Call for TfL to Take Over London Infrastructure from NR

[whole diary]

[SandTEngineer]

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

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has called for Transport for London to replace Network Rail as the infrastructure manager for routes which are used by suburban passenger services operated under concessions awarded by TfL^» (Transport for London - about).

The proposal forms part of TfL’s submission of its views to a review of the rail sector which Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling has commissioned from former British Airways CEO^▸ (Chief Executive Officer) Keith Williams.

[CyclingSid]

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

[Lee]

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.

[TaplowGreen]

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^» (Transport for London - about)'s culture and customer service is stratospherically better than NRs^» (Network Rail - home page) or any of the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

[rogerpatenall]

Me, too, Westcombe Park being my local station in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). Whilst I am not sure about the mayor's overall record, the TfL^» (Transport for London - about) 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.

[SandTEngineer]

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")....

[broadgage]

I can see some merit in the idea, but also significant problems.
My main concern would a conflict of interest between TfL^» (Transport for London - about) wanting priority for London commuters  versus existing TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (Member of Parliament), and supporters thereof, want the service operated primarily for Reading passengers, with the needs of longer distance customers being secondary.

[hassaanhc]

I can see some merit in the idea, but also significant problems.
My main concern would a conflict of interest between TfL^» (Transport for London - about) wanting priority for London commuters  versus existing TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (Member of Parliament), 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.

[ray951]

Is this all about money? As we know TfL^» (Transport for London - about) 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^▸ (Great Western Railway) once Reading - London money is removed, will GWR require a subsidy?

[SandTEngineer]

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

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

[eightonedee]

I am afraid I am definitely against this.

TfL^» (Transport for London - about) needs to understand that its Elizabeth Line is just one user of one part of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line). 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^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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-

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.

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.

 

[Lee]

How is Network Rail accountable to any of them now?

[jamestheredengine]

TfL^» (Transport for London - about) needs to understand that its Elizabeth Line is just one user of one part of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line). 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^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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.

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

[ellendune]

How is Network Rail accountable to any of them now?

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^▸ (United Kingdom) divide.  DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) is already overly biassed towards London and the South East. This would make it worse. 

[Lee]

If you read the proposal, you'll see that TfL^» (Transport for London - about) address that by proposing a system operator function within NR^» (Network Rail - home page) maintaining ‘fair play’ for timetabling with arbitration by ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about).

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.