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

[Djgr]

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.

So no revenue support from anywhere outside of Greater London?

 

[Russel]

So no revenue support from anywhere outside of Greater London?

Regardless if that is the case or not, if the MP's constituents who are funding TFL through the farebox, are raising concerns over the service and general dilapidated state of the 92 stock, then the MP is right to raise these concerns.

 

[GFE]

Putting pressure on Tfl regarding its financual priorities and business performance is nothing new and as a public body why not. There are so many paid people and groups that lobby for different things and with social media it's so easy !!

 

[Taunton]

So no revenue support from anywhere outside of Greater London?

One does wonder why TfL/London Underground need any revenue support. They have the highest fares, both absolute and as a proportion of GDP, of any major city region in the world. They have a substantial proportion of any new infrastructure (eg Crossrail) paid out of national government funds. They likewise get effectively full funding of any replacement rolling stock programme, eg currently the DLR, from central public funds, which in any other business would need to be financed from revenue. They pocket amounts from eg the congestion charge and the ULEZ charge, which other cities do not stick on their citizens. And STILL they whinge and whine about shortage of money.

 

[Russel]

One does wonder why TfL/London Underground need any revenue support. They have the highest fares, both absolute and as a proportion of GDP, of any major city region in the world. They have a substantial proportion of any new infrastructure (eg Crossrail) paid out of national government funds. They likewise get effectively full funding of any replacement rolling stock programme, eg currently the DLR, from central public funds, which in any other business would need to be financed from revenue. They pocket amounts from eg the congestion charge and the ULEZ charge, which other cities do not stick on their citizens. And STILL they whinge and whine about shortage of money.

Got to pay for the multiple layers of management and the virtue signalling some how.

 

[rebmcr]

One does wonder why TfL/London Underground need any revenue support. They have the highest fares, both absolute and as a proportion of GDP, of any major city region in the world. They have a substantial proportion of any new infrastructure (eg Crossrail) paid out of national government funds. They likewise get effectively full funding of any replacement rolling stock programme, eg currently the DLR, from central public funds, which in any other business would need to be financed from revenue. They pocket amounts from eg the congestion charge and the ULEZ charge, which other cities do not stick on their citizens. And STILL they whinge and whine about shortage of money.

As far as I am aware, Underground runs at a profit, but roads are a big loss-maker that TfL as a whole remain responsible for. Do comparable cities operate the same model, or are we comparing Metro operators with TfL's entire estate?

 

[Taunton]

As far as I am aware, Underground runs at a profit, but roads are a big loss-maker that TfL as a whole remain responsible for.

You have to go back to some comments above, about Business Rate Retention. The money from these traditionally went to central government. After a lot of lobbying it was agreed that the substantial money from these, lets say £10bn, would go to the Mayor instead. But in the negotiations some years ago it was finally determined that they would only get say £8bn net ("only" .... ), for it was offset by saying that some existing specific payments, for TfL roads, say £1bn, and some other items, say another £1bn, would now need to come out of the new overall £10bn payment. It was a tremendous deal for London. Someone will have the actual figures.

Of course, what happened then was the Mayor then spent the £10bn on whatever, whoop-de-do, and whinged about the roads no longer being paid for by the government, and having to now scrimp and scrape to maintain them. Well, I suppose that's what politicians do. But the fact is that overall the government was now funding far, far more to the Mayor than ever was traditional. Where do we think the substantial (and it is) recent expenditure on complete rebuilds for bike lanes etc has come from. Incidentally, notice how in the current inclement weather usage of bike lanes has pretty well evaporated, and many are back on bus and Tube (mainly the former). At least they are paying fares.

The answer to all the complaining would be to ask if the Mayor wants to go back to the old ways, be paid an amount specifically for roads maintenance, and in turn not get the business rates. Thought not.

 

[bramling]

Got to pay for the multiple layers of management and the virtue signalling some how.

One of the problems with TFL is the damage done to the organisation as a result of New Labour’s disastrous PPP.

The PPP itself was a failure, however the legacy left has been a load of shoddy work, not-fully-baked projects, but worst of all the massive loss of engineering and operational expertise within LU/TFL. The difficulty is that once you lose something like that, it’s virtually impossible to get it back, and especially so when TFL as an institution is so political, especially under the current mayor.

