Great Northern - Northern City Line to TFL?

[bramling]

Oh ok. Seems like a long time in any case.

There would be a lot of logistical and contractual stuff to have to work through.

In order to hive it off from TSGN you’ve got to work out how the stations are going to be managed, which staff will TUPE, who will do what maintenance, which sub contracts need altering, etc. Then the same for fleet maintenance, operations teams, drivers, control staff etc etc. It’s quite a significant piece of work just to change the colour from blue to orange.

All this sort of stuff takes time, and you certainly don’t want to find a situation where some key asset suddenly isn’t being maintained because both sides thought the other was doing it, or whatever.

 

[greatkingrat]

The announcement that the West Anglia services would transfer was made in July 2013, but the actual transfer wasn't until May 2015.

 

[JonathanH]

In order to hive it off from TSGN you’ve got to work out how the stations are going to be managed, which staff will TUPE, who will do what maintenance, which sub contracts need altering, etc. Then the same for fleet maintenance, operations teams, drivers, control staff etc etc. It’s quite a significant piece of work just to change the colour from blue to orange.

Or perhaps don't separate it contractually, but stick some vinyl on the outside of the trains, and get GBR to run it nominally on behalf of TfL but as part of the wider TSGN operation. The branding and funding of extra staff may be enough to make a difference without the upheaval of a formal split.

 

[Wolfie]

Or perhaps don't separate it contractually, but stick some vinyl on the outside of the trains, and get GBR to run it nominally on behalf of TfL but as part of the wider TSGN operation. The branding and funding of extra staff may be enough to make a difference without the upheaval of a formal split.

What, except for potential reputational damage if the line continues to be treated as less important, is in that for TfL?

 

[NCT]

Or perhaps don't separate it contractually, but stick some vinyl on the outside of the trains, and get GBR to run it nominally on behalf of TfL but as part of the wider TSGN operation. The branding and funding of extra staff may be enough to make a difference without the upheaval of a formal split.

TfL wouldn't want to spend money without a direct accountability interface, and without the reward of any increased revenue flowing directly back to TfL.

 

[Wolfie]

TfL wouldn't want to spend money without a direct accountability interface, and without the reward of any increased revenue flowing directly back to TfL.

You said, much more eruditely, what l had in mind, thank you.

 

[35B]

There would be a lot of logistical and contractual stuff to have to work through.

In order to hive it off from TSGN you’ve got to work out how the stations are going to be managed, which staff will TUPE, who will do what maintenance, which sub contracts need altering, etc. Then the same for fleet maintenance, operations teams, drivers, control staff etc etc. It’s quite a significant piece of work just to change the colour from blue to orange.

All this sort of stuff takes time, and you certainly don’t want to find a situation where some key asset suddenly isn’t being maintained because both sides thought the other was doing it, or whatever.

All of which has plenty of precedent from previous franchise restructures, and where there is widespread experience available to assist with the process.

I would expect defining what is to happen to take longer than execution, because definition requires identification of the issues you list.

I'd personally be surprised if this needed more than about 6 months to do - not least because the transition between employers is a period of limbo

 

[aron2smith]

There would be a lot of logistical and contractual stuff to have to work through.

In order to hive it off from TSGN you’ve got to work out how the stations are going to be managed, which staff will TUPE, who will do what maintenance, which sub contracts need altering, etc. Then the same for fleet maintenance, operations teams, drivers, control staff etc etc. It’s quite a significant piece of work just to change the colour from blue to orange.

All this sort of stuff takes time, and you certainly don’t want to find a situation where some key asset suddenly isn’t being maintained because both sides thought the other was doing it, or whatever.

Fair points.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==

The announcement that the West Anglia services would transfer was made in July 2013, but the actual transfer wasn't until May 2015.

I'm wondering if this coincided with when Oyster was extended to Hertford East?

Whereas this time, that is not an issue with Oyster valid to Hertford North and contactless going beyond Stevenage.

