Great Northern - Northern City Line to TFL?

[Russel]

Just found this article via Reddit, regarding TFL submitting a business case to take over the GN Northern City line, haven't seen a recent thread anywhere else but apologies if there is!

Link to RAIL article

What are our thoughts on this?

How likely is it to happen?

Would it be incorporated into London Overground, or operated in a similar way to the Elizabeth Line?

Transport for London has applied to the Department for Transport to take over the Northern City Line into Moorgate.

RAIL understands the business case was sent to the DfT on September 30.

The move was listed in London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan’s 2021 manifesto, but no progress has been made until recently.

Trains are currently operated by Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), using Great Northern branding and a fleet of dual-voltage Class 717 electric multiple units.

The line has up to ten trains per hour (tph) in the morning peak using 19 units, with trains running to and from Hertford North, Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City. However, RAIL understands TfL believes it can run a more intense service.

Pre-COVID GTR was running 12tph using 21 units, a service considered the maxiumum to maintain reliability.

GTR is working with the DfT towards returning to 12tph an hour in the peak and an off-peak frequency of 4tph from December 2026.

A spokesperson said: “We are already working towards running still more trains in the rush hour and doubling the off-peak service to four trains an hour.

“Looking further ahead, service frequency can be further increased throughout the day if funding becomes available and if it is commercially viable. We're committed to continuing to deliver great services for our Great Northern passengers.”

TfL has highlighted the ‘right to request’ the transfer of services - a process outlined by the government in its rail reform consultation. In this, the Transport Secretary can decide to devolve operations to Mayoral Strategic Authorities that believe they could run them more effectively.

If approved, TfL would also take over the 25 dedicated Class 717s that replaced the Class 313s in 2019.

GTR will be nationalised on May 31 2026, and officials are thought to be keen to ensure any potential transfer of the Moorgate route to TfL does not affect the operator’s overall performance, with a desire to avoid any complex operational changes.

While isolated to a point, Northern City Line services must be integrated with the East Coast Main Line north of Finsbury Park.

The Northern City Line was run by the Metropolitan Railway and then London Underground between 1913 and 1975. From 1976, services were run by British Railways and then various iterations of the Great Northern franchise since 1997.

TfL has signed a subscription for full membership of the Passenger Demand Forecasting Council, to “inform discussions over the potential transfer of control over more National Rail services to TfL from the DfT”.

The government’s New Towns Taskforce has also published a report listing Crews Hill, on the Hertford Loop used by Moorgate services, on a shortlist of 12 potential new towns.

Up to 21,000 homes could be built. The report says services would need to be increased and that the government could explore options “including the potential to devolve”.

TfL was already planning to make the case for taking over the route, but sources believe the case is strengthened by the potential for a new town at Crews Hill.

“We have a proven track record of making rail services better and more reliable, leading to economic benefits and improving services for millions of commuters and unlocking thousands of new homes,” said TfL Director of Spatial Planning Lucinda Turner.

“We are keen to work collaboratively with the Transport Secretary and have begun engaging with officials regarding Great Northern.”

GTR currently runs up to six peak-hour trains, while the off-peak service is two per hour.

A spokesperson said: “We’re already working towards running still more trains in the rush hour from Gordon Hill, and doubling the off-peak service to four trains an hour from Hertford North.

“In the longer term, service frequency can be further increased if funding becomes available to support it until the point where it becomes commercially viable.”

If its submission is approved, it would not be the first time TfL has taken over services from a train operating company.

Former Greater Anglia and Great Western Railway services to Shenfield and Reading respectively were transferred prior to the full opening of the Elizabeth line, allowing through services to run between the two.

TfL has also taken control of several services that now make up parts of the London Overground network, with the transfer of Liverpool Street-Enfield, Cheshunt and Chingford services (now the Weaver line) between 2013 and 2015.