 

[rebmcr]

You have to go back to some comments above, about Business Rate Retention. The money from these traditionally went to central government. After a lot of lobbying it was agreed that the substantial money from these, lets say £10bn, would go to the Mayor instead. But in the negotiations some years ago it was finally determined that they would only get say £8bn net ("only" .... ), for it was offset by saying that some existing specific payments, for TfL roads, say £1bn, and some other items, say another £1bn, would now need to come out of the new overall £10bn payment. It was a tremendous deal for London. Someone will have the actual figures.

Of course, what happened then was the Mayor then spent the £10bn on whatever, whoop-de-do, and whinged about the roads no longer being paid for by the government, and having to now scrimp and scrape to maintain them. Well, I suppose that's what politicians do. But the fact is that overall the government was now funding far, far more to the Mayor than ever was traditional. Where do we think the substantial (and it is) recent expenditure on complete rebuilds for bike lanes etc has come from. Incidentally, notice how in the current inclement weather usage of bike lanes has pretty well evaporated, and many are back on bus and Tube (mainly the former). At least they are paying fares.

The answer to all the complaining would be to ask if the Mayor wants to go back to the old ways, be paid an amount specifically for roads maintenance, and in turn not get the business rates. Thought not.

None of which answers the question I asked.

 

[xtmw]

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.

Yes. Some trains run White City - Hainault. Some services also run Epping - Ealing Bdwy (and vice versa from Hainault).

West Ruislip - Epping, every 6-7 minutes
Ealing - Hainault, every 9-11 minutes
White City - Hainault, every 8 minutes

Which creates a 3 minute service between Leytonstone and White City, and around a 5 minute service Leytonstone - Hainault (via Newbury Park).

 

[alex397]

. They pocket amounts from eg the congestion charge and the ULEZ charge, which other cities do not stick on their citizens.

All the capital cities of France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Austria, Italy and Sweden have low-emission zones, as well as various other cities in those countries.

 

[Simon75]

Why not like a lot of places, have zones based on distance from Charing Cross , so say Watford and Epping both 21 miles would be in the same zone

 

[700007]

Three nights ago there were very sporadic gaps in the evening on the Central line heading eastbound in the last hours of service. There was a Newbury Park train in front followed by four Epping/Loughton trains. Unsure why but the Newbury Park train was then changed mid-journey into an Epping train (not that the driver bothered to make any announcements regarding the destination change, which caught multiple people out by surprise). Next Hainault via Newbury Park train was a 15 minutes wait.

But goes as proof that some days/evenings/nights Epping gets given a raw deal whilst on others Hainault does. Contrary to the MP for Epping's thoughts on the matter, I do think no branch is favoured but both branches do get 'shafted' from time-to-time service wise even when the line is on a 'good service' or just 'minor delays'.

 

[RM1_Enthusiast]

It’s been a while but the Epping Forest MP is back with another complaint about the Central Line

I will admit the graffiti (interior wise) has got somewhat better, it’s mainly the exterior that the graffiti artists are targeting these days

CALLING EPPING FOREST CENTRAL LINE USERS

We all know TfL and the Mayor of London urgently need to get a grip on the appalling state of the Central Line.

I’ve been repeatedly telling the Government, TfL and the Mayor of London that the Central Line needs action.

The delays, cancellations, horrendous graffiti, and rail scraping noise levels are unacceptable.

If you want to support a campaign, please sign one of my Epping Forest constituent’s petition to demand they step up and sort out our Central Line.

To see the petition please see the link below:

The petition is quoted below

Central Line petition

Commit emergency funds to fix the Central line now

Can you spare a minute to help this campaign?

c.org

 

[Benjwri]

It’s been a while but the Epping Forest MP is back with another complaint about the Central Line

I will admit the graffiti (interior wise) has got somewhat better, it’s mainly the exterior that the graffiti artists are targeting these days



The petition is quoted below

Busy few weeks for them. They were complaining about new homes being built near a central line station recently. Perhaps if homes were built they could make a better case and try get contributions from developers.

 

[PeterC]

Why not like a lot of places, have zones based on distance from Charing Cross , so say Watford and Epping both 21 miles would be in the same zone

IIRC there is a campaign in Watford about their "unfair" treatment by TfL.

 

[Tetchytyke]

IIRC there is a campaign in Watford about their "unfair" treatment by TfL.

We all know it isn't TfL at Watford Junction who are the blocker, but anything for certain parties to kick the Mayor.

