I think Epping is fine as it is in zone 6. It serves more than just a commuter park-and-ride, with many enthusiasts who use it to visit the Epping Ongar Railway and then get the heritage bus out to there when that is in operation. Making it any higher zones will also drive up the price and disincentivise them from going out to Epping, especially as that heritage bus link isn't free to those using the heritage railway.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Epping Forest MP complains over Epping waiting times on the Central Line
- Thread starter RM1_Enthusiast
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Mgameing123
Member
And those who already have travel cards for zone 1 - 6.
Indeed, I am very grateful that this ticket still exists, especially for train spotting in the capital.
It isn't just Epping that is the driver for this. Until 1965, Ilford, Romford and Woodford were in Essex. Given that the eastern extreme of Havering includes Harold Hill, which is over halfway to Chelmsford, Chigwell is by far the most misplaced area on the periphery of London. This was almost entirely with the influence of a relatively small number of wealthy inhabitants. Epping on the other hand should be outside London, and it's station should be in the outer zones, like Watford.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
No they don’t, as referred to up thread TfL confirmed that a free years ago in an FOI.
700007
Established Member
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). Some days I could turn up on the platform and see that the first several (and by several, the record I have seen is 7 on a 'good service') are bound for Epping or Loughton, with the first Hainault via Newbury Park service being some 15-20 minutes away. Other days it's the other way round where every single train seems to be going towards Hainault or Newbury Park and the first Epping branch train is some 15-20 minutes away. I notice, as a regular Central line user, that the service tends to get worse this end of the year every year.
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. Is there any way trains could be more fairly rationed if drivers were not required to changeover and assuming the train wasn't stabling at Loughton / Hainault after that trip? i.e. Instead of 7 Epping trains, the third one could divert to Hainault via Newbury Park to plug the gap in service?
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. Is there any way trains could be more fairly rationed if drivers were not required to changeover and assuming the train wasn't stabling at Loughton / Hainault after that trip? i.e. Instead of 7 Epping trains, the third one could divert to Hainault via Newbury Park to plug the gap in service?
Kite159
Veteran Member
Similar heading west where there can be gaps in trains going all the way to West Ruislip, with various services only running part of the way
DerekC
Established Member
A lot of informed anecdote here, but as I understand it TfL publishes the source data that drives sites like Intertube. Somebody competent in such things (I am an amateur dabbler) should be able to produce some objective analysis which shows the actual distribution of trains between the Central Line branches and whether it's equal, biased in a logical way or just random. If they have and I missed it upthread, I apololgise.
renegademaster
Established Member
Why? Is this based on any actual commercial logic The service has to go there anywhere so theirs no point suppressing demand by making it more expensive out of spite
bramling
Veteran Member
I’m not sure about not being in good faith, there’s no doubt the quality of the Central Line hasn’t been great for some time. However I don’t think he has expressed it well. Playing Epping off against Hainault devalues what would otherwise have been a reasonable point of view.
The issue was the way he brought the Mayoralty into the discussion, at a time when backbench Tory MPs are using social media to attack Khan regardless of fact or local relevance. That ultimately devalues legitimate complaints by batching them with the illegitimate.
The 'commercial logic' is that unless Essex residents indirectly contribute to the costs, it is only fair that there is an adjustment by way of fares, - in preference to London ratepayers taking the hit both for the additional overcrowding, but also the cost of operating a service to carry those additional passengers.
renegademaster
Established Member
Fare decisions aren't based upon fairness.
TfL could change the price they pay and have their reasons why they havent , surely you should know raising fares by 200% doesn't automatically raise revenue by 200%.
Where would be the better place to terminate the central line if you don't want them dirty Essex Tories using it?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What determines a complaint to be legitimate?
But politicians are elected on an appearance of fairness. Any change that raises the fares for Epping travellers might reduce demand to the level that all users get a reasonable service with a loweroverall cost, - problem solved.
Many things. One of which is whether the complaint is made in good faith - which in this case I very much doubt.
renegademaster
Established Member
What makes a complaint good faith?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Reducing demand means reduced fare revenue.
