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
Corrected version:

The taxpayers and fare payers of the home counties are responsible for
London's wealth creation. Their taxes and fares pay for the rail
networks, and then some. It is time they had some say in how their
money is spent. Moreover they are overdue some comfort during their
daily commute.

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