 

[Cach17]

Assuming this were to go ahead, it'd be a bit awkward seeing TfL running trains all the way to Stevenage. Then again, the Lizzie goes as far as Reading.

If it becomes part of the Overground, I wonder what they'll name it. Gresley Line, anyone?

 

[GordonT]

Would be yet a further interface for operations to fall flat on in disruption.

 

[Horizon22]

Would be yet a further interface for operations to fall flat on in disruption.

Why?

 

[GordonT]

Why?

The fragility of the Stevenage-King's Cross/Moorgate/TL Core services has generated huge discussions in the forum. Surely adding a further operator to the mix with its own ways of working is a terrible idea?

 

[Surreytraveller]

Would be yet a further interface for operations to fall flat on in disruption.

Might actually make things more reliable, as it would have its own pool of drivers, preventing crew inter-working between Great Northern Outers, Inners and Thameslink from spreading disruption from one service group to another

 

[jon0844]

At the end of the day, what would such a move actually do to change anything besides the livery and seat colours?

TfL isn't going to be able to do anything that can't be done now if left as is.

It's not like taking over a line with poor infrastructure and rolling stock and saying that if taken over, money can be invested to improve the service.

The service has already had all that done. It just needs the operator to restore the service, which will be the DfT from next year.

There's going to be an awful lot of behind the scenes work needed with regards to depots, drivers (that do other work for TLGN) and so on.

Again, what does TfL bring to the table besides new branding and another name to add to the tube map?

TfL taking over 15-20 years ago may have been a totally different story.

 

[OneOfThe48]

“In the longer term, service frequency can be further increased if funding becomes available to support it until the point where it becomes commercially viable.”

Is Transport for London more flush with cash for increasing off peak services and bringing the Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City services up to the ‘Overground standard’ than the Department for Transport/Treasury?

Money is all it comes down to, not Overground ‘magic sauce’

 

[Roast Veg]

Would it be incorporated into London Overground, or operated in a similar way to the Elizabeth Line?

While it could go either way, it makes much more sense to be branded as part of LO, even if the operating contract is separate from other parts of the LO concession.

Really, the only issues with this line are the service frequency and the fact that it doesn't appear on the TfL map, neither of which require a transfer of ownership.

 

[Hadders]

I met my MP at an event at Stevenage station last night about the new ECML timetable. He mentioned this when I speaking to him, and said that TfL were saying they could run more trains.

I had to correct him:

• I don't think Platform 5 can handle more than 2 trains an hour. Two trains already operate all day, every day so a transfer to TfL is not going to improve connectivity for Stevenage or Watton-at -Stone (he is also the MP for Watton)
• More trains could potentially operate to Hertford or Gordon Hill but GTR could already do that.
• The Class 717 trains operating the route were built in 2018. TfL aren't going to replace them, all that would happen is an Overground sticker would replace the Great Northern sticker on the outside of the trains, and at some of the stations.
• TfL could employ more drivers and station staff, but so could GTR. Having another operator on the route would introduce additional complexity for staff rostering etc.
• Fares would not change.
• Politically would he be happy with TfL in control of the service operating well outside of the Greater London boundary

 

[norbitonflyer]

• Fares would not change.
• Politically would he be happy with TfL in control of the service operating well outside of the Greater London boundary

Fares would not change on that line, no, as TfL Overground farees are already charged on those lines. Different story south of the Thames, where a higher NR rate is still charged (the "TOC tax" - the extra used to end up in the shareholders' pockets, but now just goes to the Treasury)

The "TfL operating outside Greater London" issue doesn't seem to have been a problem for Maidenhead, or Watford, or Epping. But it was the reason Grayling (who was both Transport Secretary and MP for Epsom at the time) gave Boris Johnson (then the Mayor of London) for not proceeding with a proposed takeover of the SWR suburban operation. As a matter affecting his constituency, he should have passed any such decision to another DfT Minister

EDIT - I stand corrected - TOC rates are charged north of Finsbury Park, so fares would change. .