TfL are pretty clear they'd rather have packed trains that make them money rather empty services that don't. Terminating at the GLC border or trying to price out people from beyond doesn't have any logic besides spite over a decision that was made before most present Essex residents were born.
The Watford comparison doesn't make much sense. Watford passengers have an alternative fast route that TfL wants to push them onto, Epping passengers have don't have that.
You might think "that means they are captive, we can charge them what we want" , but people are more willing to pay £10 for a fast service into Euston than they will for a slow stopping central line service
Last edited:
aron2smith
Member
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.
In the case of a politician raising issues on behalf of constituents, a serious attempt to raise a local issue rather than score cheap points against a political opponent.
renegademaster
Established Member
It's something directly relevant to his constituents
I don't think you're convincing anyone with all these snide digs, poorly disguised as innocent questions.
I agree, it is. Which is why whether it's a serious effort to deal with those concerns that matters.
renegademaster
Established Member
What else can a minor MP from an opposition party do other than whine about it online and in parliament?
He was only a backbencher back when the Tories were in government, it's not as if had any real input towards the previous governments policy towards TfL, so I don't share the opinion of the others on this thread that he should never talk about an issue that effects his constituents because it's "bad faith" for an opposition party to criticise the government
bramling
Veteran Member
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…
He can avoid making it look like a general political whine about Khan.
renegademaster
Established Member
He is the person ultimately responsible for TfL and the best way to get something done in politics is to make it a salient issue with the incumbent's electorate, forcing him to actually pay attention . It's no different from the criticism that Labour when in opposition lobbied at Boris Johnson
CastlebarKeith
Member
I just want to remind everyone that this is a strange time. NO parliamentary seat is safe for any party, Therefore,
M.Ps might get up on their hind legs and squawk, just for the publicity, rather than for attempting to improve a situation which normally wouldn't bother them too much.
In fact, things like this might only be an irritation at normal times, but these are not normal times.
It is possible that this parliament might not last its full term and therefore some MPs have improving re-election prospects in mind already.
In politics, there is often a 2nd agenda underneath the publicity.
M.Ps might get up on their hind legs and squawk, just for the publicity, rather than for attempting to improve a situation which normally wouldn't bother them too much.
In fact, things like this might only be an irritation at normal times, but these are not normal times.
It is possible that this parliament might not last its full term and therefore some MPs have improving re-election prospects in mind already.
In politics, there is often a 2nd agenda underneath the publicity.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Agreed
We keep having threads/comments about just how important the railway is to everyone, how politicians should be fighting for better services in their area, how "the forthcoming Upper Dibley by-election should mean that the Government commits to electrifying the Dibley Main Line" etc
But when a politician wearing the wrong colour of rosette dares speak up about services on his constituency (services which some of his voters presumably rely on), people are quick to complain
Yes, he's using the trains as a tool to beat up an opponent about, but that's exactly what Labour spent fourteen years doing when they complained about the state of public services under the Tories (and what Cameron was doing when he used 'Broken Britain' to attack Labour with before that, and...)
If we want politicians to be energised about the state of their local train services then we have to accept that it works both ways, and that "they" can use it to attack "our side"
Also, to suggest that Khan shouldn't be criticised, when he's spent most of his time at City Hall complaining about how bad the Conservatives are Westminster (and the previous Tory mayor) had made things in London...
renegademaster
Established Member
I don't reject he is "squaking" for publicity.
But ultimately that's how a democracy works and how change happens. It's a good thing that politicians are incentivised to criticise the government, even if they aren't doing it for purely altruistic reasons. It's better than living in North Korea where everyone just claps along blindly to whatever dear leader does
But ultimately that's how a democracy works and how change happens. It's a good thing that politicians are incentivised to criticise the government, even if they aren't doing it for purely altruistic reasons. It's better than living in North Korea where everyone just claps along blindly to whatever dear leader does
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.
bramling
Veteran Member
Khan is responsible for TFL. That’s part and parcel of being Mayor of London. So someone drawing attention to perceived negative issues associated with TFL is perfectly entitled to whine about Khan.
FWIW, I don’t think this politician has raised this issue in a particularly good way.
- Status