Great Northern - Northern City Line to TFL?

[Hadders]

And who should be responsible for the London Underground and DLR?

The issue here is that Londoners pay higher taxes. Why should London's taxpayer revenue be spent on services outside of Greater London? This is very difficult to justify. That being said, I'm not entirely sure londoners have always been prioritised - for example Roding Valley is a station outside the GLA boundary in Zone 4. Meanwhile there are plenty of stations actually within the Greater London boundary that pay higher fares than this station in Essex.

It's a tricky one.

Part of London's success is down to people commuting in to work from outside of London. They often pay a disproportionately high price to do so.
The cost of living is generally higher in London than elsewhere in the country.
Other parts of the country often look at London with envy - cheaper fares, more frequent services, Freedom passes etc.
London is the goose that lays the golden egg for the UK

 

[Brubulus]

Actually there is - high capacity metro-style rolling stock, which departs from predictable platforms. With increased service frequency, it would barely be distinguishable from a metro. That's what makes it uniquely compatible with the TfL map compared to any other inner suburban service in London.

I am willing to wager that there is a huge flow from/via Highbury and Islington towards the City of London that is simply not using the line because of a lack of awareness.

Yes, it should have 8tph off peak and 12tph in the peak, enough for it to easily be a true metro service.

As a general rule, trains on which most users are Greater London residents/visitors should be operated by TfL. TfL obviously needs to function in a way that isn't solely for the benefit of London voters, as there are huge numbers of tourists and commuters, who are likely to use TfL already, even if a TOC operates their commute. However there's a difference between TfL being run in an equitable fashion and the funds of London taxpayers being spent on improvements for outside London. While TfL should help drive forward those enhancements, and contribute as they strengthen London's connections, the bulk of funding has to come from other authorities. More broadly, I do think Greater London should be slightly expanded, to better reflect local travel, infrastructure and service use patterns.

 

[vuzzeho]

My bad, I relied on https://cartometro.com/cartes/metro-london/ to find the shared running, which paints this line as Overground only. The tube and rail map shows this line as Greater “limited service”. The next Greater Anglia train through Seven Sisters is show to be after midnight, so it looks like there’s very little, if any actual sharing of tracks at the same time. Please correct me if I am wrong.

They share track, and GA runs a very frequent service along the line, but trains do not always call at Seven Sisters.

I don’t think they have an ambition to run all the Thameslink services - only the ones that mostly stay within London, like St Albans - Sutton. I would object to it because it would introduce unnecessary shared running, and make the network less flexible.

I haven't heard of this ambition past a rumour online with no evidence. If you have any evidence though, I'd love to see it.

I use the stopping services on this line very often, and if there are any disruptions on this particular route Thameslink makes fast services stop on the intermediate stations - which is something that I see can easily go away if the stopping services and station management is handed to the TfL - together with the toilets on the trains…

TfL work with GTR in disruption, sometimes working with Southern when the Windrush is disrupted in the south. Additionally, this is something that could be done quite easily with a good working relationship with DFTO/GBR (who will be operating it at the time anyway). Also, there are no toilets on the 717s.

If something needs to be improved, it doesn’t mean that it’s TfL that must do it. There are plenty of rail improvement projects done in London and elsewhere with no TfL involvement whatsoever.

Yes, but GN aren't doing it. That's the whole point. GN aren't doing it or indicating that they plan on doing it, and TfL wants to do it, so why not? It's not like someone is forcing TfL to take it over, they have applied to take it over and improve it.

And BTW, what are the stations that TfL serves that are further than Stevenage?

As the crow flies from Charing Cross (central London) - Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Shenfield, Brentwood, Epping almost makes it but not just.

What are those projects?

The improvements on any line that leaves the Greater London boundary.

It’s not only about money - it’s about whether the TfL is best placed to run those services. I am not convinced about this.

Yes, but why not? Arbitrarily trying to fit services into a box based on whether or not they share track with who and why or how far out of London they go isn't any reason for TfL to not be best placed to run the service. We have precedent that TfL can take over a service like this and greatly improve it. They've done it before and they want to do it again.

