Govia Thameslink Railway. Next franchise?

[JonathanH]

Some form of reliable battery technology fitted to overhauled 376s to be used on Uckfield Line.

What started this idea? Is it just because they have 5 coaches and people think that the Uckfield line has a 10-car limit for 20m stock?

Is there really nowhere else they would be used? With the best will in the world, they don't need a fleet of 36 units to work the Uckfield line.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

What started this idea? Is it just because they have 5 coaches and people think that the Uckfield line has a 10-car limit for 20m stock?

Is there really nowhere else they would be used? With the best will in the world, they don't need a fleet of 36 units to work the Uckfield line.

This "idea" wasn't started by any old crank. It seems to have support in the upper echelons.

 

[JonathanH]

This "idea" wasn't started by any old crank. It seems to have support in the upper echelons.

I still don't get it. Let's suppose you could do a refit of a 376 for the Uckfield line - you are going to have to install air conditioning, fit new windows, toilets, different seats and do something with the 'standback' areas by the doors which are narrower because of the door pockets - it is a pretty major rebuild.

You could just do the first of those, ie install air conditioning, and use them on Southern Metro services with the existing configuration, displacing 377/6s for conversion to battery units for the Uckfield line.

From a "below the solebar" aspect, is there something about a 376 that makes it easier to install batteries than to a 377/6?

Uckfield is a 3 hour cycle from London Bridge - you therefore only need 12 units plus maintenance spares for a half-hourly service, all 10-car (not that this runs at the moment). If you convert 16 376s, what do you do with the other 20 376s?

Oh, and they spent a fortune on 240m platforms for the Uckfield line. What is the use of running trains no longer than 200m down there? Or perhaps that is the plan, 18 6-car 376s so that two sets of batteries can be accommodated and 18 4-car 376s than can go to the coast.

It's not obvious.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I still don't get it. Let's suppose you could do a refit of a 376 for the Uckfield line - you are going to have to install air conditioning, fit new windows, toilets, different seats and do something with the 'standback' areas by the doors which are narrower because of the door pockets - it is a pretty major rebuild.

You could just do the first of those, ie install air conditioning, and use them on Southern Metro services with the existing configuration, displacing 377/6s for conversion to battery units for the Uckfield line.

From a "below the solebar" aspect, is there something about a 376 that makes it easier to install batteries than to a 377/6?

Uckfield is a 3 hour cycle from London Bridge - you therefore only need 12 units plus maintenance spares for a half-hourly service, all 10-car (not that this runs at the moment). If you convert 16 376s, what do you do with the other 20 376s?

Oh, and they spent a fortune on 240m platforms for the Uckfield line. What is the use of running trains no longer than 200m down there? Or perhaps that is the plan, 18 6-car 376s so that two sets of batteries can be accommodated and 18 4-car 376s than can go to the coast.

It's not obvious.

I suspect we have reached the peak of people commuting and will see a slight decline as a result of people spending 2-3 days working from home. I suspect the 10-car 376s will work a combination of Victoria - East Grinstead and London Bridge - Uckfield trains as well as a couple of others. There’s no reason that they MUST work only Uckfield trains.

 

[JonathanH]

I suspect we have reached the peak of people commuting and will see a slight decline as a result of people spending 2-3 days working from home. I suspect the 10-car 376s will work a combination of Victoria - East Grinstead and London Bridge - Uckfield trains as well as a couple of others. There’s no reason that they MUST work only Uckfield trains.

Yes, but there is no point fitting batteries to units that are going to work solely on an electrified route - it isn't as if Victoria to East Grinstead and London Bridge to Uckfield trains interwork.

So are you telling me that they are going to reduce the length of peak services from Victoria to East Grinstead and London Bridge to Uckfield just to use a fleet of what would need to be heavily rebuilt suburban units when the fleet used at the moment (on Victoria to East Grinstead) is perfectly adequate for the purpose. (I accept that replacing diesel units is a valid objective.) If commuting has reached its peak the 377s aren't exactly needed elsewhere - besides working 2-3 days from home (really?) isn't spread uniformly over the week.

