In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 19:30:32 on Thu,
21 Jan 2016, Robin9 remarked:
http://tinyurl.com/jo9jopt
entire-suburban-rail-network-a3161586.htm

Sounds very ambitious.

What I don't really understand is the concept of "running services"
within London vs further afield when many of the trains will cross the
boundary. For example they mention GN and Welwyn Garden City, but does
this mean they'll only be transferring the terminators (which serve
Moorgate), rather than the Peterborough/Letchworth/Cambridge trains?

Is there any reason to assume that TfL/London Overground
can do a better job than the current franchise holders?

I know the present service is far better and passenger numbers
far greater than was the case during the Silverlink period; but
have those improvements been the result of unusual aptitudes
and skills? Is it not the case that heavy investment - and access
to funds - is the main reason things have improved? Is there any
evidence to suggest that TfL/London Overground have more
management skill, knowledge and understanding than their
counterparts among the current TOCs?

Why should we believe that handing all these services over to
London Overground will make things better?


It's been said several times that TSGN is probably "too big to be
manageable" - by Govia anyway. Slimming it down by shifting some of
the services to an alternative operator (and alternative operator)
might help.

Also, there are probably some compromises involved when operating
both short and middle distance routes simultaneously, so again
splitting into [any] two operations could have advantages.

One route NOT included in yesterday's announced scheme is Thameslink.

--
Colin Rosenstiel