 

[BritishGuy54]

So, should the Northern City line be transferred to London Overground operation by TfL… here’s a question.

In the long term, once Crossrail 2 is built, would it make sense to transfer the Welwyn Garden City branch from Overground to Crossrail 2 operation?

Or is New Southgate going to be the next Abbey Wood? Being a Zone 4 station, and an end of a Crossrail branch.

 

[rmHawk765]

In the long term, once Crossrail 2 is built, would it make sense to transfer the Welwyn Garden City branch from Overground to Crossrail 2 operation?

Not the Welwyn branch, but rather the Hertford Loop, to serve Crews Hill New Town. Of course, it's not a given that'll actually go ahead due to politics and whatnot (the plan has some flaws to do with the green belt), but even so Hertford is the busier branch and so there will be more of an incentive to route XR2 that way. What Welwyn needs, is not more services, but an actual 4tph of fast services to London, which it lost post-Thameslink AFAIK. And none of the stations along the route except Hatfield, Potters Bar, New Barnet & New Southgate require more than 6tph at peak, which they all receive.

 

[rmHawk765]

Some updates (from the ETUG 20 Aug meeting):

DC: Went to Hertford to find that TfL are consulting with the community on developing new names if TfL were to take over the Great Northern Metro services; options are the Palace Line, the Country Line and the Mayfly Line; these are not official as of yet but could potentially end up with the lines.

DC: Added that there is an option for TfL to contract Great Northern to run the metro, which may be a cheaper option than TfL directly taking over the service entirely. In particular, taking over the Great Northern routes will have impacts at Hornsey Depot and driver rotations with regional services.

88.4% of services arrived on time, with 5.8% of services cancelled for Great Northern Services.

The poor reliability can likely be attributed to the multitude of TSRs along the Hertford Loop so not exactly something that can be fixed immediately.

Not sure why this was asked, the timetables are out:

SC: Asked whether the 4tph Great Northern Metro enhancement will include late-evening service?

Rail Record shows the last northbound service before the gap becomes 30 mins is 2F26 leaving Moorgate at 2116 (which is a Stevenage via Hertford). Last train leaving Hertford North for Moorgate is 2F11 dep 2015. Overall the absolute bare minimum has been done, with no 4tph Sunday service, no 4tph late-evening or early-morning service, and no return to 8tph at peak. Very poor and doesn't paint a good picture for what the transport situation will be if Crews Hill New Town goes ahead.

 

[NCT]

Very poor and doesn't paint a good picture for what the transport situation will be if Crews Hill New Town goes ahead.

You don't need empty trains running for a decade before that capacity is needed.

 

[rmHawk765]

You don't need empty trains running for a decade before that capacity is needed.

A 4tph all-day service, including Sunday, would not be empty. Have you seen Hertford trains on Sunday evenings and even mornings? Neither would an additional 2tph at peak. In fact this is the bare minimum that needs to be met now, it will absolutely not cope in a decade's time.

 

[bramling]

A 4tph all-day service, including Sunday, would not be empty. Have you seen Hertford trains on Sunday evenings and even mornings? Neither would an additional 2tph at peak. In fact this is the bare minimum that needs to be met now, it will absolutely not cope in a decade's time.

I thought 4tph all-day Hertford is returning soon?

 

[NCT]

A 4tph all-day service, including Sunday, would not be empty. Have you seen Hertford trains on Sunday evenings and even mornings? Neither would an additional 2tph at peak. In fact this is the bare minimum that needs to be met now, it will absolutely not cope in a decade's time.

That's a far cleaner argument. Invoking Crews Hill just confuses things.

 

[rmHawk765]

I thought 4tph all-day Hertford is returning soon?

Well to some extent, as I said there is no 4tph on Sundays (which has never existed so it can't really 'return', rather just become a thing) and no 4tph past 9pm (though I can't remember whether there ever was a 4tph or even 3tph service beyond this time).

