Great Northern - Northern City Line to TFL?

[A S Leib]

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?

I'd say that 4 or ideally 5 tph should be the minimum for turn-up-and-go, but at (rather than below) 2tph within London, there's also the Greenford branch, Liberty (Romford – Upminster) line, and the Enfield Town and Cheshunt branches north of Edmonton Green but with plans to increase them to 3tph at some point after May 2027.

 

[bramling]

I'd say that 4 or ideally 5 tph should be the minimum for turn-up-and-go, but at (rather than below) 2tph within London, there's also the Greenford branch, Liberty (Romford – Upminster) line, and the Enfield Town and Cheshunt branches north of Edmonton Green but with plans to increase them to 3tph at some point after May 2027.

I was thinking of excluding anything *below* 2tph. My only reason being that there’s quite a few 2tph services, whereas not much below this.

I know 2tph isn’t really turn up and go, but providing things run to a clockface timetable I don’t see this as being a significant issue. Regular passengers are more than capable of knowing when their trains are due, and there’s plenty of resources nowadays available for non-regulars. Personally I’d prefer a reliable service of longer trains than tend to turn up when planned, rather than a higher frequency that suffers from being unreliable.

Also worth remembering there’s plenty of places across the country that would kill for 2tph!

 

[A S Leib]

Personally I’d prefer a reliable service of longer trains than tend to turn up when planned, rather than a higher frequency that suffers from being unreliable

That seems fair. There's also the fact that some routes might have 4+ tph but formed of overlapping 2tph routes so there's still frequent 20+ minute waits (especially on the SWR / Southern / Southeastern suburban networks?).

 

[jon0844]

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?

Many stations are removing maps, presumably because they're expensive to keep updating and replacing as they fade etc.

Much like engineering posters getting less detailed and including a QR code for more info, I think more and more people will be using online journey planners which are going to be the things that need to better explain the varying methods of transport - as well as improved signage at stations.

Are tourists using maps or checking their phones? More and more people will have phones with roaming data, and now access to 4G and 5G underground in many locations, so will they seek to look at a map or just use Google or Apple Maps to plan? Perhaps they use other services they're familiar with at home and work here, like Citymapper?

I am sure the NCL will be used for people planning trips in that area, but algorithms might still see it less likely to be recommended over other services - especially when timings are considered.

We all know that some people will wait for a slower train to avoid changes (or even travel on a quieter train) but planners don't account for this and might put someone on a tube line when a rail service could be better.

 

[Farnborough]

Really there need to be different maps for different purposes.

... And finally a “Tube map” which only shows LU lines and nothing else - though one could include Crossrail and DLR.

I really don't understand this obsession with a pure tube map - the underground is part of an integrated public transport network

Compare the current tube map with the Rail & Tube map... south of the river, you're removing most of the usable routes! Especially if Thameslink is removed from the "Tube" map.

 

[whoosh]

I think we may be diverging from the thread title here.

I have created a new thread here for discussion on the tube map:

New tube map?

To me, the current tube map looks cluttered, and rather untidy. Is the 'Harry Beck' style, undoubtedly a design classic, being clung on to for sentimental reasons? Is it flogging a dead horse now? Are there better maps from people outside TfL which convey things more clearly? If a new map was...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Roast Veg]

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?

I've already posted that the NCL needs two things - service frequency improvements and also better wayfinding by addition to the map. I also suggested that transfer of ownership isn't required for either of those things to happen.

What has become apparent from the discussion here is that GTR see the service as less vital than their other routes, and reportedly will rob drivers to keep those other services going. That may well make sense for GTR, but it has also now convinced me that transfer to a new London Overground (or sui generis title like the Elizabeth Line) is most appropriate to give Londoners the best service.

 

[bramling]

I've already posted that the NCL needs two things - service frequency improvements and also better wayfinding by addition to the map. I also suggested that transfer of ownership isn't required for either of those things to happen.

What has become apparent from the discussion here is that GTR see the service as less vital than their other routes, and reportedly will rob drivers to keep those other services going. That may well make sense for GTR, but it has also now convinced me that transfer to a new London Overground (or sui generis title like the Elizabeth Line) is most appropriate to give Londoners the best service.