 

[KevinBrum12]

The old PTE's/PTA's in the conurbations outside London could invest in services up to 25 miles outside of the PTE boundary. The justification was that this investment benefiting residents outside the PTE area would benefit those within it. For example BR extending services from Stourbridge Junction to Hagley and Kidderminster benefited those living in Sandwell and Birmingham in the WMPTE area, by providing a public transport alternative for commuters from the Wyre Forest and reducing the traffic carried on the M5/A456 into Central Birmingham.

Presumably partnerships have been set up between TfL and their neighbouring councils around Greater London, looking at improving rail and public transport links from the likes of Welwyn and Hertford North into the Greater London area?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2025 ==

Network SouthEast wasn't paid for by a local authority

The boundaries of the old Network South East sector also did not fit what would be described as a South East region, the likes of Exeter and Ipswich being in the NSE Sector despite being in the South West and East Anglia government regions.

Perhaps the "Other Provincial Services" Sector should have been re-branded Regional Railways a lot sooner, which would have allowed these services to be in a more appropriate piece of the matrix and improve the bottom line of NSE (which like InterCity was expected to be profitable).

 

[Dave W]

Again, what is there actually to tart up? Apart from the spiral staircase which has for many years felt like it is falling apart, the station in functional. Given its relatively low usage, I’d argue it’s hardly a priority for investment, when there’s LU lines suffering strings of cancellations due to driver shortages, station closures due to staff shortages, trains falling to bits on more than one LU line, and a whole load of dodgy station works from the PPP days that are now starting to crumble.

TFL isn’t a magic bullet, unless perhaps orange is one’s favourite colour!

Is it not?

Your consistent anti-mayor, anti-TfL views aside (however justified), are you actually saying that Overground hasn't been a success for every line it's taken over in North London?

 

[jon0844]

I think London Overground has been a massive success and back when the NCL service was dark, dingy and run with ancient rolling stock (remember when the service closed early and didn't run at weekends too?) I was a major advocate for it being taken over by TfL.. I talked about it loads at the time of the creation of London Overground.

But time has moved on and it's now a pretty reliable service (one of the more reliable parts of GTR's overall service) so I keep wondering what TfL taking over would really do to change anything.

 

[bicbasher]

I used to commute to Essex Road when FCC ran the franchise. There were 6tph from Moorgate in those days off-peak while it's 4tph now.

If it takes TfL to reinstate a more frequent service on the Northern City Line, so be it.

 

[aron2smith]

I'd love fares to go down but if they do how is that money going to be made up? If the fares did reduce in price would there be a reduction to stations in Hertfordshire or would it only apply to stations in Greater London?

That's not what I'm saying, you have two journeys both Oyster Card Zones 6 to 1, why does one cost more than the other? The whole point of a zonal system is so any station in one zone to any station in another zone always costs the same. That's not how it works right now and it makes no sense. As I said it's cheaper to use a station further out like Cheshunt than it is Crews Hill which is nearer to Central London, that doesn't add up. In this case, zone 8 is weirdly cheaper than zone 6. Just seems so random and arbitrary for a system that should've made it simple.

 

[stadler]

I am surprised that they are starting with the Northern City Line instead of the rest of the West Anglia suburban services. You would think that the stopping trains via Tottenham Hale up to Hertford North and Harlow Town would be their first choice. That already has a lot of overlap with existing London Overground services.

Taking over the Northern City Line would also be complex regarding staff transfers. Many of the drivers at the depots work both the Northern City Line class 717 trains and other longer distance Great Northern and Thameslink class 379 387 700 trains. So i am not sure how they would decide which drivers would switch to London Overground and which would not.

 

[Russel]

I am willing to wager that there is a huge flow from/via Highbury and Islington towards the City of London that is simply not using the line because of a lack of awareness.

Yes, you may have a point here, given the lack of publicity and omission from the tube map, it's one of those lines that many potential customers don't know actually exists.

Even at interchange stations such as Moorgate and Old Street, from memory the station signage simply states 'National Rail'.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

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.

Having a cohesive transport network is better for a city’s psychology than fragmented operators.

 

[Magdalia]

I am willing to wager that there is a huge flow from/via Highbury and Islington towards the City of London that is simply not using the line because of a lack of awareness.

And I'm willing to wager that there isn't. People from Walthamstow, Tottenham and Seven Sisters and going to the City just get on a train to Liverpool Street, they are not going to go via Highbury and Islington.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2025 ==

As the crow flies from Charing Cross (central London) - Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Shenfield, Brentwood, Epping almost makes it but not just.

