London Overground expansion
 

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:33:44 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:05:19 +0000, 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?

No. The only aim is to take in those areas contributing to London's
wealth because of their high commuter quotient. Commuters in these
areas will be impacted by the "Mayor's" mishigas, but have no control
over it.

Southampton and Portsmouth are now unitary authorities, within
Hampshire, but outwith the ambit of Hampshire's authority.

The City of Westminster is easily as significant as Southampton. But,
Westminster has the tax burden and authority of the mayor's office
imposed on it.

The only role the regional authority provides, that Westminster cannot
in isolation, is transit. But, the moving of people does NOT end at
London's regional boundaries.

So why not drop the nonsense of the London regional authority. But,
for travel and transit body purposes have a body covering SE Commuter
land.

The London Boroughs are perfectly capable of functioning as Unitary
Authorities.

They did for a few years and some of them demonstrated they couldn't
do it properly.

OTOH, the movement of people is an issue they share with
the surrounding counties and municipalities.

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.

SWT do pretty well. I am a very satisfied customer. We do not need
our service on the south coast disrupting by London Overground's
antics in metropolis.

London Overground expansion
 

On 21/01/2016 19:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:32:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 21/01/2016 16:25, 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.


Middlesex and Surrey are many counties?

and Kent, Essex, London and Hertfordshire


Only bits of those, the counties remain, and remain antagonistic to
further encroachments by the Great Wen.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Overground expansion
 

Robin9 wrote:

Roland Perry;153380 Wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/jo9jopt
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?
--
Roland Perry

Is there any reason to assume that TfL/London Overground
can do a better job than the current franchise holders?

I know the present service is far better and passenger numbers
far greater than was the case during the Silverlink period; but
have those improvements been the result of unusual aptitudes
and skills? Is it not the case that heavy investment - and access
to funds - is the main reason things have improved? Is there any
evidence to suggest that TfL/London Overground have more
management skill, knowledge and understanding than their
counterparts among the current TOCs?

Why should we believe that handing all these services over to
London Overground will make things better?

The services would still be run by private operators, as LO is now, but
with much closer supervision and consistent standards than happens with
larger TOCs with little interest in metro routes. LO also generally runs
more frequent services, for more of the day, better promoted, and with
better revenue protection.

Incidentally, LO's routes now extend well beyond the old Silverlink
services, and I think some of those have also seen big improvements in
patronage once the LO effect was seen. For examples, hasn't the South
London line usage also improved a lot since it was transferred to LO?

London Overground expansion
 

On 21/01/2016 19:24, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:41:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

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.

Kent, specifically two parts of Woolwich (i.e. North Woolwich and
another nearby bit whose name I can't recall ATM).

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.

Only the county authority was abolished, the geographical area
remained and is still recognised except by those who wish to describe
everything in SE England as some kind of oblast/arrondissement of
London.


And of course the HQ of Surrey Council is in a London Borough.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

London Overground expansion
 

On 21/01/2016 16:02, Tim Watts wrote:

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


The thinktank report the other day said it should be automated...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

London Overground expansion
 

On 21/01/2016 15:01, Basil Jet wrote:

I am amazed that government bodies are basically saying to our face
"Some people have made themselves a bit unwelcome in Cologne and other
parts of Germany so they are all going to invade Britain instead" and
no-one bats an eyelid because we all just coo-coo over the new trainset.

The population thing has been appearing in TfL announcements for some
time now.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

London Overground expansion
 

"Recliner" wrote

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.

"entirely absorbed"

Not so, thus Surrey got Sunbury, Shepperton, Ashford and Staines;
Hertfordshire got Potters Bar and in further changes Berkshire got Poyle.

For extra credit, point out the bit of Surrey that was north of the Thames
before these changes.


--
Mike D

London Overground expansion
 

On 2016\01\22 01:12, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

For extra credit, point out the bit of Surrey that was north of the
Thames before these changes.

Felix Lane?

London Overground expansion
 

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2016\01\21 17:32, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/01/2016 16:25, Basil Jet wrote:

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.

Middlesex and Surrey are many counties?

Havering etc are from Essex
Hendon etc are from Middlesex
Barnet (the town, not the borough) is from Herts
Greenwich etc are from the County Of London
Bromley etc are from Kent
Sutton etc are from Surrey
Ely Place in Holborn was an exclave of Cambridgeshire until 1965.

I'm not sure if any of Bucks or Berks made it in.. certainly not much.

None at all.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Overground expansion
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

There is NOTHING in the DfT / TfL consultation document that says TfL
will take over any service that reaches Hampshire. NOTHING. Therefore
people who are wittering on about the evils of Greater London should
stop and perhaps read the paperwork and what the intention is. Medium
and longer distance services would remain within the DfT's remit. The
SoS retains the final say over everything on National Rail even if TfL
gain responsibility for procuring the operator of inner area services.
The whole premise is a *Partnership* between DfT and TfL but DfT has
the final say. Everyone in the media has run away with the idea of an
unfettered TfL takeover and that is NOT what is planned. Quite the
opposite from what I can see from reading the paperwork. It's all
very carefully worded, all very tentative and with barely a firm
commitment anywhere.

Here's a direct and relevant quote from the document.

"Hand-in-hand with the London Suburban Metro must go improvements to
services that connect the Capital and the wider South East. A guiding
principle is that train paths used by outer-London services would be
unaffected by the London Suburban Metro and options to increase their
capacity will be explored too."

"Indeed, improvements on inner suburban routes will free up space for
more and faster services to and from the rest of the South East. For
example, in the long term, constructing Crossrail 2 would move inner
suburban services onto new tracks, potentially leaving the main lines
into London clearer for enhanced services from Surrey, Hampshire,
Hertfordshire and Essex. "

I'm not terribly convinced by these proposals because they are
inevitably compromised. There are no funding commitments. The
intention to consult with every political body imaginable over the
train service specification is a potential recipe for chaos,
compromise and "who shouts loudest" decision making. Worse if any of
the parties are providing funding for their pet initiative. So much
for relying on the competence of transport experts.

I also see it as a political move in the context of the London
Mayoralty and whoever is the next Mayor will find themselves trapped
within the constraints of this initiative. It'll be worse if you're
the Mayor of the political opponents of whoever is in Government. The
scope for battles and argument and disagreement is writ large in these
arrangements. There also remains the insistence of the DfT that
passengers fund a greater share of the railway and that surpluses are
directed to fund improvements. Also there are rules that decisions in
Greater London can't screw up fares for those outside. Therefore no
cliff edge changes in fares at boundaries. No scope there for fare
cuts - ever!

In line with the current government's policies devolution means one
thing only - moving responsibility for failure away from Whitehall.
The second element of the strategy is the removal of funding
responsibility from Whitehall wholly to local areas (but unlikely in
London's case because Govt has to retain ability to redistribute
London's wealth everywhere else). If I was a local politician I
wouldn't be agreeing to devolution under Osborne's terms.

I'd like to have seen a cleaner split of responsibilities about
services and less tangling with every echelon of political influence.
The only way this works is with minimal but efficient interfaces, a
lot of funding and a lot of time. I suspect the public's expectations
of instant improvements will cause massive disappointment and problems
for TfL because you can't deliver instant improvement. It takes years
and years to do anything of substance. Even a timetable change takes 2
years unless you are fixing a mess of your own making (as with
Southern and C2C in recent times).

LOUD AND PROLONGED APPLAUSE

--
Colin Rosenstiel