 

[LLivery]

If the aforementioned GA and especially GWR can run intercity and stopping services, then I don't see why LNER can't do the same.

Plus LNER seems like the obvious option seen as they already run services from Kings Cross where as GA does not. It could mean a more integrated service, similar to GWR with InterCity and Stopping services.

That is fair and GWR is doing quite well but, I've just always been of the opinion of InterCity operators should concentrate on flagship InterCity. I wouldn't be fond of InterCity West Coast taking Tring over commuters. That said, if it works, it works.

• GN Suburban to LO: Agreed!
• GN Fasts: Do not agree, LNER would be better
  
• GatEX: Agreed!
• SE SN Merge: No, what would be the point
• SE, SN (and SWR) Metro to TfL YES!
• Thameslink alone Yes!

Thameslink to TfL not really? Firstly the Oysters do not run as far as Bedford, Cambridge, Peterborough, Maidstone or Brighton. Secondly how do you think people in Brighton would feel about being managed by TfL?

I do not like the idea of GN Fasts going to GA as I think LNER should take these allowing an integrated operation from London Kings Cross with all FRANCHISED services ran by LNER similar to how all services out of Paddington are GWR, all services out of Liverpool Street are GA etc.

I'm not suggesting a total TfL take over of the Suburbans or Thameslink. But the operators working with TfL similar to what we saw between Centro and Central Trains/London Midland in the West Midlands. Integration with the city's transport network without splitting off the complex operational side. A 377 can still run a Caterham service one day and a London to Brighton the next.

The reasoning behind GN Outers to LNER is that this would actually be desirable to LNER (not 'forgotten route', at all) because of the more stable commuter income that comes with the route, versus the largely discretionary travel on LNER intercity that can be quite variable (and has caused the several failings of operators on the route because they made too ambitious forecasts, not helped by DfT and Network Rail for different reasons)

Ahh, that does make sense.

 

[tsr]

What started this idea? Is it just because they have 5 coaches and people think that the Uckfield line has a 10-car limit for 20m stock?

Is there really nowhere else they would be used? With the best will in the world, they don't need a fleet of 36 units to work the Uckfield line.

Ideally, the amount of units available to the Uckfield Line should be slightly expanded, likewise the Marshlink (which might also lead to trains running through from Brighton to Ashford again, which would limit the missed connections which are now a very repetitive issue on the route). But I am also unsure if 36 is the right number...

Weekday contra-peak and off-peak Uckfield trains are almost always half empty, even close to London, so justifying the use of battery bi-modes on these trains might be hard, should battery lifespans continue to be relatively limited in the longer-term.

This "idea" wasn't started by any old crank. It seems to have support in the upper echelons.

Sounds like desperation to get rid of the low-spec/budget 376s, justify a refurb and put them somewhere which needs a smallish fleet. I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up with Southern, but couldn’t be sure.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Ideally, the amount of units available to the Uckfield Line should be slightly expanded, likewise the Marshlink (which might also lead to trains running through from Brighton to Ashford again, which would limit the missed connections which are now a very repetitive issue on the route). But I am also unsure if 36 is the right number...

Weekday contra-peak and off-peak Uckfield trains are almost always half empty, even close to London, so justifying the use of battery bi-modes on these trains might be hard, should battery lifespans continue to be relatively limited in the longer-term.



Sounds like desperation to get rid of the low-spec/budget 376s, justify a refurb and put them somewhere which needs a smallish fleet. I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up with Southern, but couldn’t be sure.

I personally am a fan of the idea. It is not only cheaper to overhaul the fleet but, as they've already had a fair chunk of their purchase cost repaid, better to use them as a vehicle for a battery programme now and to fit the whole fleet so they can widely interwork with other units on other routes where 10 coaches is quite suitable. Better I'm sure for the ROSCO to use 376s than to procure something new or a Bi-Mode now when there's potentially only 20 years before the Government decides they are not in favour of diesel traction at all.

