Great Northern - Northern City Line to TFL?

[Hadders]

Regarding the tube map, I’ll repeat what I said upthread:

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

 

[A S Leib]

The other showing all London Rail & Tube services

I think the current version of that one keeps a good balance regarding how far out to show services. Showing Bletchley or Southend is probably too difficult whilst keeping central London readable, whilst Luton Airport Parkway and Gatwick, probably the two most important non-London stations to show apart from Stansted, are included. (I haven't forgotten about Southend Airport; I don't think there's a good solution beyond displaying the southeast rail map alongside the London tube and rail one.)

 

[bramling]

Bit of anecdata re knowledge of National Rail which has happened in the last 10 minutes - I work near Colindale station. The Northern Line has been stuffed this morning, a woman has just walked in at work looking flustered that she couldn't get to work - she waited it out because "it would have been 4 buses otherwise". Where would she have got the tube from? Kentish Town. If only there was a mainline train from the same station that cut out 3 of those 4 bus journeys! When I mentioned this she stared blankly at me like I'd stepped off a spaceship.

I appreciate from an enthusiast perspective the distinction may not be obvious or meaningful, but underestimate the brand power of TfL at your peril...

I’m not sure it’s an argument for changing who operates a service just because people aren’t resourceful enough to work out for themselves what services exist in an area. If anything it’s an argument for looking at what maps exist and how information is presented, rather than changing operators.

If some people are daft enough to overlook perfectly good rail services then, frankly, more fool them. Why should everything have to be geared around dumb people?

 

[Dave W]

If some people are daft enough to overlook perfectly good rail services then, frankly, more fool them. Why should everything have to be geared around dumb people?

Because it's a public service, and not everyone is as clever as you?

 

[bramling]

Because it's a public service, and not everyone is as clever as you?

So because a minority of people can’t be bothered to look at a map, we have to run a service in an inefficient and expensive manner?

Remember London Overground has benefited from a *lot* of money thrown at it over the years.

Meanwhile, as has been said numerous times, LU isn’t a shining advert for TFL at the moment, in a number of respects.

 

[Roast Veg]

So because a minority of people can’t be bothered to look at a map, we have to run a service in an inefficient and expensive manner?

It's in the best interests of all travellers that the most direct route is known by even the most ill informed passenger, as it reduces crowding and eases disruption elsewhere. We should all be in support of greater information accessibility. The proportion of potential passengers actually using the rail and tube map is the minority, not the reverse.

 

[bramling]

It's in the best interests of all travellers that the most direct route is known by even the most ill informed passenger, as it reduces crowding and eases disruption elsewhere. We should all be in support of greater information accessibility. The proportion of potential passengers actually using the rail and tube map is the minority, not the reverse.

Information accessibility, agreed, though it’s not like the information isn’t already there.

None of this is an argument for changing the operator. It’s like a workplace blaming the building for the poor performance of their badly recruited staff.

Everyone keeps pointing to the East London and North London lines as TFL success stories, however both these had a massive amount of money thrown at them in terms of infrastructure projects. GN inners won’t get this, and don’t need it. If one looks at something like the DC Lines or West Anglia inners, I’m not sure what TFL have delivered that wouldn’t have happened anyway. So we’re back to the whole point about mapping, which could be looked at overnight, right now, if it were deemed to be a significant issue.

 

[mikethet]

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

This already exists! Go on Citymapper and you can choose between the tube map or the all rail options. Also worth pointing out a lot of the points about the map are largely irrelevant as people now look at the map digitally so can zoom in etc.

I’m not sure it’s an argument for changing who operates a service just because people aren’t resourceful enough to work out for themselves what services exist in an area. If anything it’s an argument for looking at what maps exist and how information is presented, rather than changing operators.

If some people are daft enough to overlook perfectly good rail services then, frankly, more fool them. Why should everything have to be geared around dumb people?

As someone who works in customer service, don't underestimate how many people lack common sense and how bad it can be.

Everyone keeps pointing to the East London and North London lines as TFL success stories, however both these had a massive amount of money thrown at them in terms of infrastructure projects. GN inners won’t get this, and don’t need it. If one looks at something like the DC Lines or West Anglia inners, I’m not sure what TFL have delivered that wouldn’t have happened anyway. So we’re back to the whole point about mapping, which could be looked at overnight, right now, if it were deemed to be a significant issue.

Both DC & West Anglia inners got new rolling stock, refurbished stations and doubled the train frequency.

Again you could argue previous operators could have done this but they didn't because it wasn't in their interests. TFL's primary objective is to deliver for the public and not profit. Even under the DfT they do look at generating profit so not to damage the public purse instead of looking at the wider benefits.

