John Rowland wrote:
"Pete Fenelon" wrote...
In uk.railway Paul Terry wrote:

Perhaps it could be called Network SouthEast

Damn, I was just about to post that

Damn, I was just about to post *that*.

AOL

"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rich Mallard" wrote:

A think tank comments:

http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355

Interesting stuff, which superficially I like the sound of. It's about
time
this notion that London should somehow be artificially divorced from its
south east context is challenged, and this helps do just that.

It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent,
south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc.

It has? I'm slightly surprised because if this doesn't happen, TfL may well
encroach on their area anyway with the expanded "London Rail" area (and
they'll have even less control I would have thought...) Better to have a
Greater South East authority in control of rail rather than the
central-London dominated TfL, from their PoV surely?

Rich

"Colin" wrote in message
...

...

From the point of view of purely 'running a railway', divorced from the
reality of politics, yes the return of NSE may make sense.

Agreed.

However, TfL is the PTE for Greater London, subsidised by the residents of
Greater London and managed by the elected representatives of the residents
of Greater London.

Not sure about that. TfL is directly accountable to the Mayor as I
understand it, who is then supposedly "scrutinised" by those elected reps.
I don't think TfL is particularly constrained by the assembly.

TfL as a single body wants to integrate all forms of transport within
Greater London. This provides several benefits for the people of Greater
London (Ticketing, Accountability, similar standards for all GLA council
tax payers whether they are north or south of the river etc.).

But the trouble is Greater London, in transport terms amongst others, is an
artificial cut-out of the South East of England. I don't think it makes
sense to isolate the area in this way. I am also not convinced that they
are doing enough in their existing area (partricularly fringe boroughs like
Bromley, Bexley, Havering...) let alone expanding their remit over rail.

If we, as GLA Council Tax Payers are prepared to pay for good public
transport services, why shouldn't we be able to have some control over
stations and services within our area?

We should, via a comprehensive South East body?

It would be impossible to exert co-ordinated political control over a
Greater South East rail body in the same way as is possible in the GLA.

That could be a good or bad thing. Wait until Ken Livingstone steps down,
and one day there will be a Tory mayor. Everyone seems to think Greater
London = Ken Livingstone = progressive transport policies. But this won't
always be the case (and I think a lot of the pro-"GLA model" people will
realise what they've created when this happens).

You would have continual political fighting between the labour suburbs and
Tory shires. And the Tory Shires wouldn't want their Council Taxes raised
to pay a share equal to that paid by GLA residents (when so many people
out there are quite happy with their private vehicles).

The divide you talk already exists in the GL area itself I would argue.
From my local PoV, the Tory shires really start at Bexley & Bromley, and
extend out to Kent.

The current level of subsidies show that (for the forseeable future) you
cannot run a railway without vast sums of public subsidy. The price to pay
for that is 'political control / public accountability'. And if it's a
case of the railways or local government changing its structure to fit
reality, it's the railways that are going to have to adapt.

Well, I disagree with the "Greater London" local government structure at is,
so maybe it should be the other way around!

Rich

In message , Rich Mallard
writes
But the trouble is Greater London, in transport terms amongst others,
is an artificial cut-out of the South East of England.

Indeed it is.

But that applies to any territorial authority; there will always be a
boundary *somewhere* and it will always throw up anomalies. Ewe see
this now with borderline cases such as Romford, Croydon, Dartford and
Watford.

If we create a Greater South East body, exactly how far would it
stretch? Would Luton be included? How about Oxford? Or Chelmsford?
Or Brighton? All of these places are recognisable at the end of a
"commuter line" [1] but making them part of a Greater Greater London [2]
would throw up a hornets nest of its own problems.

For the record, I feel that Greater London probably ought to include
Dartford and Watford but little more. It would be interesting to see a
map of the boundary of London's Green belt (I've never seen such an
animal, at least not in detail). That *ought* to be a good GLA area
boundary. But these things are always arbitrary and one has only to
look at the recent thread concerning whether places are "London" or
"Kent" or "Essex" to see what this throws up in terms of local
allegiances.


