TfL wants to take over more NR

[Nortube]

I see that Boris / TfL would like to take over NR rail services to Dartford:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-21798920

I know that there have been rumblings in the past about TfL expanding into the suburbs, even as far as taking over most of the main line suburban services.

Whilst it would be good to integrate all of the transport systems in London under one umbrella, I think that it may complicate matters in situations like this with a two tier fare system being in use between TfL and any other TOC(s) using the same sattions and covering the same route. Unless one company offers an exceptional service that will make passengers want to pay the higher fares, I can see most people all jumping on the cheapest train.

I didn't realise until the other day that there are two different fares to Brighton. Taking a common starting point (East Croydon), the anyytime single is: FCC 1£4.50    Southern £17.90. The trains go the same route, but you pay more for the (some times) faster Southern trains. Yet at other times both FCC and Southern stop at exactly the same stations from East Croydon and take exactly the same time (44 mins). Unless people want to get to their destination a few minutes quicker, I'm sure that most of them will travel on the FCC trains because it's cheaper, especially the regular travellers.

It just doesn't make sense.


As an aside, if TfL did expand, I wonder if staff passes would be valid on those lines as well. 

[railtechnician]

Mar 15, 2013 12:59:34 GMT Nortube said:

I see that Boris / TfL would like to take over NR rail services to Dartford:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-21798920

I know that there have been rumblings in the past about TfL expanding into the suburbs, even as far as taking over most of the main line suburban services.

Whilst it would be good to integrate all of the transport systems in London under one umbrella, I think that it may complicate matters in situations like this with a two tier fare system being in use between TfL and any other TOC(s) using the same sattions and covering the same route. Unless one company offers an exceptional service that will make passengers want to pay the higher fares, I can see most people all jumping on the cheapest train.

I didn't realise until the other day that there are two different fares to Brighton. Taking a common starting point (East Croydon), the anyytime single is: FCC 1£4.50    Southern £17.90. The trains go the same route, but you pay more for the (some times) faster Southern trains. Yet at other times both FCC and Southern stop at exactly the same stations from East Croydon and take exactly the same time (44 mins). Unless people want to get to their destination a few minutes quicker, I'm sure that most of them will travel on the FCC trains because it's cheaper, especially the regular travellers.

It just doesn't make sense.


As an aside, if TfL did expand, I wonder if staff passes would be valid on those lines as well. 

It makes no sense at all to me to have a fragmented transport infrastructure making profits for private companies. My belief is that public transport should be a service and should be properly integrated. I would even go so far as to suggest that it should be free at the point of use.
Back in the day when most of the UK infrastructure was publicly owned and operated the governments of the day simply saw the various services as cash cows and creamed off any profits to be wasted elsewhere. 
If there must be fares they should be consistent and reasonable for all and with proper infrastructure planning a properly integrated national transportation system would benefit all travellers and not just daily commuters and those who can afford first class travel.

The problem is one of too many cooks, lobbyists at many levels and divisive politicking which amounts to legalised bribery to persuade businesses to move to new locations and to bring in foreign investors. Since the 1950s that has gradually wrecked Britain. If public transportation was free at the point of use for all then the roads could be freed up to carry freight efficiently. The car industry could devote itself to the manufacture of buses, trams and trains providing work for millions.  If public transport went where people wanted to go as it once did then the need for private cars for most would be obviated altogether. 

There is so much that could be done with a little lateral thinking and a government of national unity working for the common good and that of course is a practical impossibility because a politician's stock in trade is argument rather than agreement and the people who could make it happen simply don't exist in numbers and never will while we live in a pseudo democracy where governments have agendas which are not forward thinking in any real sense. For decades now we have seen make do and mend and the occasional new line but where is the national infrastructure planning, there is none!

The railways like the bus networks are a mess, in London the people are spoilt for choice and still choose to use private cars to clog the roads. Boris would make a real mark by closing roads to private vehicles for say a 10 mile radius from Charing Cross allowing only authorised service vehicles, public service vehicles and emergency services vehicles in the restricted area. I think more trams on the major highways in that area instead of buses would be an excellent move. 

There has never been a plan for London let alone the country and having a plan is the logical starting point rather than keep throwing public money at problems with little if any forethought. Of course even miniscule forethought seems to take politicians decades to implement.

[Nortube]

I agree with all that you say.

There has never been any proper support for the railway system and, with Marple(?) as transport minister who, I believe, owned or was the head of, a construction company that was involved in the building of the motorways, it was obvious where his priorities would lie.

I am probably biased. I never had need for a car in my youth and so never leaned to drive then, coming on the Underground with free travel in London and cheap main line fares everywhere else, I saw no point in having a car with all the high costs involved. A car is convenient, and possibly a necessity now that shopping is concentrated in large superstores often some miles away, but I just can't understand people wanting to travel to work in London by car when (when running OK) there is a  perfectly good and frequent train service.

Of course, one of the problems is the cost of travel. Ignoring congestion charges, it may well b cheaper fo people to travel in to work by car if they have their own parking space / free parking at the other end. Free, or very cheap travel would encourage people of the roads, especially outside London, although I'm not sure if London's rail system could cope with any extra rush hour passengers in some areas. However, that could all have been planned for if somebody had really taken the bull by the horns in the past. Paris seemed to manage it in the sixties onwards where they invested a lot in their system, renewing their infrastructure and also built the main line connections under Paris - a bit like Crossrail are now doing fifty years later!. The policy was cheap fares (I think there is some subsidy from local businesses) and it seemed to work. They seemed to do the opposite in the UK. Let the transport system run down through under investment, but keep on increasing the fares.

Now everything is privatised, whether it's rail, gas, water etc., all the companies are interested in is profit. They try and justify exorbitant inflation-busting rises in year "because we need it for investment", but exactly how much of that goes for investment and how much goes into the shareholders' pockets?

Rail, bus and Underground systems should not be privately run.

[railtechnician]

Hands up here because I have been driving on a full licence for almost 42 years and despite my staff pass and priv I chose to drive to and from work on late turn and night shift always and on days when I had a parking space. Quite simply driving took less time than using public transport and it was door to door, very convenient in bad weather, even in snow. Why? Quite simply I lived in North London and worked predominantly from West London for most of my LT/LU career and when I worked at Wood Lane, South Woodford, Bollo House or Ash House on day shift I had parking spaces. When working at the north end of the Met or the east end of the District I would happily drive to any station even on day shift as parking was seldom an issue.

The bottom line is convenience, I would've been quite happy to use public transport if it was regular, not overcrowded and could get me to my destination in reasonable time. In my car I could travel from A to B in around 25 minutes but public transport required a minimum of an hour and often more, so I chose convenience and comfort although it came at a price.

Had there been a nice unhampered tram service from North London into the city or to Seven Sisters and Manor House then I'd have used it and saved the expenditure. I expect I would still have driven to some locations such as Finchley or Stanmore as they were not easy to get to efficiently by public transport but they could be with proper transport planning. I think there's room for an outer Circle line to be bored through all the suburbs with regular trains in preference to the Overground network which is slow in comparison.

[Deleted]

Bugger, stay off NR! Ha!