Of these, only Twyford and Reading are further away from central London than Stevenage.

 

[NCT]

North of Hertford is irrelevant. Watton-at-Stone gets a rail service only through sheer dumb luck.

 

[Zomboid]

Stevenage is a red herring, just as Reading is, as far as London goes. It's just where the inner suburban service finishes to give connectivity to and from services from further afield without having to go to London.

The question is whether TfL or what will become GBR are best placed to operate the inner suburban service from Moorgate. Personally I'd say it's one of the routes (the Greenford branch being another) which would benefit from being under the umbrella of the Overground and appearing on the tube map.

 

[ScotGG]

An example of how TfL could improve basic things is signs at Essex Road station. You'd not even know a station was there given the tiny signs. TfL would have a big bright orange roundel up in no time visible to the many passing bus passengers and drivers. "Here's a station!"

Such simple things that they know how to do. Branding, visibility, advertising themselves. And yep, TOCs could do it but all too often simply don't. One of many examples.

 

[bramling]

And who should be responsible for the London Underground and DLR?

I would put it back to LT, how it was from 1933 until the Mayor of London was established. Arm’s length but ultimately accounting to UK-wide politicians.

The issue here is that Londoners pay higher taxes. Why should London's taxpayer revenue be spent on services outside of Greater London? This is very difficult to justify. That being said, I'm not entirely sure londoners have always been prioritised - for example Roding Valley is a station outside the GLA boundary in Zone 4. Meanwhile there are plenty of stations actually within the Greater London boundary that pay higher fares than this station in Essex.

Why is it any different that people in London pay for things outside of their area, compared to anywhere else? For example, someone in Welwyn Garden City will be subsidising Scotland. Why do Londoners seem to consider themselves special?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2025 ==

It's a tricky one.

Part of London's success is down to people commuting in to work from outside of London. They often pay a disproportionately high price to do so.
The cost of living is generally higher in London than elsewhere in the country.
Other parts of the country often look at London with envy - cheaper fares, more frequent services, Freedom passes etc.
London is the goose that lays the golden egg for the UK

On the latter point, one wonders how true that really is, especially looking to the future. I’d say it’s more the south-east (London included) that’s the goose.

 

[Wolfie]

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.

How different are the supposed downsides that you cite to those relating to the TfL-operated services, carved out of Greater Anglia, from Liverpool Street?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2025 ==

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.

Many of the stations are dreadful. Essex Road is basically a 1930s tube station that had a lick of paint thirty years ago. Old Street is abysmal in every way. The NCL platforms at Moorgate show a complete absence of care and investment compared to any of the TfL platforms at the same station.

 

[NCT]

I would put it back to LT, how it was from 1933 until the Mayor of London was established. Arm’s length but ultimately accounting to UK-wide politicians.



Why is it any different that people in London pay for things outside of their area, compared to anywhere else? For example, someone in Welwyn Garden City will be subsidising Scotland. Why do Londoners seem to consider themselves special?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2025 ==



On the latter point, one wonders how true that really is, especially looking to the future. I’d say it’s more the south-east (London included) that’s the goose.

Should Germany centralise?

 

[Wolfie]

Knowing TfL they will get rid of the toilets too. I mean Elizabeth Line services to Reading don’t even have them

Since when do 717s have toilets?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2025 ==

Essex Road is the one I hope they don't touch, it's like a NSE time warp!

There isn't much of the 80s/90s BR era railway left as it is!

Essex Road station, which l live close to, is an utter hole. I'm seriously tempted to say that a tonne of high explosives would be a serious improvement.

Joking apart it's an operational station on an important transport link and is in no way fit for purpose. It shouldn't be a poorly maintained museum.

 

[The exile]

Read the accident report. A factor was that the absence of the line from the tube map meant no-one involved in the project, from the architect to the council planning department to the people actually driving the auger, even thought to look for any tunnels

Which displays such a staggering degree of incompetence / negligence on the part of all those at the planning level, whose jobs it should have been to be doing the research to find the unexpected. It’s a valid point for those actually on the ground though, where a vague awareness of “hang on, aren’t there tunnels somewhere around here?” might at least have led to the question being asked.

