• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TFL & "Managed Decline"

Status
Not open for further replies.

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
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)

It would save quite a bit if you could redeploy all the operating staff to fill the ever-increasing number of vacancies elsewhere on the network, a windfall saving in training and recruitment costs for a start, followed by a longer-term reduction in headcount as those vacancies don't have to be filled.

It's a bit academic though, it isn't going to happen, it's simply political willy-waving.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
If they did want to kill a Tube line the Waterloo and City would be the one, but I'm unconvinced that is necessary.
With trains unsuitable for use on other lines and, presumably, specially trained drivers I don't see this would result in much beyond loss of fare revenue. Not much to be saved on station staff either.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
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)
Depends how long it is shut for. If there was a ten year close down of the Bakerloo Line, until new trains and some sort of upgrade can be afforded, there would be a substantial saving / deferral of costs.

As others have said, the staff would be redeployed elsewhere or paid off.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
Depends how long it is shut for. If there was a ten year close down of the Bakerloo Line, until new trains and some sort of upgrade can be afforded, there would be a substantial saving / deferral of costs.
The Queen's Park to Baker Street section could even be transferred to the Jubilee Line during such a shutdown, diverting the trains that currently terminate at West Hampstead.

Reopening could then eventually coincide with the Lewisham extension and new stock, which would be considerably easier to introduce with no 72TS to worry about.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
The Queen's Park to Baker Street section could even be transferred to the Jubilee Line during such a shutdown, diverting the trains that currently terminate at West Hampstead.
Unfortunately, the connections are from the southern Bakerloo to the northern Jubilee, not the other way round.
1637854194228.png
[Picture is map of the track layout at Baker Street showing the Bakerloo / Jubilee connections.]

In any case, even if the connections did exist, wouldn't there be a signalling issue with doing that - eg no ATO on the Bakerloo line?

Reopening could then eventually coincide with the Lewisham extension and new stock, which would be considerably easier to introduce with no 72TS to worry about.
Yes, although that is more than ten years away, not least since if you don't have money to run the existing line, it isn't going to be possible to pay for a new one.
 
Last edited:

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
The Queen's Park to Baker Street section could even be transferred to the Jubilee Line during such a shutdown, diverting the trains that currently terminate at West Hampstead.
No possible to run from Northbound Jubilee line onto Northbound Bakerloo or indeed Southbound Bakerloo onto Southbound Jubilee
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
With trains unsuitable for use on other lines and, presumably, specially trained drivers I don't see this would result in much beyond loss of fare revenue. Not much to be saved on station staff either.
The W&C is almost effectively part of the Central line. The trains can be transferred to the Central line because they're the same and the drivers are based at Leytonstone with shifts on the W&C mixed in with those in the Central line.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Depends how long it is shut for. If there was a ten year close down of the Bakerloo Line, until new trains and some sort of upgrade can be afforded, there would be a substantial saving / deferral of costs.

As others have said, the staff would be redeployed elsewhere or paid off.
Would it though, really at Bakerstreet and Oxford circus. The bakerloo line is cross platform interchange with the jubilee and Victoria. So those sections of stations will still need to be maintained track, and tunnels will still need to he maintained and trains will occasionally need to be run down them occasionally. The only saving would be in Fleet maintenance and driver costs . But considering there would be a significant revenue loss from the bakerloo line passengers I can't see how there would be a saving.
 

bussnapperwm

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2014
Messages
1,506
If they want to hit tourists, a tourist tax would be the way. We're one of the few European countries not to have one.
Who would you define as a tourist though in a travel sense for said taxation? You could have someone travelling into Z1-2 from Brum on a AWC commuting to work yet you could have someone travelling into Z1-2 from somewhere on the outskirts to visit central london attractions
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Who would you define as a tourist though in a travel sense for said taxation? You could have someone travelling into Z1-2 from Brum on a AWC commuting to work yet you could have someone travelling into Z1-2 from somewhere on the outskirts to visit central london attractions

Typically tourist taxes are paid as an uplift, either fixed or a percentage, on hotel accommodation. They are a slight misnomer as they are really accommodation taxes and the reason for the stay is immaterial.
 