[1] In the widest sense of the word

[2] So to speak

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Rich Mallard wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Rich Mallard" wrote:

A think tank comments:

http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355

Interesting stuff, which superficially I like the sound of. It's about
time
this notion that London should somehow be artificially divorced from its
south east context is challenged, and this helps do just that.

It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent,
south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc.


It has? I'm slightly surprised because if this doesn't happen, TfL may well
encroach on their area anyway with the expanded "London Rail" area (and
they'll have even less control I would have thought...) Better to have a
Greater South East authority in control of rail rather than the
central-London dominated TfL, from their PoV surely?

It probably makes little difference for the rail network, as it is
highly centred on London, with the minor exceptions of such animals as
Gatwick - Tonbridge, Ashford - Hastings etc.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent,
south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc.


It has? I'm slightly surprised because if this doesn't happen, TfL may
well encroach on their area anyway with the expanded "London Rail" area
(and they'll have even less control I would have thought...) Better to
have a Greater South East authority in control of rail rather than the
central-London dominated TfL, from their PoV surely?

It probably makes little difference for the rail network, as it is highly
centred on London, with the minor exceptions of such animals as Gatwick -
Tonbridge, Ashford - Hastings etc.


Indeed. London is the train journey destination / starting point for the
majority of people over a large area of the south east.

TfL have suggested a 'London Rail' area partly based upon the current 'Inner
Suburban' services, and data that shows (on a ward-by-ward basis) the number
of people who commute to London every day for work reasons.

It is bigger than London, but certainly not as big as NSE.

See Page 9 in this presentation:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/downloads...-Conf-2004.pdf

Colin

Ian Jelf wrote:

If we create a Greater South East body, exactly how far would it
stretch? Would Luton be included? How about Oxford? Or Chelmsford?
Or Brighton? All of these places are recognisable at the end of a
"commuter line" [1] but making them part of a Greater Greater London [2]
would throw up a hornets nest of its own problems.


Look no further than the boundaries of the 1980s Network SouthEast.



Tony

Dave Arquati wrote:

It probably makes little difference for the rail network, as it is
highly centred on London, with the minor exceptions of such animals as
Gatwick - Tonbridge, Ashford - Hastings etc.


It makes a lot of difference when you consider that a substantial
proportion of commuters using these "highly centred on London"
services actually live outside the capital and have no representatives
on the GLA and no say in the election of the Mayor.

No taxation without representation ...


Tony

In uk.railway Ian Jelf wrote:
If we create a Greater South East body, exactly how far would it
stretch? Would Luton be included? How about Oxford? Or Chelmsford?
Or Brighton? All of these places are recognisable at the end of a
"commuter line" [1] but making them part of a Greater Greater London [2]
would throw up a hornets nest of its own problems.

One thing that's puzzled me. Why was the NSE boundary set the way it was?
So we have all of BR(SR), fine, which I suppose drags in Exeter though
that's a bit of a strange inclusion. We have IC lines up to just before the
first(ish) major station (Leamington, Northampton, Huntingdon) so you can't
get an IC train to get there. But why King's Lynn and not Norwich (DMU vs
IC?), and what about the rest of East Anglia? Why so little of BR(WR)?

Theo

Tony Polson wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

It probably makes little difference for the rail network, as it is
highly centred on London, with the minor exceptions of such animals as
Gatwick - Tonbridge, Ashford - Hastings etc.



It makes a lot of difference when you consider that a substantial
proportion of commuters using these "highly centred on London"
services actually live outside the capital and have no representatives
on the GLA and no say in the election of the Mayor.

No taxation without representation ...

Someone said it would be better to have a SE rail authority rather than
a "central London dominated" TfL - but since the rail network is central
London dominated, from that point of view, there isn't much of a
difference, as a SE rail authority would be London-dominated anyway.

It was theoretical anyway; I wouldn't advocate giving the whole of NSE
to TfL. I do think it would make more sense for them to have greater
control over inner suburban services though, even if those do stray
outside the GLA boundary - the idea is to make sure that transport into
London is co-ordinated properly.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London