 

[Mattplans]

Assuming this were to go ahead, it'd be a bit awkward seeing TfL running trains all the way to Stevenage. Then again, the Lizzie goes as far as Reading.

I'm hopeful the route will be curtailed to Gordon Hill or Hertford North only if passed to TfL. Maybe this will be an opportunity for Thameslink to carry out additional stops at the remaining stations on their WGC - SEV stoppers and maybe they can finally look at fulfilling the service promises made in the TL Programme

Really, the only issues with this line are the service frequency and the fact that it doesn't appear on the TfL map, neither of which require a transfer of ownership.

It shouldn't be on the tube map because it's not a cross-city line or that significant. I think there has to be a line (pun not intended) here and membership to the tube map should be conditional on matching TFL's frequency only. If Northern City line is added to the Tube Map, why shouldn't the services out of London Marylebone, and Fenchurch Street be as well? And if you add the services from Moorgate, surely you should also add the line to King's Cross? At this point you are simply replicating the existing Tube and Rail map that's displayed on every platform in London already, let's not forget that, and there's nothing significant about the NCL that should grant it any sort of special treatment, if not ran by tfl.

TfL isn't going to be able to do anything that can't be done now if left as is.

Not entirely convinced about this. GTR seems to be consistently plagued with cancellations due to sickness and other silly reasons - this is not a new or seasonal thing, it's all year round and you can never rely on later services. Only god knows why they are trying to run overnight services on the Thameslink route, but I'm sure we can all agree these are very unreliable, as well as their final trains of the night on the GNTL side. One would be tempted to assume that this is an issue that can be easily repaired, but it hasn't as of yet and they've had plenty of time to fix it. Perhaps we should stop excusing their incompetence and pass it to someone else who has been proven to operate better.

The service has already had all that done. It just needs the operator to restore the service, which will be the DfT from next year.

Let's not kid ourselves that the DfT is the saviour to all rail issues. Anyone that travels with a dft operator will be aware that they pretty much strip the service to the bare minimum necessary to operate it and this includes unreasonable cuts to services. As far as I'm concerned, the NCL is already at that stage. I personally doubt this will go ahead - and if I'm right, and we return to this thread in a couple years, the frequency will be the exact same as it is now, when it's ran by the DFT.


I am opposed to this for the same reasons I would be opposed to the Croxley rail link- TfL should ultimately not be spending any money on projects that do not mainly benefit the London taxpayer. I thought that was ridiculous as it was proposed TfL should fund (or partially fund) a project that was wholly outside the Greater London boundary. Now, this isn't as bad here as some stops are in london. Ultimately the benefits are marginal, and are not worthwhile to the London taxpayer in ym honest opinion

 

[Dima]

I see plenty of downsides and no real upsides here.

This line shares tracks with several other GTR services and that of other national rail operators. Under TfL it would be totally physically disconnected from the rest of the TfL network, while it would be operationally disconnected from GTR, with which it would continue to share tracks. Giving TfL control over a service going all the way to Stevenage would be politically problematic too.

Sure, some could say that TfL already runs trains to Reading, Watford or Amersham, but in those cases they either run on parallel tracks that don’t interfere with the mainline services at all (Watford), the shared running is a necessary evil as this is the place where two large networks briefly share tracks, and it would be infeasible to fully unite them (Amersham), or there’s no better organisation to run them as the line goes through London and runs on a territory of another company on the other side (Reading and Shenfield). None of it applies to the GTR services from Moorgate, so I see to reason to hand them over to the TfL, apart from probably satisfying the mayor’s political ambitions.

I have the same opinion about the rumours of handover of the Thameslink “metro” services to the TfL. More operational and/or political complexity for no gains for the passengers.

 

[PGAT]

I met my MP at an event at Stevenage station last night about the new ECML timetable. He mentioned this when I speaking to him, and said that TfL were saying they could run more trains.