I'd go so far as to say if you look at peak services from Victoria to Grinstead they are often not in requirement of 12-car trains and will in fact have demand slightly reduced as a result of 700s going to places like Farringdon when Crossrail finally opens and journeys change.

It is correct that potentially only 12 units are needed for London Bridge - Uckfield circuits on the basis of half-hourly 10-car service at high peak. Add in London Victoria - East Grinstead which is 10 units and you only realistically need homes for ~12 units in service if 2 are on maintenance. Victoria to Horsham via Sutton could be a candidate for that. Even if the batteries aren't being used, the suitability of the route with improved seating and what not means redeploying 377/6s and 377/7s for more sensible work.

 

[700007]

Realistically what will probably happen with the franchise is obviously the split back into TL/SN, with GN inners going to TfL and GN outers going to LNER.

Franchise specification, which I think a lot of people are missing, will probably be more based on service and infrastructure as opposed to more / new-er trains.

The most that will happen with trains I would imagine is the much mooted idea of replacing the 313s and 455s. Whether that is through new trains or cascade of existing trains elsewhere on the network remains to be seen.

The next franchise definitely will include a lot more station improvements, with things such as better staffing - particularly across the Metro area, refurbished ticket halls and station entrances at numerous stations across the network. Take for example Mill Hill Broadway, Finsbury Park, New Barnet, much of the Sutton loop and a few other stations that could do with some TLC or expanded capacity.

Services have been vastly improved last year - before we open the 'passionate' for want of a better word, discussion about how it was delivered, that's not for this thread - I expect Sundays to be vastly improved and to come in line with Saturdays at least, if not matching weekdays at certain stations and on certain lines. Looking at a lot of upcoming houses and investment going into North London I can definitely see Hendon and Cricklewood gaining a 4tph Sunday service to match the rest of the week, as an example. There will be a number of similar cases across the rest of the network I reckon.

I can also see 24 hour operation on Thameslink expanding to the likes of Brighton soon after the new franchise starts with trains no longer terminating at Three Bridges at night especially as there is an active night economy there. I also think it is viable to see it go Peterborough and Cambridge in the long run as well but I would think that it won't happen yet due to the ECML upgrade.

That's my 2 pence added for the time being and if I think of any other realistic-ish ideas I will let you know.

 

[JonathanH]

Looking at a lot of upcoming houses and investment going into North London I can definitely see Hendon and Cricklewood gaining a 4tph Sunday service to match the rest of the week, as an example.

4tph is only possible at these stations with a four-track railway available (same with 4tph on the longer distance Thameslink services). If you did get 4tph timetabled, there would be plenty of weeks when it would be reduced to 2tph to allow engineering access.

 

[700007]

Would a Sunday service at City Thameslink ever come to fruition in the next franchise?

 

[swt_passenger]

Would a Sunday service at City Thameslink ever come to fruition in the next franchise?

I’d have thought that could be introduced anytime if there was the slightest demand, it shouldn’t really need a franchise change.

 

[Peter Kelford]

GTR is running routes like Bedford - STP and Peterborough - KGX like a commuter shuttle at the moment - trains aplenty during the weekday rush hour, 1tph at other times. There needs to a better service for the shopper in Biggleswade going to Peterborough or the university student in Cambridge going to Brighton Pier. There also isn't much publicity for Cambridge and Peterborough telling residents that they now have a direct link to Gatwick airport, which is a shame really as you only need to stand on the platform to see the scores of passengers with luggage on the Birmingham to Stansted train at either Peterborough or Cambridge.