I don’t think it’s necessarily that GTR deemed these services as less important, more that someone took a look at passenger numbers and decided they were the some of the least-worst services to remove.

Remember that these were by no means the only services cut on GTR. Compared to pre-Covid:-
* the peak Baldock services were removed altogether at one point, and have only just returned but still not to their original extent
* same with the peak Peterborough services
* no evening Peterborough and Baldock extras, which seems to be for good
* off-peak Cambridge stopping service has alternate trains cut back to Letchworth
* reduced evening Cambridge stopping service
* fewer 12-car London-Cambridge fast services

Given the off-peak 717 services still seem to have plenty of capacity, most of the time (I realise there are exceptions), I find it hard to criticise the logic of this. Ideally it shouldn’t have happened, but what this goes back to is the decision by politicians to shut down the country for a year and a half and splurge a few hundred billion pounds, whilst at the same time an issue was brewing in terms of driver numbers.

And I don’t think it’s just a case of saying that these services are lightly loaded *because* of the 2tph. When they did have 4tph, pre-Covid, off-peak they were lightly loaded then, especially on the Welwyn route. Remember that Welwyn, Hatfield and Potters Bar are the busier stations and have a 2tph faster service which most people will prefer, and New Barnet, Oakleigh Park, New Southgate, Alexandra Palace and Hornsey all have either the Northern and/or Piccadilly Lines close at hand. This leaves Welham Green, Brookmans Park and Hadley Wood, which are only going to generate so much traffic.

 

[Watershed]

Perhaps the reason they have capacity is because they run at only 4tph. The induced demand you'd create through a TUAG frequency can't be understated. It would mean that the trains would appear on journey planners much more frequently.

The Piccadilly line isn't particularly quick and doesn't serve the City, either. You have to make an awkward change at Kings Cross (or two easier, but slower, cross-platform changes at Finsbury Park & Euston) for that.

For a fair proportion of suburbs like New Barnet, the most conveniently located station will be the National Rail station. So even if the Northern line offers a higher frequency, that has to be offset by the time taken to get there.

 

[Roast Veg]

I don’t think it’s necessarily that GTR deemed these services as less important, more that someone took a look at passenger numbers and decided they were the some of the least-worst services to remove.

Within the context of GTR, I believe that is true. That's why I am now off the opinion that the best thing for growth for this line is to be split and invested in.

 

[Farnborough]

Within the context of GTR, I believe that is true. That's why I am now off the opinion that the best thing for growth for this line is to be split and invested in.

So would you transfer just the Moorgate services? Or do you include the LGC stopper from KX?

 

[bramling]

Within the context of GTR, I believe that is true. That's why I am now off the opinion that the best thing for growth for this line is to be split and invested in.

So an almost trebling of off-peak capacity and a fleet of brand new trains wasn’t a really good investment in the service? (I realise a lot of this currently spends the day sitting in sidings rather than doing what it was ordered to do….).

I can’t see the Welwyn route ever going beyond 4tph off-peak, as it would make it hard to timetable in the Cambridge service.

Certainly for people further out on the Hertford line, I’d imagine their priority would be a faster service, rather than more frequent. Unlikely to ever happen though.

 

[William3000]

This doesn't mention Thameslink, and just says they would like some devolved lines. It's just making an assumption that he means Thameslink, which doesn't seem to be correct.

Someone else has responded to this claim so I won't.

I'll say it again, that's true. TfL is not needed. But GN is not doing it, and the most we have is a rumour they may up the frequency in a year, at which point they'll already be DFTO, being formed into GBR. TfL, however, says they want to do it, and has applied to take it over and improve it. GN could, maybe GN should, but GN aren't. So TfL will.

Look at the public response to the plans.

It could, same way the Lea Valley service was an existing service run by GA. But it seems like it won't. And as mentioned, TfL won't just improve the service, but they'll give it added relevancy and creates a more integrated network. Again, yes, GN could do this, but they are not and seem to have no plans to.

Thameslink is as useful as the Elizabeth Line and great for avoiding long escalators and the tube, and connects directly 4 of major London terminals: London King’s Cross/London St Pancras International, London Blackfriars, and London Bridge plus the now extremely useful Farringdon for interchange with the Elizabeth Line. With London Paddington, and London Liverpool Street/Moorgate on the Elizabeth Line and with London Euston a short walk from St Pancras, and London Waterloo one stop from London Bridge, virtually all the major terminuses are linked. London Victoria is the only one slightly more awkward, and the more minor stations like London Marylebone, London Cannon Street, and London Charing Cross, and everything from The latter two runs through London Bridge in any case.