Before COVID I would not have made a big deal of the Sunday service being 2tph. But it's very clear that Sunday demand has increased massively and even the 717s simply do not cope, particularly in the evenings. The 6tph peak service is also only just hanging on in terms of standing room on trains, and one Welwyn stopper being cancelled is enough to make a peak Hertford uncomfortably packed as far as or from Ally Pally.

I have said on here before that the current pathing arrangements between Finsbury and Ally Pally on the slow lines are very weird because they have to fit around the lack of Up Slow 2/Down Slow 2 platforms at Harringay and Hornsey. Ideally these stations would gain such platforms and the pathing could be rationalised massively. Hertford trains use the US2 and DS2, Welwyn/Letchworth/Cambridge uses the US1 and DS1, simple as that. The benefit of this? There are no more junction constraints preventing an 8 or even 10tph peak Gordon Hill service which would alleviate all crowding for a good few years to come.

 

[bramling]

Well to some extent, as I said there is no 4tph on Sundays (which has never existed so it can't really 'return', rather just become a thing) and no 4tph past 9pm (though I can't remember whether there ever was a 4tph or even 3tph service beyond this time).

I’m open to correction, but I thought the May 18 service had 4tph pretty much til close of service, Mondays to Saturdays, on both the Welwyn and Hertford routes. I could be misremembering, though.

There’s a lot more capacity than a generation ago. In both WAGN and FCC days the basic service was 3tph of 3-car trains. So the total number of carriages into Moorgate was 18 per hour. May 18 changed this to 48 per hour. It’s now 24 per hour, and will become 36 per hour when Hertford returns to 4tph. The 2tph Cambridge service is now standard 8-car whereas a generation ago this was fairly solid 4-car outside the peaks, so this will be freeing up a bit of space on the inners too.

If Welwyn-Sevenoaks ever goes all day, there will be a massive 52 carriages per hour into London across the two routes.

Weekends isn’t such a good picture. Under WAGN at one point it was 2tph of class 317s into King’s Cross, so 16 carriages per hour. This quietly then changed to six-car 313 formations, so 24 carriages per hour. May 18 doubled this to 48 per hour, and it’s now back down to 24 per hour.

The 2tph since Covid is poor, however taking into account the fleet replacement as well, I don’t think anyone can say the inners have done badly over recent years. As ever the problem has often been reliability, in particular driver-related cancellations.

 

[class717]

Wasnt the May 2018 only 4tph weekdays? I don’t remember it being 4tph on Saturdays at any point

 

[jon0844]

I think getting TSGN to run services for TfL under contract makes the most sense. Repaint the trains and you're essentially done in no time at all. All you do after that is rename the service and change the maps (okay, possibly a bit more but you know what I mean).

No issues splitting depots, dealing with the issue of Hornsey and Hitchin drivers and what they may or may not be able to do in the future given some drivers don't just do the inners.

I've said all along that it makes more sense.

 

[Wolfie]

I think getting TSGN to run services for TfL under contract makes the most sense. Repaint the trains and you're essentially done in no time at all. All you do after that is rename the service and change the maps (okay, possibly a bit more but you know what I mean).

No issues splitting depots, dealing with the issue of Hornsey and Hitchin drivers and what they may or may not be able to do in the future given some drivers don't just do the inners.

I've said all along that it makes more sense.

To do this there would have to be very tight - if not draconian - contractual arrangements to prevent TSGN treating the TfL services as the poor relation whenever there is service disruption. Notably it is a solution that TfL have never previously adopted.

 

[Transilien]

To do this there would have to be very tight - if not draconian - contractual arrangements to prevent TSGN treating the TfL services as the poor relation whenever there is service disruption. Notably it is a solution that TfL have never previously adopted.