In short, GTR is running a commuter network, but with almost 100-mile long tentacles rather than the country link rail service that places like St Neot's need to stay competitive against the A1. This is basically the essence of farce as the government wants to spend billions on electrification to cut road traffic, but doesn't care about losing existing rail passengers to roads. Surely it would be cheaper to keep the existing passengers before conquering more numbers?

 

[700007]

GTR is running routes like Bedford - STP and Peterborough - KGX like a commuter shuttle at the moment - trains aplenty during the weekday rush hour, 1tph at other times. There needs to a better service for the shopper in Biggleswade going to Peterborough or the university student in Cambridge going to Brighton Pier. There also isn't much publicity for Cambridge and Peterborough telling residents that they now have a direct link to Gatwick airport, which is a shame really as you only need to stand on the platform to see the scores of passengers with luggage on the Birmingham to Stansted train at either Peterborough or Cambridge.

In short, GTR is running a commuter network, but with almost 100-mile long tentacles rather than the country link rail service that places like St Neot's need to stay competitive against the A1. This is basically the essence of farce as the government wants to spend billions on electrification to cut road traffic, but doesn't care about losing existing rail passengers to roads. Surely it would be cheaper to keep the existing passengers before conquering more numbers?

Yes I definitely agree with you, that some routes aren't frequent on weekends when there is untapped demand. GTR definitely needs to promote far more their new services - I get they have been patchy obviously following the timetable fiasco but l there are some running a full or nearly full service such as London to Rainham or Bedford to Brighton that definitely have attractions to shout about (Bluewater, Rochester Castle, Maritime Greenwich, Brighton Pier and Seafront Attractions). This is especially as Thameslink does have some really good prices for destinations south of the river on weekends (Brighton £12.50 return for example).

Cambridge to Brighton Sunday service, at least during the summer timetable, should extend beyond Gatwick Airport to Brighton and ideally - but not the end of the world if it can't - run fast as it does the other six days of the week from East Croydon to Gatwick Airport to provide a competitive journey time from Gatwick Airport and Brighton through to the ECML and Cambridge. It also attracts passengers off the roads if the train is faster than the car.

 

[Ianno87]

GTR is running routes like Bedford - STP and Peterborough - KGX like a commuter shuttle at the moment - trains aplenty during the weekday rush hour, 1tph at other times. There needs to a better service for the shopper in Biggleswade going to Peterborough or the university student in Cambridge going to Brighton Pier. There also isn't much publicity for Cambridge and Peterborough telling residents that they now have a direct link to Gatwick airport, which is a shame really as you only need to stand on the platform to see the scores of passengers with luggage on the Birmingham to Stansted train at either Peterborough or Cambridge.

At Cambridge, it is now common to see luggage encumbered passengers actively waiting for the Brighton trains (presumably Gatwick-bound), so awareness is building. The nature of Cambridge's population (being more international and transient) inherently means a passenger base quite responsive to new connections.

That, and the semi-fast Brighton stopping pattern makes it competitive journey-time wise with fast Kings Cross services.

 

[Esker-pades]

They are Thameslink NOT Great Northern they will be diverted to Maidstone East in the future. Great Northern does not run ANY 700’s

Tell that to the 700 I had on a Cambridge Flyer to Ely...

 

[yorkie]

They are Thameslink NOT Great Northern they will be diverted to Maidstone East in the future. Great Northern does not run ANY 700’s

Great Northern is not an entity to "run" anything; it's merely a brand name.

The company is Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) and they do operate these trains under multiple brand names.

 

[717001]

Great Northern is not an entity to "run" anything; it's merely a brand name.

The company is Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) and they do operate these trains under multiple brand names.

Not aware that any GN branded services are scheduled to run using 700s - occasionally it does seem to happen at weekends that units get swapped around on Peterborough / Cambridge routes (both ways between the 2 brands). Can cause issues due to different first class positioning and restrictions and wheelchair / bike boarding points.

 

[yorkie]

GTR may well plan for particular types of units to only operate on particular services, but in reality if it is operationally convenient to operate the 'wrong' type of unit then they will often do so; there have been many examples of this throughout the duration of the franchise, across all of its brands.