I had to correct him:

• I don't think Platform 5 can handle more than 2 trains an hour. Two trains already operate all day, every day so a transfer to TfL is not going to improve connectivity for Stevenage or Watton-at -Stone (he is also the MP for Watton)
• More trains could potentially operate to Hertford or Gordon Hill but GTR could already do that.
• The Class 717 trains operating the route were built in 2018. TfL aren't going to replace them, all that would happen is an Overground sticker would replace the Great Northern sticker on the outside of the trains, and at some of the stations.
• TfL could employ more drivers and station staff, but so could GTR. Having another operator on the route would introduce additional complexity for staff rostering etc.
• Fares would not change.
• Politically would he be happy with TfL in control of the service operating well outside of the Greater London boundary

There's many things GTR "could" be doing but they haven't. The franchise is being nationalised next year anyway so why not take this portion of it and hand it to TfL? I also do think there is a lot to be said for rebranding and marketing that's being slept on as well.

 

[Hadders]

I'm hopeful the route will be curtailed to Gordon Hill or Hertford North only if passed to TfL.

Who's going to run the service between Stevenage and Hertford North? Are you suggesting that someone wanting to travel from Watton at Stone to Grange Park would need to charge at Hertford North or Gordon Hill?

 

[norbitonflyer]

I'm hopeful the route will be curtailed to Gordon Hill or Hertford North only if passed to TfL.

If it's curtailed at Gordon Hill and Hertford North, who will provide the service between there and Stevenage?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2025 ==

It shouldn't be on the tube map because it's not a cross-city line or that significant. I think there has to be a line (pun not intended) here and membership to the tube map should be conditional on matching TFL's frequency only. If Northern City line is added to the Tube Map,

It should never have been removed from the Tube Map. It provides a useful and important link between the City and north London, connecting several Tube stations (one with cross-platform interchange) providing a more direct and coinvenient journey without having to negotiate (and contribute to the congestion at) Kings Cross. I wonder how many people, over the years, have made the unncecessary detour via Kings Cross simply becasuse they didn't know of its existence?

And it might just possibly have prevented this (picture shows penetration of tunnel by an auger, the construction workers having been unaware the Northern City Line tunnel even existed) https://assets.publishing.service.g...0f0b60241000157/R032014_140213_Old_Street.pdf

I would go further, and include any NR links that provide a more direct link between stations than the Tube / Overground does (not where they simply duplicate them though)
For example
Waterloo - Clapham Junction - Wimbledon/ Richmond
Victoria - Clapham Junction - Balham - Crystal Palace - West Croydon.
Cannon Street - London Bridge - Greenwich - Woolwich
Cannon Street - London Bridge - New Cross - Lewisham
London Bridge - New Cross Gate
Stratford - Tottenham Hale - Cheshunt
West Ealing - Greenford

By all means show them in thinner lines, or some other distinction, but they should be there. We rightly cricised Cross Country for maps which appeared to show the best way from Sheffied to manchester was vua Birmingham, or Northern whose maps suggested a journey from Darlington to York would require you to go via Workington (as it showed neither the ECML nor the WCML) - both now rightly consigned to the bin

The Diagram is supposed to be a guide to travel, not a form of Corporate hubris

 

[Hadders]

It should never have been removed from the Tube Map.

Agreed. I do think there needs to be a reassessment of what's shown on the tube map and what isn't. Currently we have:

The 'tube map' - essentially just showing TfL operated services
London Rail & Tube services - shows everything regardless of who operates the service.

Personally, I'd change this to two maps both showing all services regardless of operator:

One showing Zones 1-3. This would allow a thinning out of the 'clutter' in the central area
The other showing all London Rail & Tube services

And it might just possibly have prevented this

No-one doing construction work is going to consult a tube map to determine where tunnels might be.