 

[Wolfie]

Actually there is - high capacity metro-style rolling stock, which departs from predictable platforms. With increased service frequency, it would barely be distinguishable from a metro. That's what makes it uniquely compatible with the TfL map compared to any other inner suburban service in London.

I am willing to wager that there is a huge flow from/via Highbury and Islington towards the City of London that is simply not using the line because of a lack of awareness.

I live in Islington. Some of my neighbours were completely unaware of the NCL....

 

[Dima]

They share track, and GA runs a very frequent service along the line, but trains do not always call at Seven Sisters.

Apart from a few late night trains or early morning trains, the realtimetrains only shows several GA trains that appear to be empty stock movements running to/from sidings: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...7/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=LE.

I haven't heard of this ambition past a rumour online with no evidence. If you have any evidence though, I'd love to see it.

He has been talking about devolution of suburban rail services, including Thameslink for years. See here and the links at the bottom of the page: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...yor/find-an-answer/thameslink-rail-devolution.

TfL work with GTR in disruption, sometimes working with Southern when the Windrush is disrupted in the south. Additionally, this is something that could be done quite easily with a good working relationship with DFTO/GBR (who will be operating it at the time anyway). Also, there are no toilets on the 717s.

On the MML it’s often enough for a single Thameslink stopping service to be cancelled for the subsequent semi-fast service to become stopping to collect passengers from the intermediate stations, especially at peak times. Does the same happen with the Croydon Overground services?

I know that there are no toilets on 717 - I was referring to other suburban services the TfL has its eye on, such as the Thameslink.

Yes, but GN aren't doing it. That's the whole point. GN aren't doing it or indicating that they plan on doing it, and TfL wants to do it, so why not? It's not like someone is forcing TfL to take it over, they have applied to take it over and improve it.

GN got new trains for this line which is already a big improvement. I am sure if there was funding provided, they wouldn’t mind having their stations upgraded (they don’t own the stations, I wouldn’t expect them to solely fund major works there). There have been massive rail upgrade projects in London without TfL taking over anything, such as the Thameslink programme - so why couldn’t it happen now? And it’s not like TfL is swimming in cash - to do any major works they would need funding too.

And if GTR is indeed uncooperative, their francise expires soon anyway, or they can even be stripped of it earlier if needed.

As the crow flies from Charing Cross (central London) - Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Shenfield, Brentwood, Epping almost makes it but not just.

Ok, my bad, I somehow didn’t think of the Elizabeth line here. Still, if we measure from the Greater London boundary, which is think is more relevant, then it’s only Reading and Twyford that are further away than Stevenage.

And I think TfL has a good case for operating the Elizabeth line, as it goes through London into territories of two different companies, so neither GWR nor GA would be a better fit. They also have different signalling and other specifics of operating in the central London tunnels.

The improvements on any line that leaves the Greater London boundary.

I think it would be good to discuss concrete examples.

Yes, but why not? Arbitrarily trying to fit services into a box based on whether or not they share track with who and why or how far out of London they go isn't any reason for TfL to not be best placed to run the service. We have precedent that TfL can take over a service like this and greatly improve it. They've done it before and they want to do it again.

I don’t think it’s arbitrary to group services into companies based on where they run and whether they share tracks with each other. Sure, there will be bits of TfL network sticking out of London, as well as some shared running, but it shouldn’t be created artificially just because the mayor wants to stick roundels somewhere. I would rather have him busy with making sure that the existing TfL services are up to the standard than with expanding his empire without actually providing anything new.

 

[Richardr]

Why is it any different that people in London pay for things outside of their area, compared to anywhere else? For example, someone in Welwyn Garden City will be subsidising Scotland. Why do Londoners seem to consider themselves special?

There is a difference between paying for something and controlling something.

On a broader point, does anyone know whether the line is profitable? Assuming not, one assumes that if this happens the losses will be transferred from the DfT to TfL?

 

[Wolfie]

Yes, you may have a point here, given the lack of publicity and omission from the tube map, it's one of those lines that many potential customers don't know actually exists.

Even at interchange stations such as Moorgate and Old Street, from memory the station signage simply states 'National Rail'.

Very valid points.

 

[vuzzeho]

He has been talking about devolution of suburban rail services, including Thameslink for years. See here and the links at the bottom of the page: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...yor/find-an-answer/thameslink-rail-devolution.

