How far out is "London"

[contrex]

Yes.

The last manual exchange was on the Isle of Skye, which lasted until 1976, see the very bottom of this:

https://www.openreach.com/news/the-final-call-for-the-traditional-telephone-exchange/

Ah yes, I understand, but (for example) my home London exchange (TULse Hill, later 01-674) was built as an automatic exchange in 1930. You wrote 'STD codes are indications of locations of manual telephone exchanges'.

 

[Magdalia]

Ah yes, I understand, but (for example) my home London exchange (TULse Hill, later 01-674) was built as an automatic exchange in 1930. You wrote 'STD codes are indications of locations of manual telephone exchanges'.

Now I see your point too. It would be the first automatic exchanges that would require the need for dialling codes.

 

[NCT]

In the context of devolving services which (predominantly) serve the Greater London area, I suspect the answer is 'depends' - whether devolution happens would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Places that's don't vote in GLA / mayoral elections having thei main/only services are operated by TfL is a potential issue. We see that with the Metropolitan line where other than a small handful of peak services, Amersham and Chesham services are now all-shack between Moor Park and Harrow.

Devolution is more straightforward where there's an obvious situation of TfL using slow lines and DfT trains using fast lines. Often it's not quite straightforward. Neither London nor Kent can agree to Cannon Street / Charing Cross rationalisation. Southern and SWR Slow Line trains run well beyond Epsom. Victoria throat workings are messy without a clear slow/fast divide (though this issue itself can be resolved).

As for fares, there's got to be some sort of continuity between TfL and NR fares so you don't create anomolies at places like Watford and Shenfield. There are already current anomolies which are messy (for example contactless users doing Epsom - London are automatically charged a split fare). I wonder if there is a way to smooth the Zone 6 - NR fares in a way that's both revenue neutral and politically palatable.

 

[A S Leib]

We see that with the Metropolitan line where other than a small handful of peak services, Amersham and Chesham services are now all-shack between Moor Park and Harrow.

Although I think Pinner, Northwood and North Harrow have an equal or larger population than Rickmansworth, Chorleywood, Chalfont, Chesham, Amersham and Croxley (with London Northwestern and Chiltern providing an alternative fast service for most of those and parts of Watford).

As for fares, there's got to be some sort of continuity between TfL and NR fares so you don't create anomolies at places like Watford and Shenfield.

Which is why zones 7-9 on the Met exist whilst Epping is in zone 6. Given the existence of Harlow to London via Epping commuters, I'm not entirely sure how balanced the existing fare structure is, but then that could be said for e.g. driving from Hemel Hempstead to Radlett for lower fares into London.

 

[JonathanH]

I wonder if there is a way to smooth the Zone 6 - NR fares in a way that's both revenue neutral and politically palatable.

There isn't. The revenue neutral approach is to charge very high extension fares to destinations beyond Zone 6 to maintain revenue.

 

[contrex]

Yes.

The last manual exchange was on the Isle of Skye, which lasted until 1976.

That's interesting, considering that the first automatic exchange in the UK was opened in 1912. Quite an overlap.

 

[PP57601]

Ask EasyJet, they call plenty of ‘far out’ places London.

 

[Krokodil]

Unless seriously impassable unaided (like the English Channel or the Alps /Pyrenees) all boundaries have a tendency to be arbitrary.

The M25 is certainly a significant obstacle. I wouldn't recommend anyone tries hiking across it except by means of one of the specially-built crossings.

 

[stevieinselby]

Sanderstead is very much within the Greater London boundary.

Not only is Sanderstead within the Greater London boundary ... but the next station out, Riddlesdown, is more than a mile inside the boundary!

 

[aron2smith]

London should really be expanded to at least everything within the M25

I'd argue everything that is clearly part of London's continuous built up area is what should count as London. That goes beyond even the M25 in a fair few places. Cheshunt and Waltham Abbey, Gravesend, Tilbury, Leatherhead, Egham, probably others too. These towns all interact with major Outer London town centres on a daily basis. The real messy bit about deciding future boundaries is all the new towns that have grown around London and are very often 2 to 5 miles apart from a neighbouring town. Harlow to Hemel Hempstead is very much like that, which makes the lack of rapid transit east to west across Herts all the more frustrating. Hatfield and St Albans with Watford are almost at the point of merging. Nearly all of Urban Surrey is almost impossible to separate from towns in SW London.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

Currently, TfL operate the Elizabeth Line out to Reading in the west, and Abbey Wood and Shenfield in the East... and while Abbey Wood is within the London borough of Greenwich, Shenfield is in Essex, and Reading is way out into Berkshire. Meanwhile, there's suggestions about extending the southern branch out to Dartford, and maybe even Ebbsfleet; and the northern branch out to Southend (all however unlikely).