 

[Mattplans]

One showing Zones 1-3. This would allow a thinning out of the 'clutter' in the central area

I think this is the ideal choice. But should these other services now feature on the tfl status website, rainbow boards and "announcements from the control room"?

It should never have been removed from the Tube Map. It provides a useful and important link between the City and north London, connecting several Tube stations (one with cross-platform interchange) providing a more direct and coinvenient journey without having to negotiate (and contribute to the congestion at) Kings Cross. I wonder how many people, over the years, have made the unncecessary detour via Kings Cross simply becasuse they didn't know of its existence?

I would go further, and include any NR links that provide a more direct link between stations than the Tube / Overground does (not where they simply duplicate them though)
For example
Waterloo - Clapham Junction - Wimbledon/ Richmond
Victoria - Clapham Junction - Balham - Crystal Palace - West Croydon.
Cannon Street - London Bridge - Greenwich - Woolwich
Cannon Street - London Bridge - New Cross - Lewisham
London Bridge - New Cross Gate
Stratford - Tottenham Hale - Cheshunt
West Ealing - Greenford

Like I said, at this point, we'll just be reproducing the Rail and Tube map? I agree with Hadders point about making a z1-3 "central" tube map, and then having the secondary Rail and Tube map with the entire mess. Not entirely sure membership to the tube map should be focussed on supplementing the tfl services. Also not too sure there's a way to implement your idea without it being really misleading - how will you show the "Cannon Street - London Bridge - New Cross - Lewisham" as ending at Lewisham when it simply isn't true? I think the current idea is TFL services are always more relevant (therefore deserving to be on the tube map) than any other, which simply isn't true. I would argue the Cannon Street/Charing Cross routes to Lewisham are more relevant than say the Hainault loop or the Liberty line. Making the map on a z1-3 basis will also allow you to enlarge it which will make it less confusing (hopefully), and better represent all transport options available in London.

 

[GordonT]

No-one doing construction work is going to consult a tube map to determine where tunnels might be.

Given that the tube map is of necessity primarily diagramatic rather than geographic that's just as well!

 

[jon0844]

I see plenty of downsides and no real upsides here.

This line shares tracks with several other GTR services and that of other national rail operators. Under TfL it would be totally physically disconnected from the rest of the TfL network, while it would be operationally disconnected from GTR, with which it would continue to share tracks. Giving TfL control over a service going all the way to Stevenage would be politically problematic too.

Sure, some could say that TfL already runs trains to Reading, Watford or Amersham, but in those cases they either run on parallel tracks that don’t interfere with the mainline services at all (Watford), the shared running is a necessary evil as this is the place where two large networks briefly share tracks, and it would be infeasible to fully unite them (Amersham), or there’s no better organisation to run them as the line goes through London and runs on a territory of another company on the other side (Reading and Shenfield). None of it applies to the GTR services from Moorgate, so I see to reason to hand them over to the TfL, apart from probably satisfying the mayor’s political ambitions.

I have the same opinion about the rumours of handover of the Thameslink “metro” services to the TfL. More operational and/or political complexity for no gains for the passengers.

I've suggested before that the simplest way for the NCL route to become part of London Overground is just get the current operator (soon DfT/GBR) to operate under a licence of some sort.

Rebrand the trains, add the new route to maps, sort out the ticketing (Project Oval sorts the contactless and Oyster can extend when it transitions to a backend based system). TfL can have some say in the service levels, but will not need to do anything else. Staff can wear a different uniform, while TLGN staff will likely continue to do the revenue protection on behalf of TfL too as I can't see their teams going beyond Finsbury Park (they do already work closely with GTR staff at places like Moorgate and Highbury & Islington, the latter in particular for the level access to the Victoria line).

 

[778]

At the end of the day, what would such a move actually do to change anything besides the livery and seat colours?

Maybe the 717s will be refitted with longitudinal seating?

