Epping Forest MP complains over Epping waiting times on the Central Line

[renegademaster]

I’ve no issue with an MP raising the issue. If I were a constituent and my MP raised it in that way, I’d be making it very clear that they had reduced their chance of winning my vote by tagging it to their wider party campaign against the Mayor.

But why is the mayor above criticism?
He is ultimately the person responsible for the local government of London. Labour never avoided criticising Boris directly so why should the Tories avoid criticising Khan directly?

If you believe their is something more to what his saying ( like local government funding levels) then you should talk about that (but also then accept responses about the fare freeze) , not shooting the messenger then burying your head in the sand over the actual issue, otherwise you are being as much of a partisan hack as he is.

 

[NCT]

But why is the mayor above criticism?

That's not the point being made.

 

[700007]

Essentially what you describe is what *should* happen if service control are monitoring the service and there’s a gap to one branch. However there are reasons why this isn’t always possible - there’s crew depots at Loughton and Hainault, so if the a train is booked a crew relied on either the outward or return journey then diversion isn’t easily possible, and likewise if the train is booked to stable in any of the depots/sidings.

This is why I don’t buy the argument that one branch or other is the poor relation. There will be times when gaps arise, for whatever reason, on both routes. LU have no reason to prioritise one over the other.

Having said that, it was always a standing joke that Wimbledon used to get prioritised because Mike Brown used to commute on the Wimbledon branch. There may well be a grain of truth to this as Wimbledon always seems to have had slightly preferential political recognition (it’s also the busiest of the District’s western branches). Yet many users seem to feel Wimbledon is some kind of poo relation, remember a certain political party elected on a key pledge to “sort out the District Line”. Needless to say I don’t think much was achieved by her…

Oh, absolutely agree and understand everything with what you said regarding the Central line. It's just unfortunate if there's 6 or 7 consecutive trains and every single one of them happen to be booked relief or stabling on the current trip at Loughton or at Hainault as it means that's quite the long wait to sit through. But the Central line is not all bad however, the service can be truly fantastic when it wants to. I switched to using the Central line a couple years back from other alternatives because of the frequency and availability of the service (and the fact you can usually just about get a seat!)

As for the Wimbledon branch, I just assumed most trains went there in times of disruption or any additional workings for whatever reason because it was 'the easiest place to send them'. Richmond is restricted in part because of conflicts with the Overground and Ealing Broadway has similar conflicts with the Piccadilly line. But that's quite amusing that Mike Brown 'was the reason'...!

 

[35B]

But why is the mayor above criticism?
He is ultimately the person responsible for the local government of London. Labour never avoided criticising Boris directly so why should the Tories avoid criticising Khan directly?

If you believe their is something more to what his saying ( like local government funding levels) then you should talk about that (but also then accept responses about the fare freeze) , not shooting the messenger then burying your head in the sand over the actual issue, otherwise you are being as much of a partisan hack as he is.

The Mayor is not above criticism. The attempt made when first elected, and then since, to undermine his credibility and paint him as a dangerous extremist, is something rather different and very clearly what his posting was part of.

 

[Djgr]

And besides the London-Essex border in those parts is plain bizarre.

Hainault station is a short walking distance from Essex, cutting across the middle of the local built up area. Same with Buckhurst Hill.
One side of Roding Valley is Essex and yet the neighbours in the next street come under London.
The boundary is literally across the road from Grange Hill etc.

I looked at the map and I was really surprised it's like this as on the ground, these areas including Loughton, Debden and Woodford are virtually indistinguishable and seems very unlikely anyone living there would be able to tell where one county becomes the other without having a vested interest in this stuff first.

Spite would be making everyone get off at Woodford and wait up to 20 minutes for a shuttle to stations towards Epping, whilst charging a 2nd fare for the privilege, it would be a bonkers thing to do and be vastly more expensive to run than the current service. And less people would use it making it far harder to cover its costs, makes me think this is precisely what happened in places where London buses cut back from in the 80s/ 90s. The stable passenger base was lost forever because of some arbitrary line on the map severing connectivity.

and given this historical complexity you would think that the most practical and equitable solution in the short term would be for Essex Country Council to provide some financial support for the services they receive.