 

[Aictos]

In much the same way that Virgin Rail Group is the operator at the moment on the WCML and Virgin Trains is just a brand

If SN Suburbans get more 455s I think I'd go mad. I don't hate them, but they've had their day.

What I would do:

* GN Suburbans to LO
* GN Cambridge, King's Lynn and Peterborough to Greater Anglia (like WAGN days)
* Keep GatEx with Southern
* Merge Southern and Southeastern
* TL, SN and SE Suburbans - Centro style working with TfL
* Thameslink stand alone

Reasoning:
*GN Suburbans are quite easy to split, and TfL wants them. As long as they don't try something stupid like getting rid of the new fleet, I'm all for it.
*GN to GA is an easy operation to take. I can't see why LNER should take it - end up being the forgotten route.
*GatEx with Southern allows quick flexibility when needed.
*Merging SE and SN - tbh I struggle to justify it.
*Suburbans and TL operation with TfL would allow integration without totally splitting operations. No excuse not to put TL on the Tube Map and it would improve services for us South Londoners. SWR Suburbans should also join the "alliance".
*Thameslink worked stand alone before.

1. GN Suburbans to LO

Well yes but you could also add the St Albans to Sutton via Wimbledon plus the proposed London Blackfriars to London Bridge services to London Overground and divert the Welwyn GC semi fast services to Sutton via Wimbledon to carry onto St Albans nd reverse.

2. GN Cambridge, King's Lynn and Peterborough to Greater Anglia (like WAGN days)

No, although the Kings Lynns could be diverted to Liverpool Street once the capacity issues on the WAML is resolved with the current peak GA Kings Lynns being all day again and the current all day GN Kings Lynns being peaks only.

3. Keep GatEx with Southern

I would retire the Gatwick Express brand simply because those paths should be used for Southern services and besides it would stop people insisting that Southern only tickets are valid on the Gatwick Express.

Also as Thameslink serves both Luton and Gatwick airports and as Luton doesn't have a separate Express brand I fail to see why Gatwick needs one especially on a already highly congested route.

You could have some Southern services running non stop between East Croydon and Gatwick so it's not a issue if Gatwick Express expired.

4. Merge Southern and Southeastern

Oh dear lord, why? Keep them separate as I fail to see why they ought to be merged unless you intend on recreating the former Southern Region and merging them with South Western Railway???

5. TL, SN and SE Suburbans - Centro style working with TfL

Why not just transfer those workings to London Overground, hang on they're broke!

6. Thameslink stand alone

Probably the only idea that I can fully get behind as it's already big enough as it is, best to just leave it be.

 

[700007]

In response to the proposal above:

1) I can agree to GN inners being devolved to TfL's London Overground provided the finances are stable and as Aictos says, they don't invest in something stupid when they can't afford to.

However I do not agree to Sutton loop / MML locals being devolved to TfL. I think that should stay with Thameslink for the sake of integration when this service interacts with 20 other services through the core at peak times. Makes maintenance, fares structure, operational convenience far simpler as well (such as interworking with other routes - not something that is done now I don't think, but don't rule it out not happening later particularly at the extremes of each day).

Any branded Thameslink service using 700 should remain with the Thameslink franchise.

2) Moving the King's Lynn back to London Liverpool Street would be an interesting move. Journey times are far better into King's Cross however Liverpool Street, at its best, isn't that much slower. However I believe it is a case that would need to be consulted with the public because it is an incredibly popular service and the question is more of a case of 'Do you want to be dropped at Liverpool Street or King's Cross?'. Any Liverpool Street service would need to make a stop at Tottenham Hale I would say, so that links to the Victoria line are retained.

3) Fully agree with this. Gatwick Express is a service that is effectively an unfair trap on tourists and those not in the know to pay double the price for no journey saving. Southern services from London Victoria on the same route are much cheaper and only about 3 minutes slower. They're also more frequent I believe than the Gatwick Express. It needs to be called out on and retired.

