Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:20:25 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\06\10 12:46, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:53:25 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

So suggests this report, based on a meeting of the London Assembly's
Transport Committee - Kent County Council being the active objector to
the TfL rail takeover plan in revenge:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33066006

Hopefully it'll be an idea that'll surface again in the future - so long
as TfL does a good job on their new West Anglia metro routes.

The webcast from the session certainly confirmed Kent's viewpoint. I
suspect there were other issues too but this is politics at its worst.
However the reps from Kent CC and Surrey CC were much more positive
about devolution of some services to TfL *provided* there is proper
involvement for them in the decision making process and the scope.
Kent set out some "red lines" but the TfL rep present was confident
they could be dealt with sensibly or where already controlled by the
ORR (the old fear of TfL stealing train paths for trains into Kent).
Kent certainly wanted to see Oyster extended into Kent so that was a
positive thing.

TfL said they would be very happy to work with both Counties in
respect of the next franchising round and sorting out what lines /
services would be devolved and where the boundaries are. I felt it
was positive overall.

Are Kent holding out because they want Crossrail to come to them, perhaps?

No. Crossrail was not mentioned at all. Bizarrely they seem very
happy to have HS1 and with South Eastern generally. Rather shows
where the franchise priorities are - i.e. not on Metro services.

They seem keener now provided the following are met :-

a) TfL add capacity at peak times by lengthening trains to the
permissible longest length. They don't want train paths reallocated
from "their" trains to Metro routes.

b) There is no "theft" of train paths from "their" services to TfL
ones. This is impossible because ORR control track access. Obviously
if there are spare paths and TfL bid for them and South Eastern do not
then that's a different scenario.

c) There are no adverse or perverse issues relating to fares. They
didn't want fares to rise in Kent to somehow "pay" for TfL's takeover.
Also they didn't want TfL to introduce cheap fares that then created a
shift in commuter patterns causing traffic congestion issues and
localised parking problems in the vicinity of a "cheaper" station.
Given the DfT have effectively hobbled TfL's ability to lower fares
anyway (other than removing the Zone 1 add on fare) this is pretty
much a non issue.

Kent CC also had a specific question about whether the Metro services
that currently run on to Gravesend and Gillingham would be TfL
operated or remain with South Eastern or if the service pattern would
change. Clearly there wasn't a specific answer to that given.

My sense was that these are either non issues because of existing
industry controls / processes or else could be solved through
discussion. It's over to TfL to try again and hopefully keep people
on side. I still think the spectre of airport policy will hang heavy
given the government have not set a deadline for responding to the
Airports Commission and Boris won't give up either.

I thought Boris Island had already been removed from the list of airport
extension options under consideration? There are three options on the
short list: Gatwick, or the two Heathrow proposals.

On 2015-06-11 00:10:12 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

[1] Cue the New Train for England, New Bike for England, New Bus for
England etc etc [2]
[2] cue me leaving the country! ;-)

A bit extreme, perhaps. It's an expensive, fancy-looking bus, but it's
not *terrible*.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:20:07 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
We must beg to differ. They make me ill [1] and I refuse to travel on

They're not *that* bad. God knows I remember some school bus trips back
in the day when it was like being in an overheating tumble dryer.

Complete waste of money however. The Bendy buses were far more convenient
and if it hadn't been for Boris sucking up to the militant cycle lobby who
represent nobody apart from themselves and wanting to give Ken 2 fingers london
would have got its moneys worth from them. Though I expect by now they'd be
life expired anyway or wouldn't meet current pollution regs and would have been
pastured off somewhere else.

impressed. Constant demands for working air con or opening windows.

Didn't you get the memo? Windows that open are so 20th century. Far too simple
and convenient - much better to have an expensive technical solution that
doesn't work quite as well.

--
Spud

On 12/06/2015 09:37, d wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:20:07 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
We must beg to differ. They make me ill [1] and I refuse to travel on

They're not *that* bad. God knows I remember some school bus trips back
in the day when it was like being in an overheating tumble dryer.

Complete waste of money however. The Bendy buses were far more convenient
and if it hadn't been for Boris sucking up to the militant cycle lobby who
represent nobody apart from themselves and wanting to give Ken 2 fingers london
would have got its moneys worth from them. Though I expect by now they'd be
life expired anyway or wouldn't meet current pollution regs and would have been
pastured off somewhere else.


It was *not* to do with any cycling lobby.

There were cyclists who didn't like the bendy buses, but there was never
any consensus across the 'cycling lobby' against bendy buses.

The idea that bendies went because cyclists disliked them is a myth.
(Just because Boris is a cyclist doesn't mean his views match those of
all cyclists - very far from it.)

There were a number of reasons given for the removal of bendy buses,
some of them being rather more emotional than rational.

Given the (metaphorical) heat over bendy buses, I don't expect anyone to
be proposing their reintroduction to London any time soon, however
suitable they might be for at least a few duties. Such is politics.

In the meantime, we've got a bus that's too hot, courtesy of a Mayor who
never travels by bus.


impressed. Constant demands for working air con or opening windows.

Didn't you get the memo? Windows that open are so 20th century. Far too simple
and convenient - much better to have an expensive technical solution that
doesn't work quite as well.

On 2015-06-13 00:14:56 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

God knows what the next Mayor does with them.

I know you won't like it, but I'm hoping for "fits new aircon or
opening windows and keeps them". While the platform is a gimmick and I
would expect them to be OPO in due course, I don't think they are bad
in and of themselves, and I don't (except through the heat) have
sickness issues on them and would be very interested to know what it is
(while I guess you don't know yourself) specifically that causes this.
I also think the identity of having a distinct London bus body has a
strong aspect to it, though this was sort-of achieved a while ago when
almost everything was the old-style Wright Gemini which is a very
distinctive body (particularly the front) which became somewhat
synonymous with London.

I suppose each to their own on such things - I find Class 180 Adelantes
on FGW make me feel ill, I think it's down to the lousy ride and wobbly
seats. No other UK train has ever done that, though the relatively
soft suspension and resulting sway on the Canadian did make me feel
queasy to start with, though I got used to it (fortunately, as I was on
it for 4 days!)

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.