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

RailUK Forums

Megafuss

Member
Joined
5 May 2018
Messages
639
I'd have sympathy for the predicament TfL finds itself in, but they do use some antiquated practicses out of choice.

For example they could endeavour to interwork bus routes in order to save resources without the need to change frequencies too much.

London Buses is absolutely ripe for this
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Cut the tfl Rail from Heathrow Airport to Hayes and Harlington. No way should tfl be paying £500 a train movement across Heathrow Junction even pre pandemic this was poorly used and the track access fees was an effective london fare payer/council tax payer subsidy to Heathrow Airport
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I'd have sympathy for the predicament TfL finds itself in, but they do use some antiquated practicses out of choice.

For example they could endeavour to interwork bus routes in order to save resources without the need to change frequencies too much.

London Buses is absolutely ripe for this

The biggest problem TfL are going to have in the medium term is being able to attract a decent calibre of staff to fill the operational roles. Things are already rather demoralised, and I’d say next year is pretty certain to see plenty of further ER issues. Anyone would have to be mad to choose to join TfL at the moment.
 

bugbugbugbug

New Member
Joined
8 May 2021
Messages
4
Location
you kay
The idea of the Jubilee closing is ridiculous though. South/east from Baker Street it's one of the busiest lines.

I was sceptical too when I first read this, but I'm stating to see how closing the Jubilee might make sense. TfL need to find ways cut expenditure whilst minimising the loss of fare income that comes from reducing services. Closing an entire line (especially one that is completely segregated from all others) is probably a big reduction in expenditure. In order to minimise loss of fares, you'd want to pick a line that is well served by other lines (with spare capacity) in the hope that displaced passengers will use those lines instead.

Bermondsey and North Greenwich are only two stations on the Jubilee east of Baker Street that aren't served by other lines and there will be extra capacity at Canary Wharf and Stratford when Crossrail opens. More stations would be affected in the west, but it might be possible to reduce the damage if the Metropolitan platforms at a Neasden and Willesden Green can be used for regular service. Other lines becoming crowded as a result of the closure is actually a good thing if the aim is to become more profitable. The ideal line to close is the one that will result the maximum passenger increase on other lines.

I'm not saying I approve of closing the Jubilee (on the contrary, I consider it to be an act of infrastructure vandalism!), but I don't think it's as ridiculous as it first appears. It also comes with the added bonus of being one of the lines whose closure will be most felt in Westminster.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
And I'm sure this encourages people out of their cars...
In many instances, yes. The daily cap was also reduced earlier this year.

And since we are told in this thread that something like “50% of households in London don’t have a car” (in the West Midlands it’s about 25%) then they can either pay up, walk/cycle or pay for the congestion charge and parking.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
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.
Looking at the planning application - it was a 280 space car park and the development included 24 3 bedroom flats - not sure where you are going to build family houses in London at any volume. I suggest a significant proportion of cars parked at London underground stations are not local residents but people railheading from much futher afield who should be encouraged to travel to more local stations. Was certainly the case where I live until residents parking controls were introduced.
 

akm

Member
Joined
21 Mar 2018
Messages
232
I was sceptical too when I first read this, but I'm stating to see how closing the Jubilee might make sense.

Event nights at the O2 (main arena capacity 20000) will be, er, fun without North Greenwich station...
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,047
In many instances, yes. The daily cap was also reduced earlier this year.

And since we are told in this thread that something like “50% of households in London don’t have a car” (in the West Midlands it’s about 25%) then they can either pay up, walk/cycle or pay for the congestion charge and parking.
Fine just as long as the rest of the country gets a congestion charge too - "levelling up" innit! If you expect London to pay for it's public transport and yours too then you will be in for a bloody big shock.
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,800
Location
Way on down South London town
I suppose they could curtail the Bakerloo at Queens Park again, and turn more services around in the inner suburbs instead of pushing right through the end of the line. I agree closing an entire line seems like bluster.

Crossrail 2 most likely dead, but I do wonder if it can still survive in some cut down form. I.e, no Angel station and surfacing at Finsbury Park to take over GN services instead of tunnelling to Tottenham Hale and Wood Green. That would save off a few billion.
 

