London efficiencies

[Taunton]

Much discussion at present about belt-tightening across London's transport systems, so an opportunity to suggest some worthwhile areas for savings.

I can't quite get to grips with how a system which I use most days can suddenly get strapped for cash when the fares are some of the highest of any metropolitan area in the world, the contribution those of us living in London make to TfL through our council tax is substantial, there is also central government grant, and the trains are now well loaded throughout the day and at weekends, way beyond how it was 20 years ago, and in all sorts of places can now be impossible to board the first train in peak hours.

Eliminating the Watford changes is a start, I never saw worthwhile additional usage budgets for that, and it's not one for any London money anyway; whoever squandered all the money on multiple false starts on the subsurface resignalling should never be allowed near any capital spending project again.

I think the buses must be in line for a major hit. Out here at Canary Wharf and around I've taken to counting how many passengers I can see inside them. With double deckers costing about £1/4 million each nowadays it's unusual to see the number of passengers on any into double figures.

 

[rebmcr]

There is a significant program of upgrades necessary for continued operation. Perhaps in 50 years we will see the system's younger counterparts around the world hit similar conditions in their internal economics, or perhaps they will be able to stay ahead of the curve by observing London's situation!

At least the SSL resignalling false start (singular) resulted in an undisclosed contract termination fee being paid back to TfL -- I believe this was fairly significant. The pushback on its completion deadline is still a net loss, however, and this has had a knock-on effect on other projects' timing.

 

[Mojo]

If the track layouts permitted it I think there could perhaps be some scope to reduce the frequency of trains North of Finchley/Golders Green on the Northern line and Wembley Park on the Jubilee line at off-peak hours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the buses must be in line for a major hit. Out here at Canary Wharf and around I've taken to counting how many passengers I can see inside them. With double deckers costing about £1/4 million each nowadays it's unusual to see the number of passengers on any into double figures.

Now the fare disadvantage of changing buses has been removed, perhaps the network could be recast into a simpler, more connectional setup, reducing the number of routes penetrating central London to a small core of well-publicised "Metrobus" type routes (as German cities have done) - that would also allow infrastructure to be dedicated to ensuring better flow on that smaller number of routes.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that there are some PAYG fares which are simply too cheap. West Croydon to Upminster off peak avoiding Zone 1 is just £1.50 each way.

 

[Taunton]

I think that there are some PAYG fares which are simply too cheap. West Croydon to Upminster off peak avoiding Zone 1 is just £1.50 each way.

This may be so, but the number of travellers who make such lengthy cheap journeys must be notably small, and any additional revenue not worth the costs of implementing changes. The vast majority of travellers are on the higher priced journeys.

 

[JamesRowden]

This may be so, but the number of travellers who make such lengthy cheap journeys must be notably small, and any additional revenue not worth the costs of implementing changes. The vast majority of travellers are on the higher priced journeys.

The simple solution would be to make London Overground fares the same as non-Tfl TOC. This would provide extra revenue across the board.

 

[bramling]

Much discussion at present about belt-tightening across London's transport systems, so an opportunity to suggest some worthwhile areas for savings.

I can't quite get to grips with how a system which I use most days can suddenly get strapped for cash when the fares are some of the highest of any metropolitan area in the world, the contribution those of us living in London make to TfL through our council tax is substantial, there is also central government grant, and the trains are now well loaded throughout the day and at weekends, way beyond how it was 20 years ago, and in all sorts of places can now be impossible to board the first train in peak hours.

Eliminating the Watford changes is a start, I never saw worthwhile additional usage budgets for that, and it's not one for any London money anyway; whoever squandered all the money on multiple false starts on the subsurface resignalling should never be allowed near any capital spending project again.

I think the buses must be in line for a major hit. Out here at Canary Wharf and around I've taken to counting how many passengers I can see inside them. With double deckers costing about £1/4 million each nowadays it's unusual to see the number of passengers on any into double figures.

The problem is the cost of upgrading the system to cope with the sheer numbers of people predicted to want to use it. Things are past the point where cheap upgrades will provide the required capacity - we're now talking major work, for example the congestion relief scheme for Bank station.

Stop the population growing and this capacity-expansion investment won't be needed. Time will tell if Brexit may have an effect, but for that we're talking medium term, yet we have problems *now*.

 

[PeterC]

Out here at Canary Wharf and around I've taken to counting how many passengers I can see inside them. With double deckers costing about £1/4 million each nowadays it's unusual to see the number of passengers on any into double figures.

