More hot air or something to get vaguely excited about?

The Times November 16, 2005

Rail masterplan for getting the crowded capital to work

By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

THE biggest expansion of the railways since the Victorian era is being planned to relieve severe overcrowding on commuter routes across the South East.
Under the plans, platforms will be lengthened at dozens of stations and 1,500 carriages bought to create longer trains, each with at least 100 extra seats. More than 30 bottlenecks on the network will be removed, which will include building flyovers to replace flat junctions, and upgrading signals to reduce the gap between services. Transport for London (TfL) is drawing up a plan for the railways to cope with a rapidly expanding population. A version of the plan, seen by The Times, states: “Without effective intervention the situation will deteriorate . . . resulting in severe overcrowding across most of London’s rail corridors.”

More than a million jobs are forecast to be created in the South East by 2016 and the number of rail and Tube journeys is due to rise by 24 per cent. London’s population is on course to grow by 800,000 over the next decade, to 7.9 million. Thousands of rail commuters already have to stand for up to an hour in crowded carriages on the way to work. There were more than 100 million extra train journeys in the South East last year compared with 1999. At Cannon Street, a terminus serving the City of London, 60 per cent of trains arriving between 8am and 9am are already officially deemed to be badly overcrowded.

Three of the biggest train franchises, Southern, South West Trains and Silverlink, were identified by the Strategic Rail Authority last year as having “unacceptable” levels of overcrowding. TfL will shortly publish proposals for a multibillion-pound investment programme that will increase rail capacity by 30 per cent by 2025.

TfL, which is controlled by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has primary responsibility only for the Tube and bus networks. But Mr Livingstone is keen to extend this to include rail services in Greater London. He wants to operate a fully integrated service, with bus timetables dovetailing with trains to give passengers a smoother journey.

The Department for Transport is planning to pass control of the North London Line to Mr Livingstone but is still debating how much more influence he should have.

Mr Livingstone is willing to use his revenue-raising powers, including the congestion charge, to help to boost investment in railways. But in return he wants greater control over the running of trains. The Rail Passengers’ Council said that the industry urgently needed TfL’s money but expressed concern over giving the mayor control of services, which ran well beyond London’s boundaries.

Anthony Smith, the council’s director, said: “Mr Livingstone has much greater powers to raise revenue than other authorities and any investment he channels into the railways will be very welcome. But if he gets control over services it must not be at the expense of commuters who start their journeys outside London.”

He said that the council would oppose any attempt to sacrifice fast, long-distance services and replace them with slow trains that made more stops in the London suburbs.

Adrian Lyons, director of the Railway Forum, the industry’s lobby group, said: “Effectively a city the size of Leeds is being bolted on to London in the next few years and the current network cannot possibly cope. TfL is offering an extraordinarily bold vision which would not only cater for the growth but make existing journeys quicker and more comfortable.”

Ian Brown, TfL’s rail director, said TfL could help to fund the improvements in capacity. But he believed that the increase in ticket sales from rising passenger numbers would support most of the investment.

Just seems like common sense to lengthen platforms, increase train capacity, buy new stock and improve problem junctions on the network.

Although common sense does not always prevail when it comes to transport policy in this country.

What would be a good idea would be to improve the network so it can take double deck trains like on the continent, as the way things are progressing we will have two mile long platforms :|

Double Deck trains solve overcrowding problems across Europe,
sadly we don't have the infastructure to introduce them :(

http://www.faresync.co.uk/graphics/ID013-862-25-M.jpg

http://koti.mbnet.fi/rautatie/saksa03b/images/re2.jpg

I don't see the point of this plan. TfL don't have the necessary power and it is very unlikely they will. I don't think they should have it either. Railways need to be planned nationally. The Government should direct and fund Network Rail to expand to cope with the countries needs.

Railways need to be planned nationally

National routes of course need to be planned nationally.

However so many routes in London are orbital within London itself or terminate on the city's fringes or home counties. With inadequate tube provision south of the river many depend on the inferior frequency railways to get them to work. The Zonal system for London's rail also differs from that of the tube and buses leading to, not only confusion, but great discrepancies between distance travelled KM and price. A student can get 1/3 of fairs on the tube if they hold a valid TfL studentcard - but would need a separate one to get a 1/3 off a single trip on the railway. Proper integration would sort out issues like that.

If Ken can do for the railways what he has done (and is continuing to do) for the buses then I'm all in favour of him getting the power.