WAB

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
636
Location
Middlesex
In many instances, yes. The daily cap was also reduced earlier this year.

And since we are told in this thread that something like “50% of households in London don’t have a car” (in the West Midlands it’s about 25%) then they can either pay up, walk/cycle or pay for the congestion charge and parking.
...or encourages them to buy cars. Congestion and pollution is already bad - it does not need to be made worse. A lot of developments have no parking provision, so good luck to residents on surrounding roads.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,930
In many instances, yes. The daily cap was also reduced earlier this year.

And since we are told in this thread that something like “50% of households in London don’t have a car” (in the West Midlands it’s about 25%) then they can either pay up, walk/cycle or pay for the congestion charge and parking.
The last quoted data I saw put it around 60% of households without a car, ie a majority. Were else is that the case?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
Crossrail 2 most likely dead, but I do wonder if it can still survive in some cut down form. I.e, no Angel station and surfacing at Finsbury Park to take over GN services instead of tunnelling to Tottenham Hale and Wood Green. That would save off a few billion.
It would also seem pointless to take over GN services that already run in a tunnel to Moorgate. Finsbury Park wouldn't be a sensible traffic objective.

I agree closing an entire line seems like bluster.
Quite on the contrary it provides the magnitude of savings TfL need to make which tinkering at the edges doesn't.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
It isn't intended to make savings, it is intended to make the Goverment look stingy and thus cough up, as they have done every time so far.
Yes, but as we have discussed, eventually the Government is going to say no. As much as anything, TfL have now indicated how they can make savings and the people with the purse strings might just be interested in what they have put forward.
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,800
Location
Way on down South London town
It would also seem pointless to take over GN services that already run in a tunnel to Moorgate. Finsbury Park wouldn't be a sensible traffic objective.


Quite on the contrary it provides the magnitude of savings TfL need to make which tinkering at the edges doesn't.

I disagree, a major objective of CR2 is to relieve the Piccadilly Line in north London by building a new tunnel. Taking over GN services, which runs parallel to the Picc anyway, will save the need for a new tunnel.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
It isn't intended to make savings, it is intended to make the Goverment look stingy and thus cough up, as they have done every time so far.

They will cough up, but we wait to see what conditions will be attached this time. It’s pretty much a given that there will be something in there designed to shaft Khan.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Yes, but as we have discussed, eventually the Government is going to say no. As much as anything, TfL have now indicated how they can make savings and the people with the purse strings might just be interested in what they have put forward.

It is unlikely to go for a closure of a whole line because that would alienate the huge number of London Tory voters. What will happen is a compromise of shallower cuts like frequency reductions, an end to the Night Tube perhaps (which would also fix a dispute), bus cuts, fare increases etc.

Like with any negotiation, you ask for more than you expect to get and meet in the middle.

I would happily bet £10 that there will be no full line closures.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
I wonder what the revenue gain would be of prohibiting bus hopping from and to the same bus number. That would be an easy change.

Downsides would be the need to use transfer tickets for curtailments again, and also would deter people from boarding buses (i.e. using capacity) that are shown on the blind as curtailed.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I wonder what the revenue gain would be of prohibiting bus hopping from and to the same bus number. That would be an easy change.

Downsides would be the need to use transfer tickets for curtailments again, and also would deter people from boarding buses (i.e. using capacity) that are shown on the blind as curtailed.

Not a lot, as few people are making a return journey within an hour of their outward one's start. The use cases for that are extremely limited.

The Hopper really needs to be left alone as it is a money saver, by encouraging people to make connections (by not penalising them for doing so) and so you can simplify and cut the network.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
I wonder what the revenue gain would be of prohibiting bus hopping from and to the same bus number. That would be an easy change.

Downsides would be the need to use transfer tickets for curtailments again, and also would deter people from boarding buses (i.e. using capacity) that are shown on the blind as curtailed.
It wouldn't be an easy change. People often bus hop from one bus to another because there has been a curtailment on the route . Or because they are swapping between express and non express buses.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
Fine just as long as the rest of the country gets a congestion charge too - "levelling up" innit! If you expect London to pay for it's public transport and yours too then you will be in for a bloody big shock.
No objection to that from me. Birmingham recently acquired its ‘Clean Air Zone’ which is functionally the same.