Likewise, TfL's Overground extends to Watford and Cheshunt in the north - neither of which is in London - and CrossRail 2 (if it happens) is proposed to extend between Broxbourne (Hertfordshire) and Epsom (Surrey)

Meanwhile, there's suggestions about TfL taking over various bits of GN, SWR, SE, Southern...


So how far out of the boundary of London would it be appropriate for TfL to operate trains?

Everything more or less under London's green belt makes sense in my view to come under TFL but as an expanded regional transport authority, so buses are integrated too. So the possibility of seeing Overground branded trains in Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City on the stopping rail services is logical to me. I think South London into Surrey/ Kent really is a must for them to take over whether TFL makes some lines a part of Crossrail 2, some apart of the Bakerloo Line or any other tube line and the same with the Overground. Only truly regional and Intercity routes out of London make sense to stay separate from a bigger TFL.

In Southeastern's case that probably means merging the Kent routes with the Southern Network across Sussex.

With buses, London Transport used to run green London Country buses far into the home counties, included limited stop routes up to about 30 miles from Charing Cross and they connected well into rail and tube stations as well as the red buses. Looking at places 30 miles from Charing Cross, they are clearly commuter towns and many were the new towns, they are strongly linked to London. That distance also includes all of the 'London' Airports which I think a very strong case should be made that one transport authority efficiently integrates all the public transport at least to the airports and any towns on the way. London has such a huge (good and bad) impact on the surrounding areas, but the current government structures mean coordination and planning is difficult and plain awkward at best.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

Or - for what its worth - going back to the London Transport Area, from 1933 - see an essay by the late Mike Horne for an explanation (or here to see it all on a map)

I think the London Transport Area boundaries have aged quite well and would make more sense than the TFL boundaries now, given all the new towns and commuting that exist now but didn't in 1933. They had some great foresight! TFL services for the most part end too close to the city and don't even fully cover the built up area. From a transport planning prospective, a regional approach makes a lot of sense for both buses and trains.

 

[Wolfie]

I'd argue everything that is clearly part of London's continuous built up area is what should count as London. That goes beyond even the M25 in a fair few places. Cheshunt and Waltham Abbey, Gravesend, Tilbury, Leatherhead, Egham, probably others too. These towns all interact with major Outer London town centres on a daily basis. The real messy bit about deciding future boundaries is all the new towns that have grown around London and are very often 2 to 5 miles apart from a neighbouring town. Harlow to Hemel Hempstead is very much like that, which makes the lack of rapid transit east to west across Herts all the more frustrating. Hatfield and St Albans with Watford are almost at the point of merging. Nearly all of Urban Surrey is almost impossible to separate from towns in SW London.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==


Everything more or less under London's green belt makes sense in my view to come under TFL but as an expanded regional transport authority, so buses are integrated too. So the possibility of seeing Overground branded trains in Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City on the stopping rail services is logical to me. I think South London into Surrey/ Kent really is a must for them to take over whether TFL makes some lines a part of Crossrail 2, some apart of the Bakerloo Line or any other tube line and the same with the Overground. Only truly regional and Intercity routes out of London make sense to stay separate from a bigger TFL.

In Southeastern's case that probably means merging the Kent routes with the Southern Network across Sussex.

With buses, London Transport used to run green London Country buses far into the home counties, included limited stop routes up to about 30 miles from Charing Cross and they connected well into rail and tube stations as well as the red buses. Looking at places 30 miles from Charing Cross, they are clearly commuter towns and many were the new towns, they are strongly linked to London. That distance also includes all of the 'London' Airports which I think a very strong case should be made that one transport authority efficiently integrates all the public transport at least to the airports and any towns on the way. London has such a huge (good and bad) impact on the surrounding areas, but the current government structures mean coordination and planning is difficult and plain awkward at best.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==


I think the London Transport Area boundaries have aged quite well and would make more sense than the TFL boundaries now, given all the new towns and commuting that exist now but didn't in 1933. They had some great foresight! TFL services for the most part end too close to the city and don't even fully cover the built up area. From a transport planning prospective, a regional approach makes a lot of sense for both buses and trains.

There is a good deal of sense in that approach. Perhaps it would be sensible for similar policies to be put in place for Birmingham and Manchester too.

 

[renegademaster]

The other approach would be some kind of "Southeast regional council" that includes all the home counties

 

[35B]

I think the London Transport Area boundaries have aged quite well and would make more sense than the TFL boundaries now, given all the new towns and commuting that exist now but didn't in 1933. They had some great foresight! TFL services for the most part end too close to the city and don't even fully cover the built up area. From a transport planning prospective, a regional approach makes a lot of sense for both buses and trains.

And from other perspectives? Transport planning is linked to development planning, and ultimately to democratic governance. You could stretch your argument for local trains to be TfL run out as far as Woking (it’s pretty well all ribbon development). But that raises questions about integration of services, and also how the local authorities in Surrey operate - not an area that will have much sway at City Hall, and the political shift to leafy outer reaches could cause other effects too.