 

[NCT]

TfL operations restored pre-Covid timetables much faster than equivalent DfT operations.

 

[bramling]

As someone who works in customer service, don't underestimate how many people lack common sense and how bad it can be.

Tell me about it. I just see no reason whatsoever why everything should be geared round such people.

Both DC & West Anglia inners got new rolling stock, refurbished stations and doubled the train frequency.

I reckon they’d have got most of this under GA.

GN inners had 4tph under GTR from May 18. Realistically they’re unlikely to get much better than that, and it’s a matter for debate whether it would be needed in any case. Not so many years ago both these routes had an off-peak 3tph service of 3-car trains. 4tph of 6-car trains is a change from 9 carriages per hour to 24 per hour, which is way more than double. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me, and I’d imagine is not too discomparable to what the NLL has seen over the same period. In fact, it’s better than that as the Welwyn route also has 2tph semi-fast, which has gone from mainly 4-car to solid 8-car, so an off-peak doubling of capacity there too - so the Welwyn route effectively had a trebling of off-peak capacity.

So when put like that, one could argue GN inner doesn’t need improvement, as they’ve already happened.

I realise the post-Covid service has spoiled all this, but TFL won’t be able to fix this any quicker when the problem is lack of drivers. TFL aren’t immune from this themselves, it’s a massive issue on LU too, just its less noticeable as people don’t tend to turn up for a particular timetabled service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Oct 2025 ==

TfL operations restored pre-Covid timetables much faster than equivalent DfT operations.

They may have restored their timetables, but on LU they certainly aren’t delivering them. On something like the Northern Line it’s not uncommon to have days when there’s a list of 50+ cancellations. This is worse than having a planned service reduction, as managing unplanned cancellations is significantly more disruptive (eg train X turns up at Ash with no relieving driver, so the original driver has to take it to depot, meanwhile that driver was supposed to board train Y but now can’t because he’s still taking train X into the depot, so you’ve now affected a second train, and so on).

 

[PGAT]

Tell me about it. I just see no reason whatsoever why everything should be geared round such people.




I reckon they’d have got most of this under GA.

GN inners had 4tph under GTR from May 18. Realistically they’re unlikely to get much better than that, and it’s a matter for debate whether it would be needed in any case. Not so many years ago both these routes had an off-peak 3tph service of 3-car trains. 4tph of 6-car trains is a change from 9 carriages per hour to 24 per hour, which is way more than double. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me, and I’d imagine is not too discomparable to what the NLL has seen over the same period. In fact, it’s better than that as the Welwyn route also has 2tph semi-fast, which has gone from mainly 4-car to solid 8-car, so an off-peak doubling of capacity there too.

So when put like that, one could argue GN inner doesn’t need improvement, as they’ve already happened.

That’s all historical and is honestly irrelevant because right now they only have 2 each not 4. We’re unlikely to see improvements with the DfT dragging their heels however TfL can be trusted to provide an adequate service.

 

[Zomboid]

People who don't know the rail system inside out are not "lacking in common sense", they just don't know what they haven't been told about.

Imparting information is obviously not the same thing as who runs a service, but for getting around London TfL is the brand/ system, especially for those who don't take an interest in the subject.

 

[bramling]

That’s all historical and is honestly irrelevant because right now they only have 2 each not 4. We’re unlikely to see improvements with the DfT dragging their heels however TfL can be trusted to provide an adequate service.

So *how* are TFL going to restore the GN inner service when there aren’t drivers to do it?

The only realistic way of doing it quickly is for them to somehow negotiate a hard bargain with the DFT that their TFL services take priority in terms of utilising the drivers that already exist. In which case users elsewhere on GN would get shafted. The decision has already been taken that 2tph on GN inners is the most sensible compromise, and frankly I agree with this as the 2tph service doesn’t seem unduly overcrowded most of the time.

One may argue that TFL can be better trusted to manage driver resource than the DFT, but I’m afraid LU doesn’t bear this out. Their post-Covid resourcing is just as much as a mess, right across LU not just drivers.

So let’s look at what people think TFL might deliver. 4tph inners is likely, but it’s probably happening anyway. New trains have already happened. The colour on the map will change to orange, so beneficial if orange is your favourite colour. There might be some tarting-up of stations, but this comes down to £. Today’s TFL is a very different TFL to the days when Silverlink was taken over. How many LU stations have been tarted up recently? Apart from completion of some very long-term capacity schemes like Bank, a couple of step-free schemes, the last station refurb I can think of is Holland Park, and that was in 2016.