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,117
Who would you define as a tourist though in a travel sense for said taxation? You could have someone travelling into Z1-2 from Brum on a AWC commuting to work yet you could have someone travelling into Z1-2 from somewhere on the outskirts to visit central london attractions
It's an additional tax paid when you stay in a hotel there, as happens elsewhere in the world.
 

bussnapperwm

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2014
Messages
1,506
Typically tourist taxes are paid as an uplift, either fixed or a percentage, on hotel accommodation. They are a slight misnomer as they are really accommodation taxes and the reason for the stay is immaterial.

Again, Whenever I visit London for a few days, I usually stop in a Premier Inn that is cheaper like Watford, MK or High Wycombe (mainly Watford as it has its own attractions - Harry Potter World for example). and just tap/One Day Travelcard it into London using LNWR/local bus.

When visiting relatives, I usually stop over at Gants Hill or Barking and get the tube/bus to their house (and sometimes into Central London to ride a few of the buses in the centre).

Would those be taxed under your idea of a tourist tax?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
But considering there would be a significant revenue loss from the bakerloo line passengers I can't see how there would be a saving.
They would find alternative ways to make their journey. Lancaster Gate to Oxford Circus brings in the same revenue as Paddington to Oxford Circus. Waterloo to Oxford Circus via Tottenham Court Road is the same price as Waterloo to Oxford Circus on the Bakerloo Line.
The bakerloo line is cross platform interchange with the jubilee and Victoria. So those sections of stations will still need to be maintained track, and tunnels will still need to he maintained and trains will occasionally need to be run down them occasionally.
Why? If it was semi-permanent, you would just put up boarding to cover the entrances to those platforms, same as in any other closure. If the line was to be shut for a long time, clearly there would be a need to make sure that the tunnels remain safe but they don't need to be operational. I get that the Bakerloo line is convenient for some things but as a network, there are other ways to make almost all of the journeys still on the underground.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,049
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.
Locally funded subsidy? While Londoners pay through the nose for basket cases like Northern etc? You must be joking!
 

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,059
Location
Liverpool
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.
Ah-Hrrrm! Levelling up means the opposite of putting fares up. London bus fares might be cheap-er but they are not cheap. Keep them the same level and reduce those in the rest of the country (especially rural areas). Why should an unemployed parent with two or three children be forced to pay at least a fiver just to travel a couple of stops to the supermarket? (And don't suggest walking, in the rain, and with heavy bags and probably a pushchair.)
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,049
The W&C is almost effectively part of the Central line. The trains can be transferred to the Central line because they're the same and the drivers are based at Leytonstone with shifts on the W&C mixed in with those in the Central line.
The trains are far from the same.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Ah-Hrrrm! Levelling up means the opposite of putting fares up. London bus fares might be cheap-er but they are not cheap. Keep them the same level and reduce those in the rest of the country (especially rural areas). Why should an unemployed parent with two or three children be forced to pay at least a fiver just to travel a couple of stops to the supermarket? (And don't suggest walking, in the rain, and with heavy bags and probably a pushchair.)

Yes, walk. My mother used to walk to the supermarket pushing my pram. Nothing has changed making that impractical now, indeed the underpram rack can be quite useful for putting shopping on.

If the weather is bad, wear a coat.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,049
Ah-Hrrrm! Levelling up means the opposite of putting fares up. London bus fares might be cheap-er but they are not cheap. Keep them the same level and reduce those in the rest of the country (especially rural areas). Why should an unemployed parent with two or three children be forced to pay at least a fiver just to travel a couple of stops to the supermarket? (And don't suggest walking, in the rain, and with heavy bags and probably a pushchair.)
What many folk appear to be arguing for is actually levelling down. Things are rubbish elsewhere in the country so they should be the same in London (but the latter should still act as a cash cow).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What many folk appear to be arguing for is actually levelling down. Things are rubbish elsewhere in the country so they should be the same in London (but the latter should still act as a cash cow).

The country is near-bankrupt. Levelling down is the only "levelling" option on the table for a good number of years.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,049
Yes, walk. My mother used to walk to the supermarket pushing my pram. Nothing has changed making that impractical now, indeed the underpram rack can be quite useful for putting shopping on.

If the weather is bad, wear a coat.
Ah, the Brexiteers new improved UK... Children up chimneys next.... Sorry but you must be joking.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Ah, the Brexiteers new improved UK... Children up chimneys next.... Sorry but you must be joking.

There is no need for anyone without a disability to take a bus 2 stops. Just walk. If you want to do it, fine, but pay more for it.