Perhaps better to focus on how authorities co-operate than trying to fit everything into a common mould.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

And from other perspectives? Transport planning is linked to development planning, and ultimately to democratic governance. You could stretch your argument for local trains to be TfL run out as far as Woking (it’s pretty well all ribbon development). But that raises questions about integration of services, and also how the local authorities in Surrey operate - not an area that will have much sway at City Hall, and the political shift to leafy outer reaches could cause other effects too.

Perhaps better to focus on how authorities co-operate than trying to fit everything into a common mould.

Court I refer back to my post #11 above, and repeat with a rather different emphasis?

If funding (and so definition of the minimum service required for that funding) on the one hand and operations on the other are divorced then each funding authority can define what they want/are prepared to pay for, and leave it up to the operator to fulfil the minimum standard.

So you don't have to have TfL (the London funder) dictating service levels in Surrey even if the bus/train says something about TfL on the side.

 

[35B]

Court I refer back to my post #11 above, and repeat with a rather different emphasis?

If funding (and so definition of the minimum service required for that funding) on the one hand and operations on the other are divorced then each funding authority can define what they want/are prepared to pay for, and leave it up to the operator to fulfil the minimum standard.

So you don't have to have TfL (the London funder) dictating service levels in Surrey even if the bus/train says something about TfL on the side.

You can, and I tend to the view that splitting operation from determination of policy is desirable - if the body commissioning a service also runs it, then the risk of the service being determined by the interests of the producer increases.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The other approach would be some kind of "Southeast regional council" that includes all the home counties

But when you get towards the outer edges of the home counties the boundary gets blurred. Take Aylesbury, for instance; on paper looks like it points towards London but the A418 is a car park every morning with all the people commuting into Oxford. Similarly places like Buntingford, Saffron Walden, etc, point towards Cambridge as much as they do towards London.

Perhaps better to focus on how authorities co-operate than trying to fit everything into a common mould.

I think that needs to be the real aim. The issue for places like Harlow is not that they're not in London, it is that the local authority in Harlow doesn't co-operate with the local authority in London.

 

[35B]

I think that needs to be the real aim. The issue for places like Harlow is not that they're not in London, it is that the local authority in Harlow doesn't co-operate with the local authority in London.

An issue that is in play elsewhere too - the tension between Lancashire County Council and Merseyside, and the adverse impact on the rail routes through Burscough is a recurrent theme.

 

[aron2smith]

The other approach would be some kind of "Southeast regional council" that includes all the home counties

I think something along these lines is desperately needed, otherwise we will continue seeing more small scale residential developments eating up the countryside and all those new areas having no choice but to drive everywhere adding to already bad traffic around the fringes of London/ Home Counties, as they lack both transport and services.

If we want the green belt protected, there needs to be a more regional approach to London and its surrounding areas, not just in transport but housing, infrastructure, everything really. And it needs to make cooperation and coordination the default. I find the Lower Thames Crossing being in the realm of the national government to be ridiculous, it is a London and South East bit of infrastructure, but no government body at the regional level exists yet, it's bonkers!

I was encouraged when the government announced local government reorganisation but disappointed when I realised they are keeping to ancient county boundaries. The development of strategic authorities and everywhere having a mayor will be interesting to watch though and hopefully will bash some heads together, suddenly the London setup looks very dated and inadequate too. I think what lacks in government structures is the acknowledgement that places overlap a lot on a daily basis and that requires at least some flexibility in how services are provided.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

I think that needs to be the real aim. The issue for places like Harlow is not that they're not in London, it is that the local authority in Harlow doesn't co-operate with the local authority in London.

I live under Broxbourne Council but only 2 miles from both Enfield Council, London and Epping Forest District, Essex - so I know exactly what you mean and it is massively detrimental to us living here! The lack of cooperation between council is that bad, that roadworks in the right places at the same time mean the whole area essentially shut downs in one huge gridlock!

There needs to be a regional body where London councils and places like Broxbourne, Epping Forest, Harlow and others can meet to work together on common problems and policy areas. I would've thought housing, transport and all public services would overlap the different areas/ counties. Not just lack of cooperation but lack of accountability to residents too.

 

[Tetchytyke]

An issue that is in play elsewhere too - the tension between Lancashire County Council and Merseyside, and the adverse impact on the rail routes through Burscough is a recurrent theme.

Agreed, that triangle of Lancashire wedged in between Merseyside and Greater Manchester really suffers from the fact that Lancashire seem incapable of working with the two devolved mayors. It's not just Burscough either- on the other side of Manchester, Bacup also doesn't do well out of it.