Why, if TSGN was in control of services just branded differently would they treat them differently. It’s like saying that TSGN treats Southern differently from Thameslink just because the trains are painted a different colour.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think who ever operates the service they need to separate the drivers diagram. I remember back when National Express took over this was one of the first things they did. The realised that a having the trains and driver separate was causing problems as you frequently had a trian at King’s Cross with no driver and a driver at Kings Cross with no train. Clearly this is impossible all days but when you have an issue say at Knebworth it shouldn’t wipe out the Moorgate routes, which today it does. TfL will not find that acceptable if it is subcontracted.

Granted the Hertford Branch is an issue, if you are diverting the ECML that way because of the incident on the main route, you are going to need to thin out the Hertford stoppers. However if was TfL either taking over the service outright, or asking TSGN to operate it on by behalf, I would not want the total collapse of the Moorgate services everything something happens outside their operating routes. I would also want much quicker recovery. Not limited service in the evening peak when the line was handed back well before the evening peak.

 

[Wolfie]

Why, if TSGN was in control of services just branded differently would they treat them differently. It’s like saying that TSGN treats Southern differently from Thameslink just because the trains are painted a different colour.

There are certain routes which TSGN seem to treat worse in times of disruption. This is one of them. TfL would not and should not accept that.

 

[GordonT]

Regarding 4 trains per hour v 2 trains per hour late evening and Sundays. Are there perhaps concerns that enhancing the timetables to the fullest extent of 4 trains per hour looks good on paper but would be prone to ad hoc staffing unavailability cancellations?

 

[Hadders]

I think who ever operates the service they need to separate the drivers diagram. I remember back when National Express took over this was one of the first things they did. The realised that a having the trains and driver separate was causing problems as you frequently had a trian at King’s Cross with no driver and a driver at Kings Cross with no train. Clearly this is impossible all days but when you have an issue say at Knebworth it shouldn’t wipe out the Moorgate routes, which today it does. TfL will not find that acceptable if it is subcontracted.

Granted the Hertford Branch is an issue, if you are diverting the ECML that way because of the incident on the main route, you are going to need to thin out the Hertford stoppers. However if was TfL either taking over the service outright, or asking TSGN to operate it on by behalf, I would not want the total collapse of the Moorgate services everything something happens outside their operating routes. I would also want much quicker recovery. Not limited service in the evening peak when the line was handed back well before the evening peak.

There are certain routes which TSGN seem to treat worse in times of disruption. This is one of them. TfL would not and should not accept that.

If there's disruption on the ECML south of Stevenage then the Hertford Loop is the diversion, and unfortunately this means that the local stopping services end up getting thinned out of cancelled all together. This shouldn't change whoever is running the local services on the loop.

There's a bigger picture that has to be appreciated, you can't bring long distance services to a stand, where there's often no reasonable alternative but continue to run the local stopping service where, in many cases there is a reasonable alternative (eg Hertford East, Enfield Town, Piccadilly Line)

 

[Failed Unit]

If there's disruption on the ECML south of Stevenage then the Hertford Loop is the diversion, and unfortunately this means that the local stopping services end up getting thinned out of cancelled all together. This shouldn't change whoever is running the local services on the loop.

There's a bigger picture that has to be appreciated, you can't bring long distance services to a stand, where there's often no reasonable alternative but continue to run the local stopping service where, in many cases there is a reasonable alternative (eg Hertford East, Enfield Town, Piccadilly Line)

I don’t disagree with that while the disruption is going on. The proposed 4th will be back down to 1 when the loop is in use. My issue is that they need to be stronger at recovering from the disruption once the line is handed back. Not start things operating again 2-3 hours later. However that can be resolved tomorrow so we wouldn’t need mass repainting. If TfL had harsher penalty then it would help. The have 1 hours after the line is given back to get 50% of services running would be a massive improvement. Today the operator doesn’t care as network rail is footing the bill

 

[bramling]

There are certain routes which TSGN seem to treat worse in times of disruption. This is one of them. TfL would not and should not accept that.

I’m not convinced that TSGN are any better or worse for any of their routes. They are just poor at handling disruption all round. All the different routes have their own issues.

The only exception is Cambridge-Brighton as that gets pulled at the first sign of trouble.