I would convert the portion between London Victoria and Gatwick Airport into Southern services and implement stops at Clapham Junction and East Croydon if there is demand for it. These effectively can act as crowd busters on already busy Southern services going further than Gatwick Airport.

Beyond Gatwick Airport, going on to Brighton, I would love to see these 2tph non-stop paths being given to 2 out of the 4 Thameslink services(ideally the Cambridge service as it will reduce journey times on a popular route) with perhaps either an additional stop added at either Three Bridges or Haywards Heath for connectivity reasons. The intermediate stations between Gatwick Airport and Brighton currently served by Thameslink which will now run fast, would be given to 2tph Southern service from London Victoria instead extended from Gatwick Airport (not the existing service).

If that wasn't clear, between Gatwick Airport and Brighton I propose:

2tph ex Cambridge calling at Gatwick Airport and Brighton, with perhaps a stop at Three Bridges

2tph ex Bedford calling at Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges, Haywards Heath, Hassocks, Preston Park and Brighton

2tph ex London Victoria (current GX service which would instead be a SN service) calling at Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges, Balcombe, Haywards Heath, Wivelsfield, Burgess Hill and Brighton

2tph ex London Victoria (current SN service) calling at Gatwick Airport, Haywards Heath, Hassocks and Brighton

4) Just no

5) Don't want everything devolved to TfL

6) Yes this is a good idea.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The Kings Lynn - Liverpool Street / Kings Cross discussion is an excellent one.

Now, to my mind, it would be better as a Liverpool Street service. There's a few reasons:
1) Makes anything from Cambridge, for example, exclusively 700 operated and with all the relevant routes signed by all drivers.
2) Peak services to Kings Cross or St Pancras using 700s / other units will be better for capacity.
3) Trains stopping only at Audley End, Bishops Stortford and Tottenham Hale should be able to achieve a journey time of 61 minutes. This is more than the current roughly 49 minute journey time to Kings Cross, but would give a direct service to the City, would put a rapid interchange onto Crossrail (Heathrow etc.), and also to the East. This is probably better than dumping people at Kings Cross.
4) The new rolling stock appears quite suited to Kings Lynn services and an add-on order could do the job easily of 745s etc with decent First Class from Cambridge, yielding good extra money over the Thameslink trips.
5) Crewing would be easier in theory - everything from Cambridge towards St Pancras / Kings Cross will be one depot who can therefore all sign Maidstone East, Brighton or Kings Cross.

 

[yorkie]

In much the same way that Virgin Rail Group is the operator at the moment on the WCML and Virgin Trains is just a brand

Not a valid comparison at all and is an irrelevance to this discussion; a valid comparison is that West Midlands Trains operates services branded LNR and WMR; WMT operated trains have both the brand and operator name on the trains, which is very sensible.

3. Keep GatEx with Southern

I would retire the Gatwick Express brand simply because those paths should be used for Southern services

I agree the misuse of this brand name to cart fresh air around is a misuse of paths; there should certainly not be any trains that just do Gatwick to Victoria and nothing else.

and besides it would stop people insisting that Southern only tickets are valid on the Gatwick Express.

A strange way of wording it, but I agree that the current illegal practices and attempts to coerce unsuspecting passengers such as tourists into paying more should come to an end.

Also as Thameslink serves both Luton and Gatwick airports and as Luton doesn't have a separate Express brand I fail to see why Gatwick needs one especially on a already highly congested route.

I don't quite follow your logic as the two airports are hardly comparable in terms of passenger volumes (there is a three fold difference) but I agree with your conclusion, if not your methodology.

 

[Skimble19]

None of these ideas take account of the very significant infrastructure restrictions which apply on the whole GTR network. I suspect that what we have is a very reasonable compromise between crayonista ideas and what can actually be run.