You could say that about my bus home. The last half mile to a suitable turning point only carries a handful of people.

 

[Bald Rick]

Pay freeze across all grades, rather than just some of them?

 

[Ianno87]

If the track layouts permitted it I think there could perhaps be some scope to reduce the frequency of trains North of Finchley/Golders Green on the Northern line and Wembley Park on the Jubilee line at off-peak hours.

Many Underground lines, particularly the more 'historic' ones, are actually quite lightly used at their outer extremes, even if their central sections are rammed.

However, thinning out the service is seldom operationally straightforward. At Wembley Park for example, even the off-peak Jubilee Line frequency makes it impractical to reverse a portion of the trains there, just because the trains take too long to clear out of passengers in the platform and would knock back into the following trains.

So you end up running most or all of the service (with associated financial cost) to the extremes of the route to fulfill no real demand need here - but it *is* necessary to provide adequate frequency in the central area.

It used to be the case that the Victoria Line was the only one to generate an operating profit - simply because of high all-day demand, without significantly 'dropping off' at the ends of the route (even so, it is still easy to turn trains short at Seven Sisters, although most trains extend to Walthamstow to meet demand).

Plus, the 'limited stop' nature of the Victoria Line shortens the end-ti-end journey time, and thus the resources needed to run the service.

 

[deltic]

Much discussion at present about belt-tightening across London's transport systems, so an opportunity to suggest some worthwhile areas for savings.

I can't quite get to grips with how a system which I use most days can suddenly get strapped for cash when the fares are some of the highest of any metropolitan area in the world, the contribution those of us living in London make to TfL through our council tax is substantial, there is also central government grant, and the trains are now well loaded throughout the day and at weekends, way beyond how it was 20 years ago, and in all sorts of places can now be impossible to board the first train in peak hours.

Eliminating the Watford changes is a start, I never saw worthwhile additional usage budgets for that, and it's not one for any London money anyway; whoever squandered all the money on multiple false starts on the subsurface resignalling should never be allowed near any capital spending project again.

I think the buses must be in line for a major hit. Out here at Canary Wharf and around I've taken to counting how many passengers I can see inside them. With double deckers costing about £1/4 million each nowadays it's unusual to see the number of passengers on any into double figures.

The London central government grant is to be reduced to zero in relation to running costs which is a significant reduction in revenue for TfL.

London Underground effectively covers its operating costs, London Rail orbital services are heavily subsidised because fares are so low, expect to see booking office closures as per the underground to reduce costs.

The bus network is heavily subsidised and for the first time in years is losing passengers due to increasing congestion. Already seen the first steps to reducing buses in central London with present consultation - if Oxford St pedestrianisation occurs more buses will go. As already mentioned the bus hopper fare allows for considerable simplification of the bus network and further route changes will probably be put in place to remove duplicating services.

Major reductions are being made to TfL staff numbers with a significant proportion of senior staff leaving. Big pressure to raise revenues so possibly more sponsorship schemes in future eg station branding etc. If TfL take over more surburban rail services they will rapidly go DOO if not already.

TfL are also trying to sell their expertise overseas.

 

[edwin_m]

Many Underground lines, particularly the more 'historic' ones, are actually quite lightly used at their outer extremes, even if their central sections are rammed.

However, thinning out the service is seldom operationally straightforward. At Wembley Park for example, even the off-peak Jubilee Line frequency makes it impractical to reverse a portion of the trains there, just because the trains take too long to clear out of passengers in the platform and would knock back into the following trains.

So you end up running most or all of the service (with associated financial cost) to the extremes of the route to fulfill no real demand need here - but it *is* necessary to provide adequate frequency in the central area.

It used to be the case that the Victoria Line was the only one to generate an operating profit - simply because of high all-day demand, without significantly 'dropping off' at the ends of the route (even so, it is still easy to turn trains short at Seven Sisters, although most trains extend to Walthamstow to meet demand).

Plus, the 'limited stop' nature of the Victoria Line shortens the end-ti-end journey time, and thus the resources needed to run the service.

The central sections of Underground lines are so crowded that it is essential to maintain an even spacing of trains otherwise the "bunching" effect ruins the service (train with a longer gap ahead of it collects more passengers, so spends longer at each station, lengthening the gap further). I guess the unevenness of loading caused by short workings would make this more likely to happen.

