On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:52:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 12:15:05 UTC+1, e27002 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:40:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...nd-of-londons-
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?

URL corrected, tiny URL added:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-to-take-command-of-londons-entire-suburban-rail-network-a3161586.html

http://tinyurl.com/gwzwmch

Xposted for wider audience.

This plan will not end well. It is a bureaucratic nightmare in the
making. Moreover, as TfL's budget is stretched quality will fall.

Better, IMHO, to add the county of Oxford and Hampshire to the list of
Home Counties, and have a Home Counties PTE.

We need the "London Passenger Transport Area" back.

We could get a charismatic manager in to run this new PTE area, someone a bit like Chris Green, and get the trains to be painted in an eye catching red white and blue livery, and paint all the station lampposts red and stuff.

:-). Actually the TOCs do pretty well, well SWT does. The need is to boost service levels in the inner areas, but without disrupting the lives of longer distance commuters. Remember it is the longer distance commuters who generate the wealth and pay the bills.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:15:06 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

On 21/01/2016 13:34, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 05:10:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 13:12:35 UTC+1, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 21/01/2016 11:15, aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:40:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...nd-of-londons-
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?

URL corrected, tiny URL added:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-to-take-command-of-londons-entire-suburban-rail-network-a3161586.html

http://tinyurl.com/gwzwmch

Xposted for wider audience.

This plan will not end well. It is a bureaucratic nightmare in the
making. Moreover, as TfL's budget is stretched quality will fall.

Better, IMHO, to add the county of Oxford and Hampshire to the list of
Home Counties, and have a Home Counties PTE.

We need the "London Passenger Transport Area" back.

No - we need a set of stations on the periphery of the London area where
the trains from the home counties terminate and then there is some
radical method of transportation in to the centre of London

Precisely the logic of 150 years ago. At that time the Euston Road was the periphery and underground railways were the radical new method.

Robin

The taxpayers and fare payers of the home county are responsible for
London's wealth creation. Their taxes and fares pay for the rail
networks, and then some.

Citation please?

Do all the bankers, financers, insurers, lawyers, et al who make the
financial center function live within the London Boroughs? I didn't
think so.

'm personally of the view it is impossible to
dimension a railway to cater for all the people who believe it is their
right to commute 50 miles each way every day to arrive just before 9am
and leave around 17:30. All with a guaranteed seat and a short walk to
their detached home in a leafy suburb.

But, more and longer trains can be provided. Better signalling could
hasten journeys. How about some comfortable seating. We would like
our catering facilities back also.



And are you suggesting people in London do not contribute to taxation etc?

No. But, they clearly do not carry the entire load.

On 21/01/16 15:45, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:15:06 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

On 21/01/2016 13:34, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 05:10:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 13:12:35 UTC+1, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 21/01/2016 11:15, aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:40:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...nd-of-londons-
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?

URL corrected, tiny URL added:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-to-take-command-of-londons-entire-suburban-rail-network-a3161586.html

http://tinyurl.com/gwzwmch

Xposted for wider audience.

This plan will not end well. It is a bureaucratic nightmare in the
making. Moreover, as TfL's budget is stretched quality will fall.

Better, IMHO, to add the county of Oxford and Hampshire to the list of
Home Counties, and have a Home Counties PTE.

We need the "London Passenger Transport Area" back.

No - we need a set of stations on the periphery of the London area where
the trains from the home counties terminate and then there is some
radical method of transportation in to the centre of London

Precisely the logic of 150 years ago. At that time the Euston Road was the periphery and underground railways were the radical new method.

Robin

The taxpayers and fare payers of the home county are responsible for
London's wealth creation. Their taxes and fares pay for the rail
networks, and then some.

Citation please?

Do all the bankers, financers, insurers, lawyers, et al who make the
financial center function live within the London Boroughs? I didn't
think so.

'm personally of the view it is impossible to
dimension a railway to cater for all the people who believe it is their
right to commute 50 miles each way every day to arrive just before 9am
and leave around 17:30. All with a guaranteed seat and a short walk to
their detached home in a leafy suburb.