So why aren't they?

 

[renegademaster]

and given this historical complexity you would think that the most practical and equitable solution in the short term would be for Essex Country Council to provide some financial support for the services they receive.

So why aren't they?

Because London isn't asking them too , and since the cost of the central line into Essex is already largely a sunk cost from long before "Greater London" was a thing it doesn't make too much sense to push the issue

 

[Djgr]

Because London isn't asking them too , and since the cost of the central line into Essex is already largely a sunk cost from long before "Greater London" was a thing it doesn't make too much sense to push the issue

Well the operating costs are hardly sunk!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can only presume that Debden, Theydon Bois, and Epping were moved into Zone 6 from outside the zones in 1997 for commercial reasons. I can also assume that those commercial reasons still apply. The only other explanation I can think of is that it is to do with Epping Forest (the forest itself, not the constituency) being under the control of the City of London.

I am a bit surprised that they didn't move Croxley and Watford (LU) into zone 6 at the same time they moved Moor Park into zone 6.

But why is the mayor above criticism?

He's not, but that doesn't stop this particular criticism from being nothing more than cheap political points-scoring.

 

[renegademaster]

Well the operating costs are hardly sunk!

How much extra does the few extra stops over the border cost when subtracted from revenue? The trains have to be turned around somewhere

 

[35B]

How much extra does the few extra stops over the border cost when subtracted from revenue? The trains have to be turned around somewhere

As the Tube is subsidised, and there's a decent length of line that's being charged for at a discounted rate, I suspect an accountant could come up with quite a steep estimate. As for turning the trains, they can be turned back at Debden and Loughton, while that evil minded accountant could probably make a case for pushing all services north of Woodford via Hainault.

 

[Mattplans]

Where would be the better place to terminate the central line if you don't want them dirty Essex Tories using it?

Hainault if the aim is to annoy the dirty Essex tories... like the MP in question.


However, I'm not sure it's being said to send less trains to Epping overall (unless to balance the branches), but to increase the fares of those using the London underground that are outside London. Epping is still a convenient terminus so there would be no point in reducing the service and I agree to even suggest so demonstrates the unnecessary hubris that Londoners are known for. However, there's a difference between the amount of trains running to Epping and the fares paid for them, and perhaps there should be higher fares from areas outside London..... as there is charged on every other line/operator

 

[renegademaster]

Epping and the fares paid for them, and perhaps there should be higher fares from areas outside London..... as there is charged on every other line/operator

They have the ability to do so, but are likely not because they understand demand curves and don't set their fares based on an abitary notion of fairness or based on what way the inhabitants area vote

 

[35B]

They have the ability to do so, but are likely not because they understand demand curves and don't set their fares based on an abitary notion of fairness or based on what way the inhabitants area vote

Indeed. But that understanding of demand curves will also extend to understanding the revenue contribution to the total cost of the line - and whether the availability of Z6 fares rather than the higher Z7+ fares is or isn't a good deal.

I'd be reluctant to assume that Z6 fares are such a good deal without corroboration.

 

[renegademaster]

I'd be reluctant to assume that Z6 fares are such a good deal without corroboration.

It's the person who wants to change the status quo who the burden of proof lies with.

According to the FOI Essex never paid them off to place it zone 6, so they must have logic behind their decision to invent a new zone for Watford but not for Epping

 

[Mattplans]

I'm not sure the fare increases instituted every year has reduced demand? Or the overcrowding on every single line?

According to the FOI Essex never paid them off to place it zone 6, so they must have logic behind their decision to invent a new zone for Watford but not for Epping

Not sure I agree with the assumption that every decision London Underground/TfL makes has a good reason or justification behind it.