From what you sent, the last time he spoke about devolution of Thameslink was in 2016, where he did not say TfL wanted Thameslink.

On the MML it’s often enough for a single Thameslink stopping service to be cancelled for the subsequent semi-fast service to become stopping to collect passengers from the intermediate stations, especially at peak times. Does the same happen with the Croydon Overground services?

I know that there are no toilets on 717 - I was referring to other suburban services the TfL has its eye on, such as the Thameslink.

The NCL connects to the ECML, not the MML. Additionally, TfL does not have its eye on Thameslink but even if it did, what real reason do we have to believe that they would go through the backlash and extra cost to refurbish the trains and remove toilets?

GN got new trains for this line which is already a big improvement. I am sure if there was funding provided, they wouldn’t mind having their stations upgraded (they don’t own the stations, I wouldn’t expect them to solely fund major works there). There have been massive rail upgrade projects in London without TfL taking over anything, such as the Thameslink programme - so why couldn’t it happen now? And it’s not like TfL is swimming in cash - to do any major works they would need funding too.

And if GTR is indeed uncooperative, their francise expires soon anyway, or they can even be stripped of it earlier if needed.

Nobody would mind their stations being upgraded. But GN isn't doing it, talking about doing it, or expressing interest in doing it. There have been massive rail upgrades without TfL running the lines, and there will continue to be. That has no bearing on this. We can say 'Great Northern could do it' but Silverlink could've, Greater Anglia could've, anyone could've but they didn't. TfL says they will, and that's that. It could happen now but it isn't, and we have no reason to believe it will.

I don’t think it’s arbitrary to group services into companies based on where they run and whether they share tracks with each other. Sure, there will be bits of TfL network sticking out of London, as well as some shared running, but it shouldn’t be created artificially just because the mayor wants to stick roundels somewhere. I would rather have him busy with making sure that the existing TfL services are up to the standard than with expanding his empire without actually providing anything new.

This isn't just a branding or mayoral ego exercise (literally why would it be that?) but a service improvement exercise. It's welcomed by residents of London and places the NCL reaches, and the service isn't the furthest, and it doesn't share an unusual amount of track for TfL. It's not being created artificially, but is a long running existing service, once being run by London Transport. Doing this would not prevent TfL from improving the other services, because the funding for this is not coming from the same pot as the funding for other modes under TfL. In fact, if this line is profitable, it would actually help TfL improve other services. It's weird to suggest this is just some 'empire expansion' scheme from TfL, because that means essentially nothing useful to them or anyone.

 

[LogicalTrainBo]

So, as an actual update, and to stop this becoming another speculative decision, I'm copying over a message from the original threat.

In the quote, TfL doesn't actually take over the service until the December 2027 timetable change, a whole year AFTER the proposed changes by Great Norther (who also have all the drivers at the depot currently interwork with the other long distance services) so what are they actually going to do, other than some branding changes? It just seems kinda pointless and a lot of faff and money spent, for not a lot of benefit.

 

[Magdalia]

Watton-at-Stone gets a rail service only through sheer dumb luck.

Watton at Stone gets a service because Hertfordshire County Council contributed to the cost of reopening the station in 1982.

Doesn't sound like sheer dumb luck to me.

 

[bramling]

From what you sent, the last time he spoke about devolution of Thameslink was in 2016, where he did not say TfL wanted Thameslink.

The NCL connects to the ECML, not the MML. Additionally, TfL does not have its eye on Thameslink but even if it did, what real reason do we have to believe that they would go through the backlash and extra cost to refurbish the trains and remove toilets?

Nobody would mind their stations being upgraded. But GN isn't doing it, talking about doing it, or expressing interest in doing it. There have been massive rail upgrades without TfL running the lines, and there will continue to be. That has no bearing on this. We can say 'Great Northern could do it' but Silverlink could've, Greater Anglia could've, anyone could've but they didn't. TfL says they will, and that's that. It could happen now but it isn't, and we have no reason to believe it will.

