Call for TfL to Take Over London Infrastructure from NR

[whole diary]

[didcotdean]

Would TfL^» (Transport for London - about) really run the majority of the services on the totality of GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line)? 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 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.

[Lee]

I remain very much of the view from my experience as a user and working for/with them that if TfL^» (Transport for London - about) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company), DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), MP^▸ (Member of Parliament), 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.

[Electric train]

My interfacing with TfL^» (Transport for London - about) managed infrastructure is worrying, there is a lack of consistence with the people who manage the assets

[didcotdean]

My interfacing with TfL^» (Transport for London - about) 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

[stuving]

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 presume "the proposal" must be TfL's full submission "Evidence to the Williams Rail Review" (for which I can't see a previous link). That barely mentions infrastructure -  just these places that propose something:

1.7 Making TfL infrastructure manager (IM) for selected routes would reduce the distance between investment decision-making and the end beneficiary (that is customers). This would mean the land-use and transport decision-making would be more closely coordinated than would ever be the case currently. It would also mean local funding can more readily be leveraged, with the returns to such investment also captured locally.

1.9 A TfL infrastructure management function could maintain and renew more of the National Rail infrastructure in and around London just as we do already for the East London line (contracted to Cleshar) or London Underground (Harrow to Amersham) and we will do for the central section of Crossrail. TfL could become responsible where its operator(s) make up a majority of services or elsewhere by agreement.

1.14 Only relevant infrastructure assets would be managed by TfL. This would primarily be those relevant to the provision of local London services, but where necessary, InterCity, freight and other users could buy access (e.g. train paths, station access) from a regulated tariff in a similar manner as now. A system operator function with Network Rail would maintain fair play for timetabling with arbitration by ORR as per the current model.

4.5 A London route or ‘virtual’ route, possibly creating a ‘Big Seven’ would provide a greater focus, but we suggest instead an alternative approach which is to devolve infrastructure management functions to relevant local transport authorities, just as selected concession management has already been devolved.

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

1.11 NR would also retain signalling, power supply and other operations not readily devolved, with route control and train operations remaining on the basis of railway geography de facto defined by NR's rail operating centres. A national system operator independent of DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and with representation from devolved bodies would ensure local accountability.

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 or the Assembly's response "Broken rails - A rail service fit for passengers"*. The Assembly studiously avoid suggesting structural changes, but did include this:

Recommendation 4 - A single rail strategy for London
London has no rail strategy. TfL and Network Rail should produce a rail strategy for London that all parties will commit to implementing, which will improve rail services for passengers in London.

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

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

[ellendune]

If only relevant asserts would be managed by TfL^» (Transport for London - about) then this could mean the main lines maintained by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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! 

[Electric train]

If only relevant asserts would be managed by TfL^» (Transport for London - about) then this could mean the main lines maintained by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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^▸ (Great Western) are not so simply split to maintain and manage; however large parts of the Euston - Watford DC^▸ (Direct Current) 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^» (Department for Transport - about)'s polilcy of "customer first" that is putting the infrestructiure operator / maintainer closer to the railways ultimate customers

[grahame]

Have TfL^» (Transport for London - about) completed the Croxley Rail Link yet

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

From The Watford Observer - Nostalgia column

[April 10, 1992]

Cash sought for rail link scheme

A confidential report by London Underground on the Croxley Rail Link proposes “acquiring” land from Sun Engravers, in Ascot Road, Watford, for a ticket hall. It is suggested that Croxley Green British Rail and Watford Metropolitan Line stations are abandoned and replaced by a new station in Ascot Road. After carrying out an engineering feasibility study and an environmental impact study, London Underground has earmarked its preferred route on financial and engineering grounds. The proposed alignment joins the Metropolitan Line at the rear of Dorrofield Close, Croxley Green, and runs to the south of the Two Bridges roundabout before joining up with British Rail’s Croxley Green to Watford Junction line.