 

[aron2smith]

As the Tube is subsidised, and there's a decent length of line that's being charged for at a discounted rate, I suspect an accountant could come up with quite a steep estimate. As for turning the trains, they can be turned back at Debden and Loughton, while that evil minded accountant could probably make a case for pushing all services north of Woodford via Hainault.

Any changes to the Central Line services would certainly cost more to run and raises less fares than the status quo. As it would be less attractive and convenient to use.

 

[35B]

Any changes to the Central Line services would certainly cost more to run and raises less fares than the status quo. As it would be less attractive and convenient to use.

I don’t think either of those is a certainty.

 

[aron2smith]

I don’t think either of those is a certainty.

It would be fragmenting a currently direct service, of course it would be more expensive to run.

 

[RT4038]

It would be fragmenting a currently direct service, of course it would be more expensive to run.

It may or it may not, depending on what was being done.

and given this historical complexity you would think that the most practical and equitable solution in the short term would be for Essex Country Council to provide some financial support for the services they receive.

So why aren't they?

1) because they cannot afford to give any meaningful amount, due to their statutory commitments to provide Adult and Child social care, and Special Educational Needs, the costs of which are out of control; and
2) any meaningful amount would mean the good burghers of Epping and surrounds getting a far larger chunk of the available Transport Budget than elsewhere in Essex, which would not be equitable and/or politically palatable?

The 'Shire' counties are not in a financial position to substantively subsidise rail services - they would see that this is a Central Government function (presumably DfT should be compensating TfL in this case. Whether they do or not is another matter).

 

[AM9]

So a conclusion of this thread's posts is that TfL should ignore the decisive rants of the Epping MP and provide the Central Line service that best suits the majority of it's East London customers. Once the MP realises that everybody else has moved on he will find something else to do.

 

[Djgr]

So a conclusion of this thread's posts is that TfL should ignore the decisive rants of the Epping MP and provide the Central Line service that best suits the majority of it's East London customers. Once the MP realises that everybody else has moved on he will find something else to do.

Reopen to Ongar?

Sounds like a BoJo promise!

 

[Tetchytyke]

According to the FOI Essex never paid them off to place it zone 6, so they must have logic behind their decision to invent a new zone for Watford but not for Epping

They didn't invent a new zone for Watford and Croxley on the Met. The zones already existed, back in the day the outer Met stations were in zones A-D. They just renamed them zone 7-9, IIRC about the same time Oyster came in.

My suspicion is that Epping was moved into zone 6 for the same reason that the outer reaches of the Epsom Downs, Caterham, and Tattenham Corner branches were also later moved, with the blessing of Southern, into zone 6. It is operationally more convenient, prevents railheading, improves usage, and will reduce fare evasion (from what I have read, it used to be common for people to 'forget' to pay between Woodmansterne and Tattenham Corner).

 

[bramling]

So a conclusion of this thread's posts is that TfL should ignore the decisive rants of the Epping MP and provide the Central Line service that best suits the majority of it's East London customers. Once the MP realises that everybody else has moved on he will find something else to do.

Since the majority of trains on the Epping route go to either Loughton or Epping, providing a reliable service to Epping is also of importance to everyone else further in.

The problem is that LU as a whole isn’t really running well nowadays, and hasn’t got some years. As well as crewing and general reliability issues, the Central Line has the added problem of its ongoing rolling stock issues, which TFL has never adequately addressed over a period of 25 years. What is to Epping passengers possibly a “first train 12 mins” nuisance will be to Oxford Circus passengers probably a “first train 7 mins, which turns up too full to board”.

The MP has every right to raise issues about TFL services, just that he didn’t express himself well.

 

[Russel]

Well from the days when I was involved with the LUL anti-graffiti efforts, Loughton Sidings was certainly considered bandit country and I see from WTT70 that 10 trains are still offered for service from there every weekday. Given that the sidings are surrounded by woods which offer ample cover for the vandals, I'd wager that Loughton is still a source of much of the external graffiti on 92 stock.

If Loughton is a known trouble spot for graffiti, it does raise questions over what is being done about it.