Ken's great, no doubt about it. I think we need a guy like that running the national rail strategy. If London runs all the railways in it there is a risk that long distance services and those that cross the city will suffer. A perfect example is Crossrail. If this finally does get off the ground it will only serve Londoners when really it would make a lot of sense to run services through from places like Norwich to Reading.

What's the point in wasting more money on London, particularly as it's getting crossrail, and will have it by the time this is in place.

What's the point in wasting more money on London, particularly as it's getting crossrail, and will have it by the time this is in place.

Just because you don't think London deserves an upgrade in the rail network, doesn't mean it does not need it! The network in London needs upgrading to decrease train time journey and shuttle more people in/out of London more efficiently

Just because you don't think London deserves an upgrade in the rail network, doesn't mean it does not need it! The network in London needs upgrading to decrease train time journey and shuttle more people in/out of London more efficiently

of course london deserves an decent rail system but so does everyone else. but as london is paying for this itself - good luck to it. if only manchester and birmingham had the powers to do this kind of stuff

yep the other cities in the country should be braver and start charging for road use in the centres

What's the point in wasting more money on London, particularly as it's getting crossrail, and will have it by the time this is in place.Because London in Britain's economic engine room. Crossrail is not worth anything to commuters from the southern or northern suburbs.

Double Deck trains solve overcrowding problems across Europe,
sadly we don't have the infastructure to introduce them :(

http://www.faresync.co.uk/graphics/ID013-862-25-M.jpg

http://koti.mbnet.fi/rautatie/saksa03b/images/re2.jpg

we used to have double deck trains
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/electric/emu-dc/4DD/4dd.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/electric/emu-dc/4DD/4dda.jpg
but these look about half the height of the ones in europe and they were apparently very cramped, not good :bash:

they were the same height as normal trains just about but had two decks. one for dwarves.

yep the other cities in the country should be braver and start charging for road use in the centres

I don't know the case for other cities, but Leeds City Council said they would not start road charging until an alternative form of transport was in place. The same probably applies to other cities.

yep the other cities in the country should be braver and start charging for road use in the centres

Liverpool already does.

For most cities it would be suicide, London's unique in many ways and charging is one area that exemplifies that.

Edinburgh council tried it, but was forced into a local referenda and lost it, Durham does it. Wile Newcastle and Glasgow have underground systems, Sheffiled, Manchester and Nottingham have succesful tram systems. All this talk that London is unique, is rubbish it could would in other major UK cities.

Councils also have the power to charge for workplace parking places there are a whole range of things they could be doing but most are unwilling to do what is necessary to implement them as most major UK cities don't have a single level of government.

So what about Liverpool, Leeds and Birmingham? Glasgow's underground is a small ring that does not cover most areas so doesn't do much for most commuters. Newcastle doesnt have an underground, it has a Metro that again only covers a few certain areas. Clearly there is a trend that all these places need some improvement and expansion of transport networks before road charging would be fair.

well instead of waiting for government cash like Oliver 'please sir can we have some more' do what London did and introduced it fund an expansion in buses, raise council tax like London did to pay for improvements, or borrow money like London did to pay for even more improvements.

So what about Liverpool, Leeds and Birmingham? Glasgow's underground is a small ring that does not cover most areas so doesn't do much for most commuters. Newcastle doesnt have an underground, it has a Metro that again only covers a few certain areas. Clearly there is a trend that all these places need some improvement and expansion of transport networks before road charging would be fair.

I would say Newcastle is a perfect place for congestion charges, the metro has around 33 million passangers a year, which is actually a fall from twenty years as it has been extended to Sunderland since then.

It has lost some of these passangers to the car, so a congestion charge should level things out a bit, it would also force the council to co ordinate bus journies as well rather than the free for all that exists at the moment.

They alread did that, and where will the get the money from when the UK government won't give out any money. After living in 3 places in the UK, 1 being London it is clear that London is the only place in the UK with substansial transport. In population, Frankfrut is smaller than Leeds yet it has an underground and tram network.

Leeds isn't trying to become Europe's leading financial centre though is it?

People forget that London is a leading global city, and some argue europes leading city, to compare transport issues in Newcastle to London would be like comparing Chalk and cheese.

Then if as you say they did all the things i suggested, you should be asking yourself why isn't there fabulous transport in Manchester or Glasgow? Maybe the fault lies with the councils if as you say they have raised council tax, fares, borrowed money and introduced charging schemes? The government has given them the tools to raise moeny, they are just to chicken shit to do it.

