On Thursday, 28 December 2017 14:57:38 UTC, Robin9 wrote:

Two points:

TfL's operations also extend to Epping which is way outside
the Greater London Area. Does the 60+ pass extend to Epping?
My Freedom Pass does. It also allows me to go to Cheshunt as
long as I use TfL Rail.

TfL's empire building refers primarily to the ambition to take
control of suburban services in South London, even though
that would inevitably have a huge impact on services from
further afield. It also takes in their determination to have a
major say in the allocation of train paths between Paddington
and Reading. I haven't bothered to keep up, but several months
ago I did come across some blogs where Berkshire commuters
were indignant about TfL's territorial ambitions.

Although instinctively reluctant to be generous to TfL, I do assume
they were not party to Mr. Khan's ludicrous suggestion some time
ago that he should take over the Southern services as he had
some magical mediating skills which could resolve the dispute
over guards.
--
Robin9

As I made clear there are is some validity that stretches beyond the GL boundary for longstanding historical reasons. Freedom Passes have been valid to Dartford for a very long time and long before PAYG was extended there and without TfL having any say in the train service that reaches Dartford.

Places like the Watford line have long had LT / LU / TfL involvement by virtue of former through working of services. Those arrangements have been refined where TfL have subsequently been granted specification / procurement rights for some of the rail services. I assume TfL and London Councils have reached agreement that the current F Pass can stretch to these cross boundary points as usual volumes are very low and revenue foregone is similarly low and not material to the overall funding settlement. With Crossrail to the west we face a rather different situation as the fare revenue foregone could be high if even moderate numbers were to use a "free" pass given the much higher fares to places like Twyford and Reading.

I am afraid I am going to be my usual picky self and say it is not TfL that have the "empire building ambitions". It is Mayors from the two main parties that have held such ambitions because the Mayoralty has been granted a wider area of influence over rail services. They do this for the obvious reasons of power and influence plus a belief they can secure better services.. The revenue would also be a nice add on to TfL's coffers. TfL only ever does what the Mayor requires which is why we have monstrous NB4L buses, a pointless cable car and why Ken Livingstone annoyed generations of bus loons by scrapping Routemasters. TfL implemented those Mayoral policies regardless of the wider issues. Just read the transcripts from the recent Garden Bridge investigation where both Peter Hendy and Mike Brown explain precisely how things work in the current structure. The only stuff that *has* to get done is what is in Mayoral manifestos. The fact a transport service also operates 364 days a year is incidental.

It is worth pointing out that courtesy of Heathrow Airport acting like an extortion racket over access to Heathrow via their rail tunnels that TfL, City Hall and the DfT all ended up on the same page over Crossrail issues in West London. Now that a settlement has been reached over Heathrow access it is notable that what followed is an outbreak of agreement between the Mayoralty and the DfT about granting extra running rights to Reading. This seemingly worked to DfT's satisfaction or else why on earth would a Grayling led DfT ever concede anything to a Labour run City Hall? He has plenty of form for blocking every rail devolution idea the current Mayor has had (even the ludicrous one you cite re Southern). I would also argue that if you rip funding away from TfL as George Osborne did then what on earth do you expect people to do to fill the gap? They will naturally look for opportunities to add services and responsibilities that allow new revenues to be gained and new sources of investment funding to be drawn on. That (IMO) partly sits behind the long held desire to take on South London's suburban rail network and also in wanting to run a much higher service level on Crossrail than originally envisaged. It all boils down to power and ££££s.

--
Paul C
via Google