It's a real shame London did flat fare, to be honest, touch in and out would have offered far better options here.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
Ah-Hrrrm! Levelling up means the opposite of putting fares up. London bus fares might be cheap-er but they are not cheap. Keep them the same level and reduce those in the rest of the country (especially rural areas). Why should an unemployed parent with two or three children be forced to pay at least a fiver just to travel a couple of stops to the supermarket? (And don't suggest walking, in the rain, and with heavy bags and probably a pushchair.)
That is conflating two things.

The unemployed parent with two or three children already doesn't have to pay for the accompanied children and it would seem entirely reasonable to make travel cheaper for someone in that situation in any case, tied in with the eligibility for unemployment support.

However, that does not mean that the fare for people in well paid employment shouldn't be increased considerably reflecting the fact that they can well afford to pay more than a token £1.55 for a bus journey, just like people have to everywhere else in the country.
 

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,059
Location
Liverpool
The country is near-bankrupt. Levelling down is the only "levelling" option on the table for a good number of years.
I'm not an economist but 'austerity' is a political choice. One that I didn't vote for.

That is conflating two things.

The unemployed parent with two or three children already doesn't have to pay for the accompanied children
Not in London maybe.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
The country is near-bankrupt. Levelling down is the only "levelling" option on the table for a good number of years.

Which is politically viable for as long as there's a Conservative PM and London continues to be solid Labour, both in terms of MPs and the mayor. And until the wider south-east get caught up as collateral damage, at which point "levelling down" becomes politically unviable, or Boris gets a Theresa May 2017-style surprise come 2024, which isn't *that* far away now. I know a lot of people who are extremely dissatisfied with this government, especially the PM, for various reasons, and who plan to express this on the next ballot paper which comes their way.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,049
That is conflating two things.

The unemployed parent with two or three children already doesn't have to pay for the accompanied children and it would seem entirely reasonable to make travel cheaper for someone in that situation in any case, tied in with the eligibility for unemployment support.

However, that does not mean that the fare for people in well paid employment shouldn't be increased considerably reflecting the fact that they can well afford to pay more than a token £1.55 for a bus journey, just like people have to everywhere else in the country.
Re your second para that is a good idea right up to the point where they decide to take the tube or train instead if there is no cost margin and swap those systems.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
They would find alternative ways to make their journey. Lancaster Gate to Oxford Circus brings in the same revenue as Paddington to Oxford Circus. Waterloo to Oxford Circus via Tottenham Court Road is the same price as Waterloo to Oxford Circus on the Bakerloo Line.

Why? If it was semi-permanent, you would just put up boarding to cover the entrances to those platforms, same as in any other closure. If the line was to be shut for a long time, clearly there would be a need to make sure that the tunnels remain safe but they don't need to be operational. I get that the Bakerloo line is convenient for some things but as a network, there are other ways to make almost all of the journeys still on the underground.
They would still need to maintain escalators , lighting ensure fire safety measures in the sections of stations that are cross platform interchange
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,748
The W&C is almost effectively part of the Central line. The trains can be transferred to the Central line because they're the same and the drivers are based at Leytonstone with shifts on the W&C mixed in with those in the Central line.
The trains cannot be transferred without loads of work, and why would they want to if saving money is the object, savings could come from maintenance and staffing costs, however, on the scale of things the saving to be made would be tiny.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
The W&C is almost effectively part of the Central line. The trains can be transferred to the Central line because they're the same and the drivers are based at Leytonstone with shifts on the W&C mixed in with those in the Central line.
Don't the trains on the W&C still have to be brought to the surface and transferred by lorry in sections? In any case, I thought they were no longer interchangeable with the Central because of signalling - whether all Leytonstone drivers are trained for the W&C I have no idea.

P.S. I have in my attic somewhere a signed certificate entitling me to drive an Underground train in an emergency, obtained by being sent on the guards' training course at White City by the Central Line. I'm very happy that it never came to it, and I'd imagine LT management and its passengers would have been even happier if they'd known my complete incompetence in understanding it all.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,630
If a tube line is closed and the driving and other staff laid off, if funding is later restored it is likely it would go into a driverless conversion, given there would be no additional disruption from the construction works, and it would avoid having to rehire driving staff, whilst achieving the government's long held objective.

So I'm not sure threatening this is really going to frighten Central Government very much
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top