 

[wanderingriver]

On October 16th I submitted a Freedom of information request asking:

With the announcement that TfL is interested in taking over Great Northern “inner” services from GTR, I was wondering if I could request a transcript or copy of what TfL has put forward as their business case to the DfT. I am aware that in FOI request “ FOI-2990-2324” that a similar, if not the same, business case was withheld under 41 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. If that is the case here I would instead like to know why and if at all possible would like to request a copy of said business case that is redacted to a level that TfL is comfortable with releasing.


Also if possible, I would like to request what route TfL intends to run under their operation and if TfL will run said service as a London Overground service or something different like how the Elizabeth Line is different for example.


Finally I would like to know when TfL takes over the Class 717s from GTR, what is their plans for refurbishing the trains apart from rebranding.

Now today I got a response from TfL that was NOT published on the Freedom of Information website which said:

Thank you again for your request which we received on 16 October 2025, asking for information about the Great Northern 'Inners' services.

Your request is being considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and our information access policy. I can confirm we do hold the information you require.

However, in accordance with Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act we are still considering the balance of the public interest in relation to a qualified exemption that applies tosome of the information in the business case and have not yet reached a conclusion. The exemption under consideration is section 43(2) – Commercial Interests. It is estimated that a decision will be reached by 10 December 2025, and I will write again to inform you of that decision.

Hopefully by December 10th we will have more information about their plans if any from TfL.

 

[vuzzeho]

On October 16th I submitted a Freedom of information request asking:

Now today I got a response from TfL that was NOT published on the Freedom of Information website which said:


Hopefully by December 10th we will have more information about their plans if any from TfL.

Thank you! I look forward to finding out.

 

[Wolfie]

On October 16th I submitted a Freedom of information request asking:

Now today I got a response from TfL that was NOT published on the Freedom of Information website which said:


Hopefully by December 10th we will have more information about their plans if any from TfL.

Personally, had l processed that application in my time as a Civil Servant the Public Interest Test would have concluded with a denial not only on the grounds of commercial information but also citing the exemption permitting free and frank advice to Ministers to permit efficient policy formulation.

 

[wanderingriver]

TfL has finally responded, which can be found here or read below. The PDF to the business case is on the website and I can't attach it as the file is too big so there is a link.

Link to FOI: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transp.../foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2712-2526
Link to PDF: https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-2712-252...n Business Case_v4.0_Redacted(2)_Redacted.pdf

Thank you for your request which we received on 15 October 2025, asking about the Great Northern 'Inners' (GNI) business case.



Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require. You asked:

1. With the announcement that TfL is interested in taking over Great Northern “inner” services from GTR, I was wondering if I could request a transcript or copy of what TfL has put forward as their business case to the DfT. I am aware that in FOI request “ FOI-2990-2324” FOI request detail - Transport for London that a similar, if not the same, business case was withheld under 41 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. If that is the case here I would instead like to know why and if at all possible would like to request a copy of said business case that is redacted to a level that TfL is comfortable with releasing.
2. Also if possible, I would like to request what route TfL intends to run under their operation and if TfL will run said service as a London Overground service or something different like how the Elizabeth Line is different for example.
3. Finally I would like to know when TfL takes over the Class 717s from GTR, what is their plans for refurbishing the trains apart from rebranding.

Please find attached a redacted version of the GNI devolution business case which includes details of the route TfL intends to run, and the fleet we intend to use. The business case contains detail on the proposed railway geography and appraises the commercial and operational models and differing investment options. This remains a decision for the Secretary of State for Transport and TfL is supporting the DfT in their review of the business case.



Please note that a number of redactions have been made under sections 41 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act due to confidential and commercially sensitive contents related to the existing railway. This decision has been reached with the current service provider Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR). The rationale is explained below.

Section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act relates to information that has been provided in confidence. Disclosure of the redacted information by TfL would constitute an actionable beach of confidence. Section 43(2) relates to information where release would prejudice commercial interests of GTR. In this case the exemptions apply because the business case was prepared using information provided by the train operator under a confidentiality agreement between us, based on their data and knowledge of providing the services and disclosure of this information would undermine their position in the competitive market place and harm their commercial interests.