But, more and longer trains can be provided. Better signalling could
hasten journeys. How about some comfortable seating. We would like
our catering facilities back also.



And are you suggesting people in London do not contribute to taxation etc?

No. But, they clearly do not carry the entire load.


When's someone going to bite the bullet and implement movable block
signalling?

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 14:07:23 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:01 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

SNIP

What the Home Counties' commuters do not need is some superfluous
mayor
of an artificial county disrupting their travel arrangements.

In what sense is Greater London any more of an 'artificial county'
than any other local authority border from any time in history?

County boundaries in history tended to follow natural boundaries e.g. the boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire used to follow the Mersey, so closely in fact that when the meanders changed course the boundaries stayed where they were. AFAIR no ceremonial county in what is now modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Very well stated. Clearly the conurbation extended south of the
Thames, but under different authorities.

Any arbitrary man-made lines on a map are artificial.

sort of by definition.

Of course, but with history and purpose.

On 2016\01\21 16:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 14:07:23 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:01 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

SNIP

What the Home Counties' commuters do not need is some superfluous
mayor
of an artificial county disrupting their travel arrangements.

In what sense is Greater London any more of an 'artificial county'
than any other local authority border from any time in history?

County boundaries in history tended to follow natural boundaries e.g. the boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire used to follow the Mersey, so closely in fact that when the meanders changed course the boundaries stayed where they were. AFAIR no ceremonial county in what is now modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Very well stated. Clearly the conurbation extended south of the
Thames, but under different authorities.

Any arbitrary man-made lines on a map are artificial.

sort of by definition.

Of course, but with history and purpose.

Not really, but there are grudges between counties, and if you
arbitrarily reassign part of Lancashire to be part of Yorkshire the
people in that area are likely to find themselves host to the county
incinerator and such. Herefordshire definitely felt that they were a
conquered people in Hereford & Worcestershire. I'm not aware of this
happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.

MTUT removed from the cross-posting.

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 14:07:23 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:01 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

SNIP

What the Home Counties' commuters do not need is some superfluous
mayor
of an artificial county disrupting their travel arrangements.

In what sense is Greater London any more of an 'artificial county'
than any other local authority border from any time in history?

County boundaries in history tended to follow natural boundaries e.g.
the boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire used to follow the Mersey,
so closely in fact that when the meanders changed course the boundaries
stayed where they were. AFAIR no ceremonial county in what is now
modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Very well stated. Clearly the conurbation extended south of the
Thames, but under different authorities.

Well that certainly sounds like a thoroughly artificial set of boundaries!
Those old counties dated from a period when there was just one bridge and
no railway lines crossing the Thames in London.

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 21/01/2016 15:45, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:15:06 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:


The taxpayers and fare payers of the home county are responsible for
London's wealth creation. Their taxes and fares pay for the rail
networks, and then some.

Citation please?

Do all the bankers, financers, insurers, lawyers, et al who make the
financial center function live within the London Boroughs? I didn't
think so.

No - but quite a lot do and residence close to your place of work is
something that should actively be encouraged by the powers-that-be
rather than it becoming a societal norm to commute vast distances daily,
putting huge strain on the relevant transport infrastructure (that then
goes relatively unused the other 20 hours of the day)


'm personally of the view it is impossible to
dimension a railway to cater for all the people who believe it is their
right to commute 50 miles each way every day to arrive just before 9am
and leave around 17:30. All with a guaranteed seat and a short walk to
their detached home in a leafy suburb.

But, more and longer trains can be provided. Better signalling could
hasten journeys. How about some comfortable seating. We would like
our catering facilities back also.

And I'd like a unicorn. One that craps rainbows. But we can't always
get what we'd like.

All these things may help, but the terminii can't cope either -
unfortunately people don't work right at the terminii and therefore
continue their journeys by other forms of transport - forms that
struggle to cope with the very bursty loads generated by trains emptying
out.

What you'd need is trains continuing along tunnels through London
stopping at appropriate interchange points before ending up in some
giant stabling yard on the opposite side of London from where they
started and then reverse the process in the evening.

Sort of like Thameslink, Crossrail and CR2...