The post-Covid world is very different to 15-20 years ago, and there just isn’t the £ available to be chucking at discretionary works. And worth remembering that the head of TFL, a certain Mr Khan, was very heavily in favour of the prolonged Covid response.

 

[NCT]

This isn't communist central planning. It's about which organisation has the willingness and capacity to approve funding and going to market. Initially drivers will be TUPEd across based on current allocations. Going forward, I can easily imagine a TfL concession contract making decisions more quickly than a small part of a GBR operating unit.

 

[Russel]

The 'tube map' - essentially just showing TfL operated services

This map also includes Thameslink services though.

 

[Cach17]

This map also includes Thameslink services though.

And that stupid cable car!

(I know it's owned by TfL but I couldn't resist the dig)

 

[etr221]

My thinking on the Tube map is that it should just show Tube lines - in the same way as the DLR, Overground and Tramlink maps all just show the DLR, Overground and Tramlink. With a separate map to show all London's rail services (TfL and NR) - whether there should be just one, for all of London (however that might be defined), or a couple, for inner and outer, is a design decision. As it is, we have an overcrowded, over complex Tube+++ map, that is too cluttered to be easily usable, but still misses out critical bits (Trivia question: which is the worst miss?)

Whether TfL should take over the GNC - my view is yes, they should take it over in respect of specifying services, fares and standards, but I see no reason to (or great advantage in) a change of operator, so the contracted operator can remain GTR, no need to change over to LO, all they have to do is meet TfL's requirements. What happens beyond Greater London, and what colour roundel it should have, are then matters that are (relatively) just details to be decided.

 

[Hadders]

This map also includes Thameslink services though.

I said 'essentially just showing TfL operated services', not exclusively showing TfL operated services.

In any case, the Northern City Line isn't shown.

 

[Russel]

I said 'essentially just showing TfL operated services', not exclusively showing TfL operated services.

In any case, the Northern City Line isn't shown.

Including one but not the other is an odd decision though.

 

[Mattplans]

Including one but not the other is an odd decision though.

Why is NCL "one but not the other"? There are plenty of National Rail services operating in London, many of which are deserving of membership to the tube map. It's not a "one but not the other" situation - Thameslink is there because it's a cross city line - is the NCL? There is absolutely no reason why the Northern City Line should be added and not the services between Stratford and Meridian Water, or the services from London Fenchurch Street? Adding the NCL to the Tube map opens a can of worms and makes it inconsistent. It would only be "one but not the other" if the NCL and TL were the only national rail services operating in London, but they're not.
In response to comments regarding the Tube map being crowded, obviously if there was a 'zoom in' on Zones 1-3. it wouldn't be as crowded because there's more space with less services

 

[Hadders]

Including one but not the other is an odd decision though.

Thameslink was put on the tube map as a trial to show an alternative route during the Northern Line closure for the Bank station improvement works, there's athread on here about it.

I don't know if the trial was deemed a success or whether Thameslink will be removed from the map.

 

[William3000]

The Weaver line shares only a couple of short sections of track with GA near Liverpool Street and Clapton - the rest of it is separate. It also mostly stays within Greater London with only Cheshunt and Waltham Cross being outside it.

The shared running on other lines makes more sense to me. The Windrush line is fully within London, the Mildmay line with only a short bit being shared with the Southern, the Metropolitan line also shares only a relatively short section with Chiltern, and the only way to avoid it would be to unite them, District line only shares a bit of track at the Richmond end with the LO and a part of the Wimbledon branch with the SWR service that runs once a day or so.

None of it would apply to the N l transferred to TfL. An idea that TfL should take over this line sounds absolutely arbitrary.



I am interested in your logic here. Why should TfL take over NCL but not the Thameslink services, or any other train services coming from relatively far away and terminating in London?



I think it is an issue. TfL reports to the mayor of London, so they are naturally set up to prioritise Londoners, as it should be (its transport for London after all). In case of any conflict between the interest of Londoners and people from other areas the line serves, the Londoners will win every time, as the mayor’s office depends on them, not on the residents of Stevenage. It’s fine that the bits of the TfL network stick out of London - that’s to a degree inevitable if we want to have connectivity between the communities, but even that has shown to create issues when the TfL isn’t willing to invest in areas outside London (Croxley link).

Letting the TfL take over a service which is longer outside London then inside it, which probably mostly serves non-Londoners, which is not connected to any other TfL lines but shares tracks with other services of its current operator and well as other national rail services makes no sense to me.

I think TfL running inner metro services as far out as Reading, Shenfield, or the NCL between Moorgate and WGC and Hertford North and Stevenage is one thing but Thameslink run much longer distance services (toilets are critical) as far north as Bedford, Peterborough, and Cambridge, and as far south as Brighton, and Horsham.