What’s to say TFL will or won’t tolerate anything? They seem to be content for half their Underground lines to run with substantial numbers of cancellations on a daily basis as a result of crew or train unavailability, so why should we expect any different on Overground routes? The Central Line fleet issues, for example, stretch back over 3 decades.

 

[Failed Unit]

That would be my concern about TfL as well, don’t get me wrong TSGN are probably one of the worse operators in the UK. However I know people on the Hertford East line, that are not exactly singing TfLs praises either.

When it goes wrong now Hitchin - Cambridge is normally down to 1tph from 5tph (with massive delays as you can’t use the 12-car stock on what is left)
Peterborough - Hitchin to be honest all bets are off. They try to keep 2tph, often in reality 0tph.
The Moorgate - Hertford goes to hourly (Yesterday the did divert the other service to Welwyn Garden City - a first but that did keep the same frequency to Ally Pally)
Moorgate - Welwyn Garden City - stays normal until the line is handed back and then is withdrawn.

The later 2 are relevant to the thread and as other have stated Moorgate - Hertford can’t change. If the problem as say at Hatfield if a new operator would turn the service at Potters Bar or New Barnet (like National Express did after Potters Bar crash) we will see. However the existing operator could do this today.

 

[bramling]

That would be my concern about TfL as well, don’t get me wrong TSGN are probably one of the worse operators in the UK. However I know people on the Hertford East line, that are not exactly singing TfLs praises either.

When it goes wrong now Hitchin - Cambridge is normally down to 1tph from 5tph (with massive delays as you can’t use the 12-car stock on what is left)
Peterborough - Hitchin to be honest all bets are off. They try to keep 2tph, often in reality 0tph.
The Moorgate - Hertford goes to hourly (Yesterday the did divert the other service to Welwyn Garden City - a first but that did keep the same frequency to Ally Pally)
Moorgate - Welwyn Garden City - stays normal until the line is handed back and then is withdrawn.

The later 2 are relevant to the thread and as other have stated Moorgate - Hertford can’t change. If the problem as say at Hatfield if a new operator would turn the service at Potters Bar or New Barnet (like National Express did after Potters Bar crash) we will see. However the existing operator could do this today.

My view is that there are two fundemental issues

* the crew diagrams are way too complex

* GTR’s control can’t keep up with the number of services they are trying to run

Clearly one solution is to radically simplify the crewing, but that isn’t the same as separating it all out, as they you lose flexibility. However separating out inner and outer on the same duty would help. This of course introduces a new problem, there’s barely enough drivers as it is, so less efficient duties means more drivers required…

 

[Recessio]

However the existing operator could do this today.

That's always been true of a lot of NR metro area operators though. TfL have proven their ability to quickly go in and do some easy wins that the NR TOCs have had decades to do, but didn't. For example the North London Line and the GEML and Lee Valley metro services are far improved, within only a few years of TfL operations.

Meanwhile TOCs, like Southern and Southeastern in particular, still have plenty they could do to improve the metro services, but don't. So although yes "the existing operator could do this today" , they have had decades to do so and haven't - if TfL are prepared to do so, I think let them try.

Admittedly - and I say this even as a proponent of devolution of metro services to TfL - it is less clear on the Great Northern Inners what improvements TfL could actually make.

Upgrading the rolling stock to 717s was a fantastic improvement and was imo the easiest win on the line - already done by GTR. Station refurbishments and improvements maybe?

But in terms of improving the train service, separating the Inners from the rest of GN may prove to be difficult or more trouble than it's worth, I honestly don't know enough to know.
But, it was clearly possible to do so when Overground gained South London Line, Lea Valley, and GEML metro services away from existing TOCs that otherwise continued to operate.
(Silverlink was a bit different as the entire North London+GOBLIN operation was already quite segregated so I believe easier for TfL to annex, though someone like @ChiefPlanner will have better knowledge of that and how it compares to GN now.)