 

[35B]

Since the majority of trains on the Epping route go to either Loughton or Epping, providing a reliable service to Epping is also of importance to everyone else further in.

The problem is that LU as a whole isn’t really running well nowadays, and hasn’t got some years. As well as crewing and general reliability issues, the Central Line has the added problem of its ongoing rolling stock issues, which TFL has never adequately addressed over a period of 25 years. What is to Epping passengers possibly a “first train 12 mins” nuisance will be to Oxford Circus passengers probably a “first train 7 mins, which turns up too full to board”.

The MP has every right to raise issues about TFL services, just that he didn’t express himself well.

There's a logical fallacy here - reliability at Epping is only important to services further insofar as any disruption to a service is a bad thing. If the service didn't go to Epping, or the level were reduced, that would have no impact further in.

 

[Taunton]

My experience of using the Central line is that it is quite normal for branch intervals to be very lopsided that side of London, in favour of both branches (or none, dependent on your view).

I have no idea why or how exactly this happens, but it isn't exactly right for TfL to claim a good service is operating on the Central line when it does.

As I understand it the Epping trains are commonly from West Ruislip, and the Hainault trains are commonly from Ealing, they are like two separate services interleaved. This has certain advantages in the core, where a disruption of any of the branches still enables at least a 50% service, normally adequate outside the peaks, but it is disingenuous to claim Good Service, which as I understand it is based just on central London intervals/wait times, when certain destinations are disorganised. It's really an issue of reducing the status of this entire substantial and lengthy line to two words.

Regarding all the "anyone outside the GLA boundary isn't allowed to comment on Underground services", etc, attitudes, in actual fact a substantial proportion of the Mayor/GLA money is provided by central government from national funds, in just the same way as other local authorities, though of course in different proportions. Even Wikipedia summarises it as "The Greater London Authority is mostly funded by direct government grant". There are obviously revenue streams from Underground fares, etc, but a key issue is that this overall government money does not identify just what it covers. A past discussion, long ago, was that a relevant amount of it was to cover the various (not just Underground) operations outside the boundary. The Met Police, for example, have a substantial national remit. Thinking that only those areas where voting for the Mayor takes place are entitled to be considered is just wrong - among other things a very substantial proportion of even Zone 1 passengers actually live outside London, but are using a national transport resource in their capital.

Incidentally, when long ago I used to use the service regularly to Wanstead (past posts refer), if disorganised in the core to an extent of not being able to get into the next train, I would get the first possible and change if needed at Leyton (not Leytonstone, with too many others trying a similar tactic), the trains having typically shed numbers at Liverpool Street and Stratford, and that always worked.

 

[NCT]

Even Wikipedia summarises it as "The Greater London Authority is mostly funded by direct government grant".

Specifically for TfL:

How we are funded

We are funded from four main sources. We have also received funding from Government for post-pandemic recovery

tfl.gov.uk

60% from passenger revenue
20% from other revenue (Congestion charge, ULEZ etc)
Business rate retention
GLA Precept

Only a small and diminishing amount comes from central government for specific capital projects.

 

[Recessio]

TfL does also already have board members who are meant to represent passengers who are resident outside of Greater London.

From https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...ns-mayor/find-an-answer/composition-tfl-board

...and at least two members must be able to represent the interests of those from outside Greater London who use railway passenger services operated by TfL.

 

[renegademaster]

Business rate retention
GLA Precept

These are taxes that other cities either don't get to keep or aren't allowed to levy so you could count them as government subsidy, especially rates retention.

You'd also have to count indirect subsidy such as not paying the full infrastructure cost for stuff like London Overground

 

[Mawkie]

This has certain advantages in the core, where a disruption of any of the branches still enables at least a 50% service, normally adequate outside the peaks, but it is disingenuous to claim Good Service, which as I understand it is based just on central London intervals/wait times, when certain destinations are disorganised.

TfL FOI (from 2019) on service status for the Central Line, seems to indicate that there are different service status requirements on different parts of the line.

FOI request detail

FOI request detail

tfl.gov.uk