The politics of it is understandable though. Rail services to Burscough and bus services to Bacup don't benefit the taxpayers in Manchester or Merseyside, so those local authorities don't see why they should pay for them. Lancashire is now ruled by Reform, who got in on a promise of cutting funding for everything, so they won't pay for it either.

There needs to be a regional body where London councils and places like Broxbourne, Epping Forest, Harlow and others can meet to work together on common problems and policy areas.

When I lived in Hemel Hempstead I had plenty of local connection with Watford for healthcare and with St Albans for shopping. Beyond that, I had basically no interaction with the rest of Hertfordshire. Somewhere like Royston or Buntingford may as well have been on a different planet, yet the same council had transport responsibility for both areas. Equally when I went out on my bike it was often to places like Latimer or Chesham which were in the next county across.

The problem is that all the local authorities are shaped like the segments of a pinwheel, and this is an issue when you're on the boundary of two segments. The Essex/Hertfordshire boundary is particularly bad for this. But I'm not sure that simply making the local authority bigger is the solution; if anything, I'd say the issue is that the current authorities are too big. Waltham Abbey and Manningtree have the same local authority for transport and really that's a big part of the problem. It'll be interesting to see what happens if Essex is devolved into unitary authorities.

 

[35B]

I live under Broxbourne Council but only 2 miles from both Enfield Council, London and Epping Forest District, Essex - so I know exactly what you mean and it is massively detrimental to us living here! The lack of cooperation between council is that bad, that roadworks in the right places at the same time mean the whole area essentially shut downs in one huge gridlock!

There needs to be a regional body where London councils and places like Broxbourne, Epping Forest, Harlow and others can meet to work together on common problems and policy areas. I would've thought housing, transport and all public services would overlap the different areas/ counties. Not just lack of cooperation but lack of accountability to residents too.

And what happens when those regional council boundaries come close to each other? You still have boundaries, and they may actually be within the new larger body because it needs to subdivide.

Nothing alters the basic reality that, unless authorities engage with each other, there will always be difficulties.

I live in Lincolnshire, but have friends and colleagues in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. Those three counties do not co-ordinate school holidays - one autumn, each had a different half term. And these are all "East Midlands" authorities.

 

[Magdalia]

The other approach would be some kind of "Southeast regional council" that includes all the home counties

The Mayor of London and the London Assembly came about as the first step in the regional devolution policy of the 1997 Labour government. If they had been able to do all that they wanted then there would have been South East and East of England regional assemblies too. The policy died with the result of the regional devolution referendum in the North East in 2004.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if Essex is devolved into unitary authorities.

In the devolution currently being implemented local powers on transport are with the mayors, not the unitary authorities.

 

[aron2smith]

When I lived in Hemel Hempstead I had plenty of local connection with Watford for healthcare and with St Albans for shopping. Beyond that, I had basically no interaction with the rest of Hertfordshire. Somewhere like Royston or Buntingford may as well have been on a different planet, yet the same council had transport responsibility for both areas. Equally when I went out on my bike it was often to places like Latimer or Chesham which were in the next county across.

The problem is that all the local authorities are shaped like the segments of a pinwheel, and this is an issue when you're on the boundary of two segments. The Essex/Hertfordshire boundary is particularly bad for this. But I'm not sure that simply making the local authority bigger is the solution; if anything, I'd say the issue is that the current authorities are too big. Waltham Abbey and Manningtree have the same local authority for transport and really that's a big part of the problem. It'll be interesting to see what happens if Essex is devolved into unitary authorities.

I live in Cheshunt, so everywhere I interact with is more or less along the West Anglia Line, down to London or up to Hertford and Harlow. Waltham Abbey, Cuffley and Enfield all being nearby meant interaction for shops or various services happened naturally. Same with walking around Epping Forest. It's bizarre really, we mainly go north or south in a limited and narrow area here, interaction with the rest of Herts is very limited. Until the end of last year, only 4 buses/day on the 242 went to Potters Bar to attest to that, but it's nice to have a predictable hourly service back! And it's expansion to Hatfield from September makes exploring the western parts of the county much easier!

I'm really hoping Hertfordshire doesn't split in 2 with reorganisation as I agree Buntingford and Royston may as well be on another planet. I think splitting in 3 would be better, west, east and north. If it were up to me the areas right next to London like Cheshunt and pretty much all towns on or near the border would join London and then East Herts and West Essex would go together, as the rail and road links bind that area together.

Right now, one of the Essex proposals is to put Loughton, Epping and Harlow in a Central Essex Unitary with Brentwood, Chelmsford and Maldon, which seems a bit silly and forced to me.

I think from what we've both said, counties at least in the South East, don't seem to jell very well with transport patterns. I'd said the same seems true with London where services could do with covering more of the commuter area.

Maybe it's not the size of council areas, but the fact the divide often cuts across settlements and neighbouring areas where people go for work and leisure. There probably wouldn't be an issue if these aligned better.