On 21/01/2016 15:45, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:15:06 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:


The taxpayers and fare payers of the home county are responsible for
London's wealth creation. Their taxes and fares pay for the rail
networks, and then some.

Citation please?

Do all the bankers, financers, insurers, lawyers, et al who make the
financial center function live within the London Boroughs? I didn't
think so.

No - but quite a lot do and residence close to your place of work is
something that should actively be encouraged by the powers-that-be
rather than it becoming a societal norm to commute vast distances daily,
putting huge strain on the relevant transport infrastructure (that then
goes relatively unused the other 20 hours of the day)


'm personally of the view it is impossible to
dimension a railway to cater for all the people who believe it is their
right to commute 50 miles each way every day to arrive just before 9am
and leave around 17:30. All with a guaranteed seat and a short walk to
their detached home in a leafy suburb.

But, more and longer trains can be provided. Better signalling could
hasten journeys. How about some comfortable seating. We would like
our catering facilities back also.

And I'd like a unicorn. One that craps rainbows. But we can't always
get what we'd like.

All these things may help, but the terminii can't cope either -
unfortunately people don't work right at the terminii and therefore
continue their journeys by other forms of transport - forms that
struggle to cope with the very bursty loads generated by trains emptying
out.

What you'd need is trains continuing along tunnels through London
stopping at appropriate interchange points before ending up in some
giant stabling yard on the opposite side of London from where they
started and then reverse the process in the evening.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\21 16:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 14:07:23 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:01 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

SNIP

What the Home Counties' commuters do not need is some superfluous
mayor
of an artificial county disrupting their travel arrangements.

In what sense is Greater London any more of an 'artificial county'
than any other local authority border from any time in history?

County boundaries in history tended to follow natural boundaries e.g.
the boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire used to follow the Mersey,
so closely in fact that when the meanders changed course the boundaries
stayed where they were. AFAIR no ceremonial county in what is now
modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Very well stated. Clearly the conurbation extended south of the
Thames, but under different authorities.

Any arbitrary man-made lines on a map are artificial.

sort of by definition.

Of course, but with history and purpose.

Not really, but there are grudges between counties, and if you
arbitrarily reassign part of Lancashire to be part of Yorkshire the
people in that area are likely to find themselves host to the county
incinerator and such. Herefordshire definitely felt that they were a
conquered people in Hereford & Worcestershire. I'm not aware of this
happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.

The strange anomaly is Middlesex, which has been entirely absorbed into
Greater London, but whose name persists in postal addresses in some
boroughs, but not others.

It's also odd that places like Bromley still pretend to be in Kent, though
at least Kent still exists, unlike Middlesex.

On 21/01/16 14:05, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 03:15:02 -0800, aurora wrote:



Better, IMHO, to add the county of Oxford and Hampshire to the list of
Home Counties, and have a Home Counties PTE.

We need the "London Passenger Transport Area" back.

I live in Hampshire. It is a County with a lot of diversification,
North Hampshire is very similar to Surrey in that areas like Aldershot
,Fleet Hartley Witney after years off assault from the Metropolis are
not much more than dormitory areas of boring towns interspersed by
golf courses separated by pinewoods and scrubby heath that make the
inhabitants think they live in the country.
This end where I can hit Dorset with a good rifle has a completely
different character and I don't think I would be alone in thinking
London should not be controlling things this far West.
Now there are some commuters from these parts to London, my neighbour
has a contract that involves frequent visits at the moment ,but they
depart from Salisbury which is actually closer to London than this
part of Hants so are you going to then add that County to your Home
Counties PT as well?

As things stand SWT don't do a bad job of combining a commuter flow
amongst those who are travelling medium distance to destinations
further West such as Exeter. Cannot really see the need for London to
have more influence.


There's a piece from the BBC here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35372617

I agree that SWT tend to go a good job of combining their passenger
flows although there are problems such as a lack of semi-fast services
stopping at Clapham Junction during the peak.

However if SWT are forced to introduce more frequent local stopping
services it will most likely impact on their middle and long distance
travellers.

It's not ideal that TfL have control of non-commuter services to
destinations as far as Devon and Dorset.