 

[100andthirty]

At least the SSL resignalling false start (singular) resulted in an undisclosed contract termination fee being paid back to TfL -- I believe this was fairly significant. The pushback on its completion deadline is still a net loss, however, and this has had a knock-on effect on other projects' timing.

Note: there have been three signalling contracts for SSL resignalling - two false starts; the original contract via Metronet cascaded to Invensys (Westinghouse) via Bombardier, the second contract for Bombardier's own signalling system and now the contract with Thales.

 

[rebmcr]

Note: there have been three signalling contracts for SSL resignalling - two false starts; the original contract via Metronet cascaded to Invensys (Westinghouse) via Bombardier, the second contract for Bombardier's own signalling system and now the contract with Thales.

Ah OK. I wasn't considering the Metronet situation as anything other than the Metronet situation!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The simple solution would be to make London Overground fares the same as non-Tfl TOC. This would provide extra revenue across the board.

Non-zone 1 fares are low to promote the avoidance of zone 1, where the vast majority of the congestion and overcrowding is. Getting rid of the pink readers, for instance, would increase revenue but would undermine the whole rationale of them in the first place, which was to reward people for avoiding zone 1.

The vast majority of non-zone 1 journeys are towards the outskirts of the network where, even in the peaks, there's plenty of capacity.

 

[JamesRowden]

Non-zone 1 fares are low to promote the avoidance of zone 1, where the vast majority of the congestion and overcrowding is. Getting rid of the pink readers, for instance, would increase revenue but would undermine the whole rationale of them in the first place, which was to reward people for avoiding zone 1.

The vast majority of non-zone 1 journeys are towards the outskirts of the network where, even in the peaks, there's plenty of capacity.

When I used the North London line it was over crowded during the evening peak to the point that it's difficult to get on the train.

I'm not saying that the avoid Zone 1 fare should be the same price as via Zone 1. I'm questioning why the Upminster to West Croydon via East London Line fare should be significantly cheaper than the Upminster to Orpington via East London Line fare. 1.50 is cheaper than the cheapest bus fare in many places let alone a cross regional rail journey.

 

[Busaholic]

Now the fare disadvantage of changing buses has been removed, perhaps the network could be recast into a simpler, more connectional setup, reducing the number of routes penetrating central London to a small core of well-publicised "Metrobus" type routes (as German cities have done) - that would also allow infrastructure to be dedicated to ensuring better flow on that smaller number of routes.

With the increase in bus journey times owing to congestion, and consequent fall in passenger numbers on the worse-affected routes, shortening routes and making some of those passengers change buses may seem logical but, in practice, will see passenger numbers decline further, particularly in areas served by the Underground and the better Overground and National Rail routes. The areas which do not have these realistic public transport alternatives i.e. large swathes of south and south east London primarily will continue to see the most overcrowded buses and official complaints. The Hopper fare is a great bit of PR but probably benefits fewer than people realise, both because of the daily 'cap' on bus fares and the unfortunate fact that if your first out of two journeys is a relatively long one timewise there may be more than 70 minutes before you can board a second bus (the other way round, of course, doesn't matter as you'll be OK for time.) Hanging around bus stops if you don't either have to or you don't take some sort of perverse pleasure from doing so is not for many.

 

[Ianno87]

When I used the North London line it was over crowded during the evening peak to the point that it's difficult to get on the train.

I'm not saying that the avoid Zone 1 fare should be the same price as via Zone 1. I'm questioning why the Upminster to West Croydon via East London Line fare should be significantly cheaper than the Upminster to Orpington via East London Line fare. 1.50 is cheaper than the cheapest bus fare in many places let alone a cross regional rail journey.

With a Railcard on your Oyster it becomes even cheaper.

You can do journeys like Tottenham Hale to Heathrow via Highbury, the North London Line via Gunnersbury/Turnham Green (or via West Brompton/Earls Court) then Picc Line to Heathrow for £1 if you're determined enough!

 

[Busaholic]

You could say that about my bus home. The last half mile to a suitable turning point only carries a handful of people.

If it's only the last half mile, I don't see that as significant.

On the matter of Canary Wharf, TfL were planning a couple of frequency reductions, but one got cancelled. I think another route went to double deck, but the frequency was reduced. I read somewhere that the slowest London bus routes now in the peak were the 15 and 100, both of which operate close to Canary Wharf and have been badly affected by the Aldgate fiasco (instigated, unfortunately, by TfL) which has had such a knock-on effect to all bus services within a radius of a few miles, particularly to the east.