Section 41 is an “absolute” exemption, meaning that where it applies there is no obligation to release the information with any further consideration. Section 43 is a “qualified” exemption, meaning that even when it applies there is a need to consider whether the greater public interest is best served by the exemption applying and the information being withheld, or in releasing it in any event. In this case we believe the greater public interest is served by the exemption applying to ensure the train operator can continue the provision of current services without being placed at a commercial disadvantage. This, coupled with the fact that, in any case, section 41 also applies, leads to the conclusion that the greater public interest rests in section 43(2) also applying.



Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.



Yours sincerely



Eva Hextall

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[jon0844]

That's a lot to take in, but speed reading through it still seems to me like there's no real need for TfL to take over. The main incentive is improving the Hertford Loop and building a new station to cope with a huge development at Crews Hill. Surely TfL could work closely with GB Railway to facilitate a new station build with sufficient capacity, while GB Railway already has the ability to increase the service frequency anyway. GTR has the trains already.

 

[wanderingriver]

That's a lot to take in, but speed reading through it still seems to me like there's no real need for TfL to take over. The main incentive is improving the Hertford Loop and building a new station to cope with a huge development at Crews Hill. Surely TfL could work closely with GB Railway to facilitate a new station build with sufficient capacity, while GB Railway already has the ability to increase the service frequency anyway. GTR has the trains already.

To be honest, as a business they want to make money and if they get this, they could probably make quite a bit. I’m sure TfL could work with GB Railway but it probably isn’t as profitable as taking over the railway

 

[Transilien]

To be honest, as a business they want to make money and if they get this, they could probably make quite a bit. I’m sure TfL could work with GB Railway but it probably isn’t as profitable as taking over the railway

Profit? Railway? Those things are incompatible with each other unless TFL gets into property development on the scale of Hong Kong’s MTR

 

[jon0844]

Profit? Railway? Those things are incompatible with each other unless TFL gets into property development on the scale of Hong Kong’s MTR

Network Rail as is already seems quite good at making money on the property side. Without a lot of work, I'm not sure many stations in the inner could have more retail added without major rebuilds.

TfL seems mostly interested in this idea for Crews Hill. I can't see how the other stations add much value.

 

[Recessio]

That's a lot to take in, but speed reading through it still seems to me like there's no real need for TfL to take over. The main incentive is improving the Hertford Loop and building a new station to cope with a huge development at Crews Hill. Surely TfL could work closely with GB Railway to facilitate a new station build with sufficient capacity, while GB Railway already has the ability to increase the service frequency anyway. GTR has the trains already.

But as in a lot of these cases, GB Railways (or various NR TOCs before them) have the capacity to improve, but never do. Whereas look at TfL's track record of improving service frequencies, stations (fully staffed) etc. on the various routes they have taken over into Overground or Elizabeth line. Maybe GBR could improve the line, but it sounds like TfL actually would improve the line.

 

[jon0844]

But as in a lot of these cases, GB Railways (or various NR TOCs before them) have the capacity to improve, but never do. Whereas look at TfL's track record of improving service frequencies, stations (fully staffed) etc. on the various routes they have taken over into Overground or Elizabeth line. Maybe GBR could improve the line, but it sounds like TfL actually would improve the line.

But then have to to work out how to split off the line from the rest of the services, which means splitting up depots, drivers and totally re-writing diagrams. Many stations (outside of the NCL) have had big upgrades so besides some more orange, it's not like they're all getting rebuilt or all becoming accessible. In fact, I don't recall anything about station upgrades besides cosmetic improvements, and maybe some more facilities for staff.

Of course it can be done, but TfL taking over will come with a large cost and there's no guarantee they can do whatever they want when it will be GB Railway and Network Rail working closely together on managing the ECML services.

Never say never, but ultimately the real solution IMO is putting on the pressure to implement the service frequency that was promised years ago, and what the fleet of trains were built for.

