I'd actually get rid of the Circle.

Extend Met to Tower Hill if you did, don't underestimate the number of tourists on that bit.

True, a through journey from Liverpool Street to Tower Hill could be done via a change at Aldgate East

The station wouldn't cope with the huge amount of tourist traffic doing that. Side platforms with a narrow footbridge etc. You'd have to extend the Met to Tower Hill if you did.

But all of these suggestions won't save any more than an overall percentage reduction as they get rid of neither considerable infrastructure nor rolling stock.
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
1,701
Extend Met to Tower Hill if you did, don't underestimate the number of tourists on that bit.



The station wouldn't cope with the huge amount of tourist traffic doing that. Side platforms with a narrow footbridge etc. You'd have to extend the Met to Tower Hill if you did.

But all of these suggestions won't save any more than an overall percentage reduction as they get rid of neither considerable infrastructure nor rolling stock.
Very true.

Whatever happens, I don't think it's feasible for any of the deep level services to go as they all serve some form of purpose.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
70,665
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Tourists don't vote for London mayors, so their needs will be pretty much at the bottom of any list!

It's not about their needs, it's about safety. Removing that part of the Circle would cause dangerous overcrowding at Aldgate East with no means of managing it (because it would come from inside). It would be like closing Cannon St, which would result in dangerous overcrowding at Monument.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
3,578
Would mothballing the bakerloo line really save a significant amount of money.I would imagine that tunnel maintenance is a significant cost for that part of the line which would staffing savings would be minimal given most stations are interchanges and wouldn't not running trains cause issues with dust and track segregation (like the waterloo and city during lockdown)
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,644
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
It's not about their needs, it's about safety. Removing that part of the Circle would cause dangerous overcrowding at Aldgate East with no means of managing it (because it would come from inside). It would be like closing Cannon St, which would result in dangerous overcrowding at Monument.

I think this is overstated. The Circle has been missing at times in the past, and it hasn't resulted in major issues. Likewise were it to be a permanent change then a proportion of people will look at the map and find a different route altogether for their journey. In any case, Aldgate East isn't that cramped a station.
 

Top