A little message for everyone
You people might think that Im a total jerk but really Im nothing like what I'm like here, but people annoy me when they talk rubbish, especially when they have nothing to back it up and I do. Infact Im a Christian and don't hate anyone or anywhere- read any post on this forum and I will not have said 'I hate Manchester' anywhere but some people have said 'you hate Manchester'. In other words you bring it on yourselves

Touching

They alread did that, and where will the get the money from when the UK government won't give out any money. After living in 3 places in the UK, 1 being London it is clear that London is the only place in the UK with substansial transport. In population, Frankfrut is smaller than Leeds yet it has an underground and tram network.Frankfurt has a much larger metro population than Leeds.

Well people commute from all over Yorkshire and Humber every day (5m) but Leeds, or West Yorkshires metro is about 2.5m. So what if London is trying to be Europes largest financial city. If it is, its not doing very well, some cities are bigger than London in some sectors but dont get any funding (compared to it) Why does it need to be Europes financial centre anyway? That is one of the worst ideas ever.

Hello London isnt trying to be Europes largest financial city it is!!! It stock exchange is the largst in the world doing over £540 billion pounds a day in turn over biger than New york and tokyo combined!!!

Hello London isnt trying to be Europes largest financial city it is!!! It stock exchange is the largst in the world doing over £540 billion pounds a day in turn over biger than New york and tokyo combined!!!No the stock exchange is the third largest in the world. London's currency exchange is the size of New York's and Tokyo's combined and because the FX market is much larger than equities then turnover on London's markets is the largest in the world.

Well people commute from all over Yorkshire and Humber every day (5m) but Leeds, or West Yorkshires metro is about 2.5m. So what if London is trying to be Europes largest financial city. If it is, its not doing very well, some cities are bigger than London in some sectors but dont get any funding (compared to it) Why does it need to be Europes financial centre anyway? That is one of the worst ideas ever.London's lead over Continental rivals is increasing so it is doing well. Also London gets the least amount of tax payers money spent on it per capita. We subsidise you guys - not the other way round. ;)

To those who make the tired argument about "oh look, all the money for transport goes to London...."

taken from: http://www.londonchamber.co.uk/lcc_public/default.asp?id=254


THE LONDON DEFICIT (aka LONDON subsidises the UK)

"London is the hub of economic activity in the UK. But there is a gap between Government revenues raised in London and public spending in the capital. We accept that London should subsidise the rest of the UK but not to the extent which it currently does. According to the London School of Economics that 'subsidy' is between 10 and 20 billion pounds. The burden placed on the capital's economy is inequitable and London is suffering as a result. The argument is not one for greater regionalisation and division but for a fairer approach."

And to think of the press that the lesser £5bn rebate from the EU gets....!

Frankfurt's metro area is significantly larger than Leeds' and its GDP trounces it as does everything else in Frankfurt ( Airport, Financial sector etc ). Glasgow's transport infrastructure is pretty good by the way! An underground, 180 station rail network, thousands of buses, and you can drive north to south, east to west through the city without leaving motorway.

Oh and yeah London should get more money spent on its infrastructure without the capital we'd be in very big trouble ( you could argue decentralisation etc but its not going to happen so London is out their representing the U.K as our global city against Paris etc ). Have you ever travelled on the Underground? Its a bloody disgrace something needs done, getting around London is a nightmare. Unfortunately years of neglect will cost crazy money to fix. Heathrow and Gatwick alone give so much to the U.K economy, London needs to be kept un good shape.

They alread did that, and where will the get the money from when the UK government won't give out any money. After living in 3 places in the UK, 1 being London it is clear that London is the only place in the UK with substansial transport. In population, Frankfrut is smaller than Leeds yet it has an underground and tram network.Yep the Germans spend a phenomenal ammount on public transport. We hear a lot about Paris' transport, but Berlins works better, is cleaner and more efficient. I think the Germans policy has been really successful. When people need to drive they can, but very often they will take the cheaper, faster alternative, the train, tram, bus, u-bahn.....Why our Governments walk around with their hands over their eyes on this one is beyond me.

London is lucky that it has the plucky Ken working for it. None of the other candidates would have introduced the congestion charge.

especially not that sleazy conservative candidate... god help us if he got in

I was reading an obviously conservative minded free morning business paper for the City the other day and although the columist slagged off Ken because of his socialist bent they did acknowledge that congestion charging was a brilliant move that was even (to their delight) market-orientated because it rationed a scarce commodity. They even went further and asked why residents within the zone were given a full discount when they were also using this scarce resource and were perversly the wealthiest portion of people in the country, sighting a businessman who drove 80 yards to his workplace!