 

[Farnborough]

I think TfL running inner metro services as far out as Reading, Shenfield, or the NCL between Moorgate and WGC and Hertford North and Stevenage is one thing but Thameslink run much longer distance services (toilets are critical) as far north as Bedford, Peterborough, and Cambridge, and as far south as Brighton, and Horsham.

Earlier this year, I did ask a question:

How far out is "London"

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...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Roast Veg]

Why is NCL "one but not the other"? There are plenty of National Rail services operating in London, many of which are deserving of membership to the tube map. It's not a "one but not the other" situation - Thameslink is there because it's a cross city line - is the NCL? There is absolutely no reason why the Northern City Line should be added and not the services between Stratford and Meridian Water, or the services from London Fenchurch Street?

Thameslink is there because it is explicitly designed to handle large flows of passengers within London, like a metro, and effectively connects major nodes in the network. It does this using high capacity rolling stock with lots of standing space, to the point where some punters will barely be able to distinguish it from a metro. The NCL shares these qualities, where the examples you have given do not. They should not be considered for inclusion in wayfinding unless and until they are metroized.

There is absolutely no reason to exclude a markedly useful railway line from wayfinding because of its ownership structure, especially when it exists within the same fare system. That would be like hiding roads from road signs just because they aren't managed by Highways England.

 

[Mattplans]

Thameslink is there because it is explicitly designed to handle large flows of passengers within London, like a metro, and effectively connects major nodes in the network. It does this using high capacity rolling stock with lots of standing space, to the point where some punters will barely be able to distinguish it from a metro. The NCL shares these qualities, where the examples you have given do not. They should not be considered for inclusion in wayfinding unless and until they are metroized.

There is absolutely no reason to exclude a markedly useful railway line from wayfinding because of its ownership structure, especially when it exists within the same fare system. That would be like hiding roads from road signs just because they aren't managed by Highways England.

Thameslink has been added to the Tube map as it operates a through-London service, and highlighting this gives Londoners more options, as well as accepting pay as you go ticketing. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transp.../foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1963-2526

And as for your point about "barely being able to distinguish it from a metro".... surely service frequency plays a large part in what one deems a metro or not. That's part of the entire debate being made in this thread and the consensus is that the service frequency is too low - so why should anyone believe it to be a metro?

That would be like hiding roads from road signs just because they aren't managed by Highways England.

So wouldnt' excluding every National Rail operator in London be the same? Like I say, once you add the NCL you open a can of worms and make the Tube Map very inconsistent. There is already a map that shows the national rail services available in London. Alternatively, a good idea has been suggested in this thread that involves 'zooming in' on zones 1-3 and showing all services available within these main zones.
But I do not support adding the NCL to the map, as then you'd have to add the line from King's Cross surely? So why should this line get added to the Tube Map and not others? Like I've said, you will literally be reproducing the Rail & Tube map which is very very pointless.

It does this using high capacity rolling stock with lots of standing space, to the point where some punters will barely be able to distinguish it from a metro. The NCL shares these qualities, where the examples you have given do not

The Southeastern metro lines use the same (707s) and 376s which have lots of standing room. In what way does it lack the qualities of the NCL? It's even more frequent. Why shouldn't these routes be added to the tube map, then?

 

[Magdalia]

surely service frequency plays a large part in what one deems a metro or not. That's part of the entire debate being made in this thread and the consensus is that the service frequency is too low - so why should anyone believe it to be a metro?

The Thameslink core between St Pancras and Blackfriars is 14tph off peak rising to 20tph peak. The Thameslink core does function as a Metro.

It is a much higher frequency than, for example, the Richmond branch of the District Line.

 

[Hadders]

We had a discussion about Thameslink being added to the tube map back in 2020:

Thameslink on the Tube Map

Yes, that was why it was added. I get the impression TfL sort of did this under duress as they don't get any revenue from Thameslink. It makes me wonder if this is why they did a spectacularly bad job of adding it in to the map: either they deliberately did a bad job, so Thameslink looks...

www.railforums.co.uk

It’s mentioned in the TfL press release that it was planned to add Thameslink to the map because of the Northern Line closure through Bank, but it was added earlier to support passengers during covid.