I am surprised that they haven't ever moved Watford LU and Croxley into Zone 6 (or Zone 6/7 to avoid a fare rise for Watford-Rickmansworth) to encourage usage, though. That's the main reason why the outer reaches of the Central Line were moved into Zone 6, after all.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

Why not like a lot of places, have zones based on distance from Charing Cross , so say Watford and Epping both 21 miles would be in the same zone

The structural issue with doing this is that London didn’t develop and expand equally from a single defined ‘centre’/‘central area’. The City of London (Finance/Commerce) and City of Westminster (Government/Civil Service) create a central strip on the north bank of the Thames.

From this ‘London’ as a conurbation grew with a Northerly and Westerly bias largely influenced by the River and Docks. The Thames broadly flows away from Westminster to the south west which meant expansion area was larger (noting that frequent bridges/tunnels are still ‘new’ on a London timescale).

These directions also align with London’s position in the British Isles with the A1 and A5 axes being the most important. London being more ‘round’ today is mostly an artificial, a product of the green belt.

 

[35B]

The structural issue with doing this is that London didn’t develop and expand equally from a single defined ‘centre’/‘central area’. The City of London (Finance/Commerce) and City of Westminster (Government/Civil Service) create a central strip on the north bank of the Thames.

From this ‘London’ as a conurbation grew with a Northerly and Westerly bias largely influenced by the River and Docks. The Thames broadly flows away from Westminster to the south west which meant expansion area was larger (noting that frequent bridges/tunnels are still ‘new’ on a London timescale).

These directions also align with London’s position in the British Isles with the A1 and A5 axes being the most important. London being more ‘round’ today is mostly an artificial, a product of the green belt.

That's not altogether accurate. If you look at housing density, it's particularly dense in the east of London where industry (e.g. Woolwich Arsenal) and docks were located. That's conventionally understood to be a product of the prevailing winds - the noxious smells would blow east and away from the city. You can see that effect in where the main line inner suburban networks were strongest (GER, LTSR, SER) and compare that to the less dense networks west of London.

You can see this pattern in the housing types around London, where the older western suburbs are (on average) less dense than the eastern ones, just as the outer suburbs are (on average) less dense than the inner ones. This has been distorted by the impact of the Green Belt, which stopped further urban sprawl. When I lived in Bromley & Orpington, it was easy to see where the expansion had been stopped and settlements like (say) Downe had survived as villages not because of distance or geography, but a simply quirk of fate.

The combination of geology (generally much more favourable north of the Thames than south), and opportunities for local railways to infill suburban provision on trunk routes (e.g. District, later Piccadilly, to South Harrow; DC Lines) helped encourage the shift of balance; a trend reinforced by the 1935 LPTB New Works Programme and its expansion of Tube railways over former main line branches (Northern Heights, Epping branch).

I do agree though about the impact of this on the shape of the zones. Growing up in the Wimbledon area, the idea of the zones going 20+ miles from Charing Cross is mind boggling - the current limit on the SWML is Surbiton, which is barely 13 miles out of Waterloo.

 

[Taunton]

That's not altogether accurate. If you look at housing density, it's particularly dense in the east of London where industry (e.g. Woolwich Arsenal) and docks were located. That's conventionally understood to be a product of the prevailing winds - the noxious smells would blow east and away from the city. You can see that effect in where the main line inner suburban networks were strongest (GER, LTSR, SER) and compare that to the less dense networks west of London.

I think this ignores that initial industrial development in London took place around the river, and its associated docks. In Manchester the cheapest housing and industrial concentration was/is in Salford, on the west side, for the same reason.

The easterly suburban networks described are really because the rail companies there didn't have any more worthwhile long distance traffic, taking the track capacity and giving them revenue. And that's because London, and it's river, are in the SE corner of the country.

 

[35B]

I think this ignores that initial industrial development in London took place around the river, and its associated docks. In Manchester the cheapest housing and industrial concentration was/is in Salford, on the west side, for the same reason.

The easterly suburban networks described are really because the rail companies there didn't have any more worthwhile long distance traffic, taking the track capacity and giving them revenue. And that's because London, and it's river, are in the SE corner of the country.

The theories of population geography depend a lot on which city you look at - and the conventional interpretation is to do with prevailing winds due to smells. By that view, Manchester is an exception.