Oh and yeah London should get more money spent on its infrastructure without the capital we'd be in very big trouble ( you could argue decentralisation etc but its not going to happen so London is out their representing the U.K as our global city against Paris etc ). Have you ever travelled on the Underground? Its a bloody disgrace something needs done, getting around London is a nightmare. Unfortunately years of neglect will cost crazy money to fix. Heathrow and Gatwick alone give so much to the U.K economy, London needs to be kept un good shape.I don't think the Tube is a disgrace at all. Aside from the District/Circle Line it's generally excellent. I'm very proud of the Tube. It's the suburban rail that is in a mess which is why this announcement is so welcome.

i agree with monkey about the suburban rail

especially not that sleazy conservative candidate... god help us if he got in

For a conservative, Steve Norris wasn't that bad, he was pro-gay rights, pro-diversity.

For any Tory to ever dream of winning in London, they would have to be pretty liberal.

I don't think the Tube is a disgrace at all. Aside from the District/Circle Line it's generally excellent. I'm very proud of the Tube. It's the suburban rail that is in a mess which is why this announcement is so welcome.

We'll disagree then. I find the tube is overcrowded ( often cant get on trains as there too full ), the stations are cramped and poorly signposted, its actually dangerous in places during rush hour, the trains are old and dirty and smelly. In the summer the piccadilly line especially is vile and sickingly humid -many times I've seen people faint in trains. I'll admit that outwith Central London the situation is better ( aside from the shite rolloing stock ). Also, have you ever tried carrying luggage on the tube? There is simply nowhere to put it! You Londoners are easily pleased!

Double deck trains dont do much to solve capacity.
They are good for longer distance interurban services with not so many seats. They wouldnt work on many of SE England's lines.
They take a while to load and unload, and sometimes require up to a minute at a station for that.

Sydney's rail network is entirely double decker, and is constantly recording low service reliability.

We'll disagree then. I find the tube is overcrowded ( often cant get on trains as there too full ), the stations are cramped and poorly signposted, its actually dangerous in places during rush hour, the trains are old and dirty and smelly. In the summer the piccadilly line especially is vile and sickingly humid -many times I've seen people faint in trains. I'll admit that outwith Central London the situation is better ( aside from the shite rolloing stock ). Also, have you ever tried carrying luggage on the tube? There is simply nowhere to put it! You Londoners are easily pleased!

Its not that we are easily pleased, but resigned to our fate. Do you think we could persuade the rest of the country to spend billions on the tube rebuilding it, when they moan about £5 being spent on a bus.

Double deck trains dont do much to solve capacity.
They are good for longer distance interurban services with not so many seats. They wouldnt work on many of SE England's lines.
They take a while to load and unload, and sometimes require up to a minute at a station for that.

Sydney's rail network is entirely double decker, and is constantly recording low service reliability.

It does depend on the design. The R-bahns with double deckers in Germany are similar to the Sydney Rail system with doors far apart. This does not lend well to many frequent stops, and boarding/disembarking a train during peak hours can be very difficult.

R-bahn, Germany
http://koti.mbnet.fi/rautatie/saksa03b/images/re2.jpg

Sydney Suburban/commuter
http://www.waterlogic.com.au/theintercityplatform/images/millennium/m8_m9_test-clyde.jpg

However, some of the double deckers on Line A of the RER in Paris, have doors placed very close to each other, and peak hour services every minute or two.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/RER_E_-_Haussmann.jpg

They type of trains that would be required would depend on the type of service, whether they are local trains that stop at all stations, or from further out in the metro area.

The R-bahn trains stop only at major stations, so have the doors placed furthest apart.

It's a pity that London's metro area rail network couldn't accommodate such double decker trains. But then, I suppose neither could Germany's lines until they converted them.

What London and it's MA needs, is a three tire network like Germany. The tube for local urban runs (as exists but with expansion), an S-bahn service for Greater London, including extension to some area's just past the borders such as Slough/Maidenhead, Hemel Hempstead etc - these trains would stop generally at all stations and should pass through the city like Thames link, or use the future Crossrail tunnels. All of the S-bahn lines should be run by the one company and closely linked to the Tube.

Then an R-bahn system that stops only at major stations within the M25 from the surrounding metropolitan area. These R-bahns should also be closely linked to the London Transport mentioned above.

Such systems work very well in other country's.