This isn't just a branding or mayoral ego exercise (literally why would it be that?) but a service improvement exercise. It's welcomed by residents of London and places the NCL reaches, and the service isn't the furthest, and it doesn't share an unusual amount of track for TfL. It's not being created artificially, but is a long running existing service, once being run by London Transport. Doing this would not prevent TfL from improving the other services, because the funding for this is not coming from the same pot as the funding for other modes under TfL. In fact, if this line is profitable, it would actually help TfL improve other services. It's weird to suggest this is just some 'empire expansion' scheme from TfL, because that means essentially nothing useful to them or anyone.

The service wasn’t run by London Transport. They ran a shuttle service Finsbury Park to Moorgate, which used part of the route. That is quite different from the through Welwyn/Letchworth to Moorgate route which has run since 1976.

So TFL say they will deliver some (unquantified) service improvement, against a background where GN are apparently intending to restore some form of 4tph off-peak service in December 26. TFL might also tart up a few stations. Meanwhile, inefficiencies will be created in crewing, train maintenance, planning and administration, which may well have a detrimental impact on both these services and the wider TL/GN operation.

I don’t think it would be disastrous, but really the only very tangiblebenefit is going to be a change from blue to orange branding.

 

[mikethet]

For the stations in Greater London I think you could expect to see the TfL-rate PAYG fares applied, but unfortunately also the loss of reasonably priced point-to-point season tickets.

The latter would be a particular loss for stations in Zones 2 and 3 where a London Terminals season ticket often costs only ~60% of the equivalent Travelcard - for example a weekly Hornsey to London Terminals season is £32.30 but a Zones 1-3 Travelcard is £52.50. those who have a typical 5 day peak commute would pay £38, and any additional trips into town would be on top of that.

Actually point-to-point fares are still available. Used to have one on the Elizabeth Line to Liverpool Street. Was useful for when I worked there but was a pain if wanting to get a train further along as you'd have to get off to tap in.

They're also still available on the Weaver and Lioness Lines.

 

[Dima]

From what you sent, the last time he spoke about devolution of Thameslink was in 2016, where he did not say TfL wanted Thameslink.

It’s pretty clear from the reply that he wants full control over all the London suburban services. And it’s not nearly the last time he expressed it. Here’s his reply from 11 July 2025: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...ions-mayor/find-an-answer/rail-devolution-1-1. There are many others.

The NCL connects to the ECML, not the MML. Additionally, TfL does not have its eye on Thameslink but even if it did, what real reason do we have to believe that they would go through the backlash and extra cost to refurbish the trains and remove toilets?

I was talking about MML and Thameslink as an example of how the same company running stopping and fast train can help passengers in case of disruptions.

Nobody would mind their stations being upgraded. But GN isn't doing it, talking about doing it, or expressing interest in doing it. There have been massive rail upgrades without TfL running the lines, and there will continue to be. That has no bearing on this. We can say 'Great Northern could do it' but Silverlink could've, Greater Anglia could've, anyone could've but they didn't. TfL says they will, and that's that. It could happen now but it isn't, and we have no reason to believe it will.

Does the TfL have money to do it? If so, I would like them to spend it elsewhere, like replacing the Bakerloo line trains. But I guess it doesn’t, so they would need to ask the central government for it - and if so, why cannot the government fund the works directly through the network rail?

If the GTR is somehow in the way of this, they will lose the franchise in a year or so anyway.

This isn't just a branding or mayoral ego exercise (literally why would it be that?) but a service improvement exercise.

TfL is not needed for a service improvement of this line. It should focus on the service level on the lines they already operate.

It's welcomed by residents of London and places the NCL reaches,

Any evidence of this?

and the service isn't the furthest, and it doesn't share an unusual amount of track for TfL.

It is second furthest after the Reading EL service, and the second longest share of tracks, again after the Reading EL service. With the EL though they have good reasons to operate that I already mentioned several times, with the NCL they don’t.

It's not being created artificially, but is a long running existing service,

It’s the split between the Moorgate bound GNR and Kings Cross bound GNR services which is being created artificially, not the service itself.

It’s an already existing service run by GNR and it could continue to run by them, or whoever their successor will be.

once being run by London Transport.

I think you’re being disingenuous here. It was run by London transport when it was a short branch within London, fully disconnected from the mainline, which was also reasonable. Once it was connected to the mainline, it was transferred to the British rail, which is also reasonable. Transferring the whole service to Stevenage to TfL is a very different thing though.