Thameslink services set to be temporarily added to latest Tube map to help support customers during the coronavirus pandemic

Thameslink services set to be temporarily added to latest Tube map to help support customers during the coronavirus pandemic

tfl.gov.uk

Thameslink services set to be temporarily added to latest Tube map to help support customers during the coronavirus pandemic​

16 December 2020
Temporary addition from next month will illustrate more through London travel options while customers need to maintain social distancing
Transport for London (TfL) is temporarily adding Thameslink services to the world-famous Tube map from next month to help customers move around the city during the continuing coronavirus pandemic.
The temporary addition to the map, which will appear in stations in the coming weeks, will see Thameslink services within Zones 1 to 6 (as well as Dartford and Swanley), shown on maps displayed in stations, as well as the pocket Tube map, online at tfl.gov.uk and on the TfL Go app.
Thameslink has been added as it operates a through London service and highlighting this gives Londoners more options during the pandemic. This will help further encourage use of public transport to safely travel across the city, aiding social distancing and reducing the risk of a car-led recovery. Step-free information for all Thameslink stations shown will also be added, further aiding those with accessibility needs who need to travel around London.
Forthcoming closures to the Bank branch of the Northern line later in 2021, to allow for the completion of the Bank Station Capacity Upgrade work, also mean that customers will benefit from using Thameslink services as an alternative route option.
Julie Dixon, Head of Customer Information and Partnerships at TfL said: "In light of the continuing coronavirus pandemic, and next year's Northern line closures required to complete the Bank Upgrade works, Thameslink services have been temporarily included on the Tube map to help customers move around the city. This has been a complicated addition to make to the map, but one that we feel will benefit Londoners as part of our work to promote safe, clean and reliable public transport use across the city."
Tom Moran, Managing Director, Thameslink said: "We're delighted that Thameslink stations across London have been temporarily added to the iconic tube map, particularly those in areas of south east and north London that are now appearing for the first time. Adding Thameslink services will be especially helpful now, as we know people want to plan their journeys carefully and ensure they can socially distance. This will mean every passenger can see all the connections available to them in one place. Thameslink is a great option for passengers in London, with trains every few minutes, a journey time from St Pancras to London Bridge of under 15 minutes and accessible stations."
The addition of Thameslink services to the Tube map will help people travelling into the capital from just outside the city. However, the Government's latest guidance makes it clear that everyone should try to reduce their journeys where possible, but those who need to travel can take simple steps to do so safely, such as using TfL's travel tools to plan ahead for the quiet times and routes. In line with Government restrictions, people living in tier 3 areas should not travel into tier 2 areas unless it is for education or work purposes which cannot be done from home.
An enhanced cleaning regime on London's transport network continues to make the network cleaner than ever. Trains and stations are cleaned with hospital-grade cleaning substances that kill viruses and bacteria on contact and providing ongoing protection.
Both TfL and Thameslink are asking customers to plan ahead and travel during the quiet times. For TfL, these are currently between 08:15 and 16:00 and after 17:30 on weekdays, and before noon and after 18:00 on weekends on public transport. For Thameslink, see the Finding a quieter train webpage or look out for alerts in National Rail journey planners to show where trains are expected to be busy.
Extensive signage is in place on trains, platforms and stations, reminding everyone to socially distance. The British Transport Police is actively enforcing the national requirement for everyone to wear a face covering over their nose and mouth while in a station or on TfL and Thameslink services, unless they are exempt. On TfL services, this is also supported by TfL's own enforcement officers who are targeting the small minority of people who are not complying with the requirement.

 

[Mattplans]

The Thameslink core between St Pancras and Blackfriars is 14tph off peak rising to 20tph peak. The Thameslink core does function as a Metro.

Yes - we agree? Thameslink has that frequency. The Northern City Line (the subject of this thread) does not. Thought it was obvious I was talking about the NCL there and not Thameslink, the debate is regarding adding NCL to the Tube Map, not Thameslink which is already there?

 

[Farnborough]

At least NCL and TL are underground "tube" lines, even if they aren't London Underground lines...

 

[bramling]

Yes - we agree? Thameslink has that frequency. The Northern City Line (the subject of this thread) does not. Thought it was obvious I was talking about the NCL there and not Thameslink, the debate is regarding adding NCL to the Tube Map, not Thameslink which is already there?

Really there need to be different maps for different purposes.

Something like “London rail services” which includes everything. Another one along the lines of “High-frequency services”, showing every route that runs at or above a certain threshold. And finally a “Tube map” which only shows LU lines and nothing else - though one could include Crossrail and DLR.

With regard to the second of those, I’d suggest anything at half-hourly frequency or better off-peak, perhaps excepting Sundays. There aren’t many rail services in London this doesn’t apply to. Off the top of my head I can think of Epsom Downs, East Grinstead and the Chiltern inner-suburban stations like Sudbury Hill Harrow. Any others?