 

[Recessio]

But then have to to work out how to split off the line from the rest of the services, which means splitting up depots, drivers and totally re-writing diagrams. Many stations (outside of the NCL) have had big upgrades so besides some more orange, it's not like they're all getting rebuilt or all becoming accessible. In fact, I don't recall anything about station upgrades besides cosmetic improvements, and maybe some more facilities for staff.

Of course it can be done, but TfL taking over will come with a large cost and there's no guarantee they can do whatever they want when it will be GB Railway and Network Rail working closely together on managing the ECML services.

Never say never, but ultimately the real solution IMO is putting on the pressure to implement the service frequency that was promised years ago, and what the fleet of trains were built for.

You are right that most of what could be delivered could be done by GTR/GBR. But then the question remains, why haven't they? They've had plenty of opportunity to do so and haven't. Whereas TfL sound eager to get on with it.

 

[bramling]

You are right that most of what could be delivered could be done by GTR/GBR. But then the question remains, why haven't they? They've had plenty of opportunity to do so and haven't. Whereas TfL sound eager to get on with it.

TFL may sound eager to get on with it, because they want to build up an empire. But if one looks at some of TFL’s other operations, frankly they have been a shambles for some time, and especially since Covid. LU, Tramlink and the DLR all have issues.

I’d prefer for TFL to focus on their core functions rather than trying to grow an empire. How about a focus on getting the Underground running well? For example, I’d like to be able to turn up at High Barnet and find the trains running every 3-6 minutes as timetabled, not turn up to three empty platforms and the first train in 9 minutes, which is an all too common experience. Or perhaps it would be nice to have a Piccadilly Line that can actually function for all 12 months of the year rather than having a little siesta over the autumn.

 

[GN Boy]

But then have to to work out how to split off the line from the rest of the services, which means splitting up depots, drivers and totally re-writing diagrams.

As it stands, GN have three depots that sign the Inners (Hitchin, Hornsey and Welwyn Garden City), with all but one Link signing multiple traction and routes. A potential nightmare for TfL.

 

[Farnborough]

I’d prefer for TFL to focus on their core functions...

I'd count "running railways within the TfL boundaries" as one of their core functions.

GTR (notwithstanding the new Class 717s), and to be honest everyone else back to and including British Rail before them, has failed miserably... GBR has bigger fish to fry, so why not let TfL have a go?

 

[Magdalia]

GTR (notwithstanding the new Class 717s), and to be honest everyone else back to and including British Rail before them, has failed miserably

British Rail electrified the GN suburban network and it ran very well right up to the FCC era. What were the miserable failures in those 40 years?

GBR has bigger fish to fry, so why not let TfL have a go?

The cost and disruption of the transition is a good place to start. TfL don't "have a go" just by waving a magic wand. For example:

GN have three depots that sign the Inners (Hitchin, Hornsey and Welwyn Garden City), with all but one Link signing multiple traction and routes. A potential nightmare for TfL.

 

[bramling]

British Rail electrified the GN suburban network and it ran very well right up to the FCC era. What were the miserable failures in those 40 years?

Indeed. 6 trains per hour to Moorgate off-peak since the 1990s, and Moorgate service enhanced to include weekends and evenings for some years now. 8tph planned from May 18, only stopped due to Covid. Not a bad result really.

The cost and disruption of the transition is a good place to start. TfL don't "have a go" just by waving a magic wand. For example:

TFL will have the same problem of driver shortage, for starters. Which isn’t a stranger to TFL, as shown by the frequent delays on LU lines due to “train cancellations”. That’s without considering the period recently when the Central Line had over half of its trains unavailable for service due to defects.

 

[jon0844]

The GN inners run pretty well now, but sometimes lose time that can impact other services (but more often than not, it's another service being late getting caught behind a stopper). It will be interesting to see how everything fits together with the new timetable, with 2C/L/R services being retimed to reduce conflict at WGC when Sevenoaks services run (important if Sevenoaks services will run six days a week from 2027).

If the service frequency was increased as per the plan, I doubt anyone would see the need for TfL to come in and change seat covers, and signs at some stations.

While they would staff the unstaffed stations and add staff facilities if required, would they spend any money beyond that? Perhaps a few more benches, and probably a lot more advertising.

As I've said many times, TfL doesn't need to come in to improve the service. It can be done now, and I'm pretty sure there is a plan to up the frequency in the future - likely quicker than TfL could do it given the time it would take for them to take over.