 

[aron2smith]

I think it's pretty much essential for this line to transfer over to TFL and yes the full service as it runs today. Doesn't matter if Stevenage, Hertford, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City aren't in London, the stopping service is a key part of the commuter service to London, they fill in the gap between the Northern and Piccadilly Lines in a very densely populated of North London whilst meaning the Herts towns get more trains in those areas. I think Hertford North to Moorgate could definitely benefit from an enhanced service, especially with Crews Hill. The stations on the line for the most part are fine (except Essex Road!) but being made into an Overground definitely wouldn't hurt.

To some, the rebranding is pointless but to me, it shows consistency of London's transport, one of the biggest mistakes in the past was to run buses and tube in competition with these lines, when the way London is growing now, every railway needs to be utilised as much as possible, ideally one way or another every commuter line should end up under TFL and the bus network designed to feed into the railway. Crossrail 2 will take over quite a few SWR commuter lines if it happens as an example.

Also, Crews Hill and Enfield Lock are both in zone 6, but the Great Northern route charges a lot more, that needs to change! The zonal system should be 1 simple set of fares but because so much of it is national rail, there are essentially 2 fare systems, ridiculous!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2025 ==

Politically would he be happy with TfL in control of the service operating well outside of the Greater London boundary

About time politics got out of the way of running transport. A city the size of London naturally has some overlap into the surrounding counties anyway.

 

[greatkingrat]

I never really understand the objection that TfL shouldn't run services outside Greater London. It's not like Hertfordshire residents have any direct influence on their rail services anyway at present.

 

[vuzzeho]

I see plenty of downsides and no real upsides here.

This line shares tracks with several other GTR services and that of other national rail operators. Under TfL it would be totally physically disconnected from the rest of the TfL network, while it would be operationally disconnected from GTR, with which it would continue to share tracks. Giving TfL control over a service going all the way to Stevenage would be politically problematic too.

Sure, some could say that TfL already runs trains to Reading, Watford or Amersham, but in those cases they either run on parallel tracks that don’t interfere with the mainline services at all (Watford), the shared running is a necessary evil as this is the place where two large networks briefly share tracks, and it would be infeasible to fully unite them (Amersham), or there’s no better organisation to run them as the line goes through London and runs on a territory of another company on the other side (Reading and Shenfield). None of it applies to the GTR services from Moorgate, so I see to reason to hand them over to the TfL, apart from probably satisfying the mayor’s political ambitions.

I have the same opinion about the rumours of handover of the Thameslink “metro” services to the TfL. More operational and/or political complexity for no gains for the passengers.

What about the Weaver line? That shares track with Greater Anglia/Stansted Express services. Fine, I suppose it shares track with the Elizabeth line (literally just Liverpool Street, and I don't think they're ever on the same side of the station) but other than that, doesn't share with any other TfL lines. Unless you mean interchanges, which the Northern City has plenty of. If you can accept sharing track as a necessary evil for the Windrush, Mildmay, Metropolitan, District, and Weaver lines, why not on the Northern City? What makes it so special?

I don't think TfL should take over Thameslink services, maybe brand them but other than that, best to keep it with GBR when that takes over.

TfL running services out of Greater London shouldn't be an issue. Isn't the big issue that people take with regional operating units as a potential organisation method of the railway that they'd immediately slack off doing anything outside their region? If TfL is willing to provide regions with better services to the capital city, why is that an issue? Even as a London resident, I'm perfectly happy for Hertfordshire to benefit from TfL.

 

[Brubulus]

Welwyn North and Digswell don't need fast trains off peak, the case for them (esp Welwyn North) to get 4tph in the peaks is also debatable given that reducing it to 2tph would enable 2 extra paths.

Thameslink should absolutely not go anywhere near the Hertford Loop, it should be kept for the NCL 4tph off-peak is reasonable for that route.

Regarding the Welwyn route that's more debatable - Hatfield and Welwyn need a relatively fast service, so the Cambridge/Letchworth slows will continue.

