Great Western Coffee Shop

More unnecessary turmoil......

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/mayor-calls-for-transport-for-london-to-replace-network-rail-as-infrastructure-manager.html

All his talk about what he has done for cycling is hot air if you look closely. Don't want the same for railways.

I welcome the idea, personally.

If done correctly, then both services and infrastructure could end up being overseen by a body that is genuinely accountable to both passengers and taxpayers, in a way that Network Rail has consistently shown time and again it has absolutely no interest in being.

Agreed. TfL's culture and customer service is stratospherically better than NRs or any of the TOCs I've used (admittedly that's not a very high bar!) and this has been noticed out this way at the stations they are now managing. The accountability is a huge factor which NR and TOCS are happy to pass to and fro....this could provide a refreshing change.

Me, too, Westcombe Park being my local station in the UK. Whilst I am not sure about the mayor's overall record, the TfL operated services are better run, and, as an old fogey with a Freedom Pass, there is no 'not before 930am' restriction. I also accept the common held view that TfL are far better at fare collection.

But it will create more interfaces and we certainly don't need any more of those.  They usually result in ownership issues (i.e. "Not my problem, Guv").... :P

I can see some merit in the idea, but also significant problems.
My main concern would a conflict of interest between TfL wanting priority for London commuters  versus existing TOCs and their longer distance customers.

We have already seen the potential start of this with long distance west country services that stop at Reading. A vociferous Reading MP, and supporters thereof, want the service operated primarily for Reading passengers, with the needs of longer distance customers being secondary.

You mean realising that not everyone is going to/from Paddington, and therefore stopping at one of the biggest railway interchanges in the country makes railway journeys more attractive for those on the various lines radiating out from there. Especially when you consider how poor the frequency to intermediate stations between Reading and Taunton is, so not many opportunities for changing further down the line.

Is this all about money? As we know TfL finances are not in a very good place and could taking over these lines improve their finances, at least in the short-term?

I am convinced that one of the reasons why TfL has taken over Reading - London line is for the ticket money.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the finances of GWR once Reading - London money is removed, will GWR require a subsidy?

...and a little bit more about turning South London Orange... :P

https://www.centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Turning_South_London_Orange.pdf

I am afraid I am definitely against this.

TfL needs to understand that its Elizabeth Line is just one user of one part of the GWML. It will not even be the sole user of the relief/slow lines - from what I have read outside peak hours it will share track with stopping GWR trains between Reading and Paddington. The line is the main artery of the rail system to a large part of the west of Britain, not a branch of London's suburban railway network.

TfL's network is mostly single user lines with tube trains playing follow my leader up and down or round and round (almost!) their route. The GWML has to combine 125 mph expresses for Wales and the west, semi-fasts and stopping trains for the Thames and Kennet Valleys and beyond into the Cotswolds, long heavy mineral trains for Acton, container trains crossing London, and all controlled from a signalling centre in Didcot. What experience has TfL in running an operation like this?

It has also not exactly covered itself in glory with its oversight of Crossrail either.

As to-


How will TfL be accountable to the voters of South Bucks, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Bristol, Devon, Cornwall, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and South Wales, none of whom will have a vote in the London mayoral election? Having a vital part of our rail infrastructure under the political control of someone answerable to an electorate who have little knowledge of,  or interest in, our transport needs puts us in a worse position than we are in now.

 

How is Network Rail accountable to any of them now?

Maybe it needs six-tracking like the WCML, so that TfL can have its equivalent of the DC lines to play with, and the Main and Relief lines can be used for trains that at least get west of Reading.

That's not the point.

The point is it would be accountable only to a body of Londoners. So they could prioritise local commuter services to the exclusion of long distance. That would worsen the London/rest of the UK divide.  DfT is already overly biassed towards London and the South East. This would make it worse. 

If you read the proposal, you'll see that TfL address that by proposing a system operator function within NR maintaining ‘fair play’ for timetabling with arbitration by ORR.

I accept SandTEngineer's point that this would create an additional interface, but I think this is a price worth paying for the benefits that I and the other posters on the thread who agree with me feel the proposal will bring.

Would TfL really run the majority of the services on the totality of GWML? Even East of West Drayton?

Or are they trying to divide the lines and take over the reliefs only?

Actually looking at the TfL submission in full here (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/evidence-to-williams-rail-review-final.pdf) it doesn't seem to be aimed primary at the GWML at all, at least initially, but towards South London routes. Although they do mention that they are the infrastructure manager for the central part of Crossrail (sic).

I do wonder how things will operate on the GWML when one or more of the lines is out unplanned in any case when there is a full CrossLineLizRail service.

I remain very much of the view from my experience as a user and working for/with them that if TfL is the answer then you need to examine the question very carefully.

I have much the same view towards Network Rail. My experience has been that in order to get Network Rail to do anything, we've always had to get one of the other players involved, whether that be a TOC, DfT, MP, or any other relevant abbreviated organisation. Ask them directly, and the answer is invariably "No/What business is it of yours?/Dont bother us".

It would be nice (and i did initially hope with Andrew Haines' appointment that they might) if Network Rail were capable of reforming themselves to successfully address that, but while they remain unable to, I'm inevitably going to look favourably on proposals like this.

My interfacing with TfL managed infrastructure is worrying, there is a lack of consistence with the people who manage the assets

As in 'Mind the Gap, Please' ... when the maps for maintenance responsibility don't quite align.

Have TfL completed the Croxley Rail Link yet :)

I presume "the proposal" must be TfL's full submission "Evidence to the Williams Rail Review" (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwin8-6b5KnhAhUCtHEKHdTjCo0QFjABegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.tfl.gov.uk%2Fevidence-to-williams-rail-review-final.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3dFCf8feAciXV-Cq7V2MnE) (for which I can't see a previous link). That barely mentions infrastructure -  just these places that propose something:

There is also this, rather awkwardly worded and positioned, paragraph:

So what is to be devolved? This infrastructure proposal looks like something added to this submission that hasn't been thought about much let alone through. The submission itself could well be based on that "Oranges are the only trains" report, more so than last year's Mayor's Transport Strategy (https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/transport/our-vision-transport/mayors-transport-strategy-2018) or the Assembly's response "Broken rails - A rail service fit for passengers" (https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/broken-rails-rail-service-fit-passengers)*. The Assembly studiously avoid suggesting structural changes, but did include this:

I can't imaging anyone denying that sounds rather sensible.

* there's a link to that in the submission that doesn't work

If only relevant asserts would be managed by TfL then this could mean the main lines maintained by NR and the relief lines by TfL, with TfL operating the signalling and power supply.  This sounds like a nonsense - there would be too many interfaces! 

I doubt it would, the mains and reliefs on GW are not so simply split to maintain and manage; however large parts of the Euston - Watford DC lines could, even the whole of the North London Lines and West London Lines and there are other examples where the main user is TfL.

Handing over the North and West London Lines as an example would generate revenue for TfL from freight users.

What this proposal looks like is the next statge of devolution and fits in with DfT's polilcy of "customer first" that is putting the infrestructiure operator / maintainer closer to the railways ultimate customers

Give 'em a chance. These things don't happen overnight, you know!

From The Watford Observer - Nostalgia column (https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/17550383.nostalgia-cash-sought-for-croxley-rail-link-scheme-in-april-1992/)