I agree on the alignment of trunk routes, but in the 19th Century, serving ports like Dover and Southampton was almost a definition of "worthwhile long distance traffic"

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think this ignores that initial industrial development in London took place around the river, and its associated docks. In Manchester the cheapest housing and industrial concentration was/is in Salford, on the west side, for the same reason.

The theories of population geography depend a lot on which city you look at - and the conventional interpretation is to do with prevailing winds due to smells. By that view, Manchester is an exception.

There are two different dynamics at play.

For population density, the highest density is where the jobs were. In London this means the east of London because that's where the docks and the heavy industry was. In Manchester this means the west of the city because that's where the docks and the heavy industry was.

For the wealthy, that's where the prevailing winds come into play. In London and Manchester the prevailing winds predominantly come from the south-west and so the wealthier areas are 'upstream' from the areas of heavy industry. It's no coincidence that west London is generally wealthier than east London (although Docklands' change to a financial centre has distorted this) and it's no coincidence that the wealthy parts of Manchester- Sale, Altrincham, Wilmslow- are to the south-west.

London has stretched the most to the north west, really, and that's because of the Metropolitan Railway as much as anything.

Keeping it vaguely on topic, you see this very clearly with the Central Line. There is nothing but open fields to the north and east of the Fairlop Loop line beyond Newbury Park. If you draw a line due east from Epping the first major settlement you come to is Dortmund.

 

[Tester]

If you draw a line due east from Epping the first major settlement you come to is Dortmund.

That's one of the most interesting things that I have read for a while!

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's one of the most interesting things that I have read for a while!

Roughly, anyway! You could maybe make an argument for s'Hertogenbosch.

 

[Taunton]

That's one of the most interesting things that I have read for a while!

It's like if you go due east from the Emley Moor TV transmitter in the Pennines in Yorkshire the first ground you encounter that comes up to the same elevation is The Ural mountains in central Russia.

 

[xtmw]

I assume the MP isn't aware of the £500M programme to refurbish all trains which including adding CCTV?

Rail grinding has taken place between Stratford and Leyton very recently, reducing in-car noise. There will be another round of grinding in May which will allow engineering teams to target noise hotspots.

A temporary timetable was instated a year ago due to lack of available stock, not yet rescinded. Last year it got to a point where 30 trains were cancelled (albeit not just down to rolling stock shortage, also due to some Temporary Speed Restrictions being instated), leaving some very lumpy gaps in the service. The service now is marginally better.

Auto-coast will be switched on in the near future in order to allow the motors to 'rest', reducing stress on the motors, which in turn will lead to less units being stopped for motor problems. In addition the CLIP programme provides 'good' motors (so they say), allowing for trains to be re-introduced service fairly quickly.

Unfortunately there just isn't the cash to fix all of the problems on the London Underground network. Only so much can be done.

 

[Djgr]

I assume the MP isn't aware of the £500M programme to refurbish all trains which including adding CCTV?

Rail grinding has taken place between Stratford and Leyton very recently, reducing in-car noise. There will be another round of grinding in May which will allow engineering teams to target noise hotspots.

A temporary timetable was instated a year ago due to lack of available stock, not yet rescinded. Last year it got to a point where 30 trains were cancelled (albeit not just down to rolling stock shortage, also due to some Temporary Speed Restrictions being instated), leaving some very lumpy gaps in the service. The service now is marginally better.

Auto-coast will be switched on in the near future in order to allow the motors to 'rest', reducing stress on the motors, which in turn will lead to less units being stopped for motor problems. In addition the CLIP programme provides 'good' motors (so they say), allowing for trains to be re-introduced service fairly quickly.

Unfortunately there just isn't the cash to fix all of the problems on the London Underground network. Only so much can be done.

Perhaps if Essex County Council were to make a contribution?

 

[Recessio]

Auto-coast will be switched on in the near future in order to allow the motors to 'rest', reducing stress on the motors, which in turn will lead to less units being stopped for motor problems. In addition the CLIP programme provides 'good' motors (so they say), allowing for trains to be re-introduced service fairly quickly.

So at the moment, does this mean the motors are always accelerating or decelerating (regen?) even when the train is at full speed?

 

[xtmw]

Correct - the train is always accelerating or braking in some way or another

 

[AM9]

So at the moment, does this mean the motors are always accelerating or decelerating (regen?) even when the train is at full speed?

By definition, at 'full speed', the motors would be under load to maintain that speed.