A service to the Thameslink core is useful, even if only 2tph as it enables 4tph to Finsbury Park/Kings Cross St Pancras.

Hatfield, Welwyn and Potters Bar all deserve 4tph semi-fast all day (Cambridge plus Thameslink, not TfL)

New Barnet is an unnecessary stop on these services which doesn't utilise patching time (like Alexandra Palace) and increases journey times.

For the NCL (TfL), 4tph + 4tph is the simple and effective option, with a consistent stopping pattern. During peaks, there can be an extra 2tph, initially to Gordon hill, hopefully to Crews Hill. Stevenage would remain 2tph all day due to its low usage.

8tph all day + Overground branding would enable Essex Road to gain status as a transport hub for Islington.

Yes it would be a long way outside their normal remit, but they are a key London inner suburban commuter service that just gets out a bit further than usual.

 

[jon0844]

If and when the Moorgate services return to their intended frequency, and we might also have the all day Sevenoaks to WGC services Mon-Sat, plus the existing 2R/2L/2C services, I think there will be a pretty good service.

From December there will be a couple of extra peak services, including more trains stopping at New Barnet.

The issues will still be the 2tph beyond WGC, and the hourly service in the evenings and most of Sunday for those 2R/2L/2C services. Increasing the Moorgate services obviously helps fill the gap south of WGC, but there's still the lack of services north of WGC that causes major issues if one (sometimes two) trains are cancelled. Sometimes another train will call to fill in, but not always - and sometimes these are approved very late so someone who saw their train cancelled away from the station won't keep checking to notice a new train pop up later.

Again, I don't see why TfL needs to get involved to solve any of these issues.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Until where would the train terminate? Surely it won't go all the way to Stevenage? I'm thinking max Enfield. I mean, the overground doesn't go all the way to Hertford and that's a track terminus.

 

[bramling]

If and when the Moorgate services return to their intended frequency, and we might also have the all day Sevenoaks to WGC services Mon-Sat, plus the existing 2R/2L/2C services, I think there will be a pretty good service.

From December there will be a couple of extra peak services, including more trains stopping at New Barnet.

The issues will still be the 2tph beyond WGC, and the hourly service in the evenings and most of Sunday for those 2R/2L/2C services. Increasing the Moorgate services obviously helps fill the gap south of WGC, but there's still the lack of services north of WGC that causes major issues if one (sometimes two) trains are cancelled. Sometimes another train will call to fill in, but not always - and sometimes these are approved very late so someone who saw their train cancelled away from the station won't keep checking to notice a new train pop up later.

Again, I don't see why TfL needs to get involved to solve any of these issues.

Agreed the main issues are sufficient drivers, and the seemingly increased amount of infrastructure failures. Supposedly the first of those is finally being tackled.

It’s quite sobering that the reduced post-Covid service will have persisted for a whole seven years if the 4tph service finally returns in December 26.

I reckon it will be one or other of all-day Welwyn-Sevenoaks, or 4tph Moorgate. I can’t see both co-existing, there simply isn’t the off-peak demand.

 

[PGAT]

Until where would the train terminate? Surely it won't go all the way to Stevenage? I'm thinking max Enfield. I mean, the overground doesn't go all the way to Hertford and that's a track terminus.

Why would you rip up the current service just to stop at some arbitrary line? It should be obvious that nothing is happening to the Stevenage trains

 

[Hadders]

Also, Crews Hill and Enfield Lock are both in zone 6, but the Great Northern route charges a lot more, that needs to change! The zonal system should be 1 simple set of fares but because so much of it is national rail, there are essentially 2 fare systems, ridiculous!

About time politics got out of the way of running transport.

You're not going to see fares reduce and even if a miracle was to happen, it would only be as a result of political involvement. Public transport requires public money (for infrastructure and usually for operational subsidy as well). That isn't going to happen without political involvement.