...or encourages them to buy cars. Congestion and pollution is already bad - it does not need to be made worse. A lot of developments have no parking provision, so good luck to residents on surrounding roads.
Buy a car? Pay for the congestion charge and parking (including on-street parking).

The last quoted data I saw put it around 60% of households without a car, ie a majority. Were else is that the case?
The latest figures I found (after only doing a cursory internet search, mind - I haven’t specifically sought out anything more recent) were from 2019/20: London on roughly 45% and West Midlands on 25%. Both above the average for England (and for England excluding London in the latter case).
 

londonteacher

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2018
Messages
662
If I was TFL I would:

  1. Close the Emirates Air Line temporarily, but investigate selling to a private company.
  2. Introduce a nominal charge (Upto £3) for Woolwich Ferry.
  3. Reduce services on Circle, H&C, District, and Met lines so that on shared parts of the lines there are fewer services but on unique sections maintain a good service. E.g. Do we need both H&C and District to Barking?
  4. Stop Bakerloo Line services from travelling north of Queens Park. It's a cross platform change at Queens Park so easy for people to do.
  5. Raise bus prices to £2, and reduce hopper time to a strict 60 minutes rather than 70 minutes. (For example Orpington to Heathrow shouldn't be £1.55 but is possible due to Hopper) £3 bus fares that cross boundaries such as any to Bluewater, Dorking, Redhill, Lakeside, Watford Junction, Slough.
  6. Reduce TFL rail services outside of Greater London authority areas unless funding is received from the relevant local authorities.
  7. Extend the ULEZ and Congestion Charge to cover the whole of Greater London Authority areas (e.g. all London Boroughs).
  8. Remove railcard discounts from Oyster cards (I benefit, but this might save some money).
  9. Restrict free travel for under 18s to between 6am and 7pm Monday to Friday. Over times make them pay a fare.
  10. Remove travelcard discounts on Uber boats (TfL must be subsidising this - is it needed? No)
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
Raise bus prices to £2, and reduce hopper time to a strict 60 minutes rather than 70 minutes. (For example Orpington to Heathrow shouldn't be £1.55 but is possible due to Hopper)
It is already 62 minutes. I think 30 minutes would make some sense though. An hour is very generous and probably not really what is intended, which should be the ability to take a bus from a residential area of one locality and change to a trunk route into the neighbouring area.

This has already been done (well, to 62 minutes). It’ll take effect in March.
March 2021.

£3 bus fares that cross boundaries such as any to Bluewater, Dorking, Redhill, Lakeside, Watford Junction, Slough.
Without touch on / touch off that is difficult to do. Far better would be to truncate the routes closer to the London boundary and let the neighbouring operators run services that just reach the boundary and don't run any distance into London. The commercial fare from Redhill to Coulsdon would be around £3.60 single just as it is from Reigate to Kingswood.
 
Last edited:

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,930
£3 bus fares that cross boundaries such as any to Bluewater, Dorking, Redhill, Lakeside, Watford Junction, Slough
That wouldn't work. You'd have to install card readers at the exit doors and get everyone to touch out in order to register the correct fare. A complete non-starter.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It is already 62 minutes. I think 30 minutes would make some sense though. An hour is very generous and probably not really what is intended, which should be the ability to take a bus from a residential area of one locality and change to a trunk route into the neighbouring area.

It isn't just for that, it is also to allow people to connect to central London local journeys, so the hour is needed. It was part of the justification for the truncation of the 73, for example. Indeed, it was more that than the other way round, as it is central London where journeys have been slashed for a simpler connectional network.

The number of people "misusing" it by doing out-and-backs in the hour will be very small, and in a stage based system would probably be paying a lower "couple of stops" fare anyway.

That wouldn't work. You'd have to install card readers at the exit doors and get everyone to touch out in order to register the correct fare. A complete non-starter.

It is a real pity they didn't do that to start with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top