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.

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.

I can't see how handing it to TfL is going to sort out the endless problems
with network rail. Nationalising something isn't a magic panacea. From what
I've heard about the anglia routes little has changed so far.

--
Spud

On 2015\06\10 11:15, d wrote:

I can't see how handing it to TfL is going to sort out the endless problems
with network rail. Nationalising something isn't a magic panacea. From what
I've heard about the anglia routes little has changed so far.

That's hilariously premature!

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
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.

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the mayor "

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

tim

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:40:31 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
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.

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the mayor "

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?

tim

On 11/06/2015 21:10, tim..... wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

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

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the mayor "

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?


In the 2 1/2 hour webcast of the committee session that Paul has
watched/listened to, and you have not...

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2015 21:10, tim..... wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

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

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the mayor "

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?


In the 2 1/2 hour webcast of the committee session that Paul has
watched/listened to, and you have not...

so the claimant should provide a transcript of the relevant bit then

expecting someone to watch a 2 and a half hour presentation to accept your
point is plain unreasonable.

I still think that the link is invented up by someone with a vested
interest. I don't believe that elected "officials" would openly admit that
they acted out of spite (even if in private, they have)!

tim

On 13/06/2015 09:48, tim..... wrote:
[...]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33066006

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the
mayor "

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?

In the 2 1/2 hour webcast of the committee session that Paul has
watched/listened to, and you have not...

so the claimant should provide a transcript of the relevant bit then

expecting someone to watch a 2 and a half hour presentation to accept
your point is plain unreasonable.

I still think that the link is invented up by someone with a vested
interest. I don't believe that elected "officials" would openly admit
that they acted out of spite (even if in private, they have)!


You're ridiculous. Who is the "claimant" of which you speak - the
journalist Tom Edwards who wrote the article? In which case, journalism
doesn't work like that - you provide summaries.

If you're referring to Paul C, then why on earth should he provide a
transcript if you're too distrustful of him and also too lazy to find it
yourself. His previous postings clearly show that his analysis has
integrity, so he's not just going making something like that up.

Also, given two sources corroborate the point - a BBC journalists report
and Paul C's summary of the committee hearing - I trust the point. More
fool you if you don't.

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 09:48:30 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2015 21:10, tim..... wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

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

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the mayor
"

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?


In the 2 1/2 hour webcast of the committee session that Paul has
watched/listened to, and you have not...

so the claimant should provide a transcript of the relevant bit then

expecting someone to watch a 2 and a half hour presentation to accept your
point is plain unreasonable.

I still think that the link is invented up by someone with a vested
interest. I don't believe that elected "officials" would openly admit
that
they acted out of spite (even if in private, they have)!

For goodness sake. You really think I would make it up?

No I'm not.

I assumed that you quoted someone else's claim

I'm actually
offended by that. I've no axe to grind given I don't live in South
East London and rarely use the trains there.

Well I do ... and I don't - because I live in the bit that KCC want to
"protect", and ISTM that KCCs view here is entirely sensible.

I'm currently suffering a vastly reduced service because the works at LB
have meant that fewer SW locals can run, so in order to protect them, my
services have had extra stops inserted.

I don't want this reduction in service to be perpetuated because TfL take
over responsibility after LB is complete and think "that's what their
getting now so we don't need to go back to the previous service, and can use
the new paths for our own stations"

The transcript of the meeting hasn't been provided yet so I can't
point you at it. Now go and tell City Hall's Secretariat that they're
a bunch of slackers.

Meeting agenda with attendees listed. Mr Balfour from Kent is the
person to listen to.

http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/d...20Services.pdf

The webcast is at

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assem...embly/webcasts

9th June 2015 Transport Committee is the one to watch / listen to.

Fast forward to 1 hour 48 mins for the bit on "red lines" and then
keep watching to see the ongoing discussion about what happens when
TfL take over a service. 2hrs 10min is the point about Kent's
objection to previous plans.

Oh so I've still got to listen to 30 minutes :-(

tim

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?