Indeed. As somebody who actually works for GTR I would say there’s a lot of interesting ideas in this thread, but in reality a lot of them either wouldn’t work or would be difficult to implement, and then cause issues further down the line - especially during disruption.

The biggest bugbear of mine being the desire to split the GN Outer (Peterborough fast/Kings Lynn) services to LNER (or Greater Anglia?!) - not only could this potentially cause some interesting crewing issues but it could also mean it would be likely to be a lot harder to get things such as additional stops during disruption, and what would be the actual benefit of doing this beyond bolstering LNERs commuter revenue and causing yet more fragmentation on the route? You’d be better off simply merging the GN and TL brands together and having them as one brand, running all the services.

GN inners to TFL - not particularly against this and it shouldn’t be too difficult, but still not convinced there is actually any point in doing so? Anything TFL could do the franchise could do... it’s already got new trains. Tarting up stations and increasing staffing hours could easily be done by the next franchise if specified.

 

[Fred26]

I would be quite happy for TfL to take the GN Inners, on the proviso that they fund a new platform at Finsbury Park for these services, plus platforms on the four slow lines through Harringay and Hornsey.
Doing this would increase their segregation from the rest of the route and give the benefit of all trains being able to call all stops Moorgate-Alexandra Palace.

 

[Aictos]

I would be quite happy for TfL to take the GN Inners, on the proviso that they fund a new platform at Finsbury Park for these services, plus platforms on the four slow lines through Harringay and Hornsey.
Doing this would increase their segregation from the rest of the route and give the benefit of all trains being able to call all stops Moorgate-Alexandra Palace.

But to be honest as @Skimble19 has pointed out that is something that can be specified in the next franchise to be done by them, that doesn’t require TfL to take operation of those services.

 

[Fred26]

But to be honest as @Skimble19 has pointed out that is something that can be specified in the next franchise to be done by them, that doesn’t require TfL to take operation of those services.

That may be true, but whether or not it'll be specified I can't say. However, if TfL came out and said that they would be prepared to fund, or at least part fund these works...

 

[Skimble19]

But to be honest as @Skimble19 has pointed out that is something that can be specified in the next franchise to be done by them, that doesn’t require TfL to take operation of those services.

I’m not too sure if the new franchisee itself would pay for new Platforms etc or whether that would fall down to Network Rail, but I suppose it could be possible to specify it as a requirement. TFL paying for it given their current financial situation is another question altogether - guess it would depend just how desperate they are to get it...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Indeed. As somebody who actually works for GTR I would say there’s a lot of interesting ideas in this thread, but in reality a lot of them either wouldn’t work or would be difficult to implement, and then cause issues further down the line - especially during disruption.

The biggest bugbear of mine being the desire to split the GN Outer (Peterborough fast/Kings Lynn) services to LNER (or Greater Anglia?!) - not only could this potentially cause some interesting crewing issues but it could also mean it would be likely to be a lot harder to get things such as additional stops during disruption, and what would be the actual benefit of doing this beyond bolstering LNERs commuter revenue and causing yet more fragmentation on the route? You’d be better off simply merging the GN and TL brands together and having them as one brand, running all the services.

GN inners to TFL - not particularly against this and it shouldn’t be too difficult, but still not convinced there is actually any point in doing so? Anything TFL could do the franchise could do... it’s already got new trains. Tarting up stations and increasing staffing hours could easily be done by the next franchise if specified.

To be fair, you are advocating what we have for years. If you want the railway to run like Overground, just demand it with very hefty penalty failures in franchise procurement. It doesn’t need to be devolved to work.

In this case however, it just happens to be a single line of route (Moorgate) and a single traction type. It makes sense in that respect as the crew can also be split.

 

[Aictos]

That may be true, but whether or not it'll be specified I can't say. However, if TfL came out and said that they would be prepared to fund, or at least part fund these works...

Then I would be asking where did you find the funds to do this when you're already in the red?