David Boothroyd wrote:

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.

If they were to apply this thinking also to bus services, we'd
return them towards what they were between 1933 and 1969, when
we had the Country Area of LT. Doubt we'd get the RTs and RFs
back though.


Cheers,
Francis K.

--
[Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.]

Tony Polson wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Journeys have two ends; one end is frequently in central London. How
many journeys start or finish at Victoria versus at Maidstone, or High
Wycombe, or Hatfield? Even if a rail authority proportionally
represented the origins and destinations of all journeys on the South
East rail network, almost half the "seats" would be occupied by
representation of central London; probably over half would be
representatives from inside the GLA, i.e. TfL.



No doubt you live in London, as well as work there. I don't doubt
your sincerity. Neither do I doubt your self-interest, however.

As someone who lives outside London, used to commute daily over a
period of some years, and now still travels into London regularly, I
have a different view. I fully understand your view, I just don't
happen to agree with it.

I see the need for balance between the interests of people living in
London and those outside London who commute, whereas you want the
interests of Londoners to dominate. I am not asking for the views of
commuters from outside London to dominate, merely for them to be
included in a balanced overview.

Perhaps you should make just a tiny bit more effort to understand
others' views, especially those of people whose personal circumstances
differ from your own.

I think you've completely misunderstood my intentions. I never said or
believed that TfL should take over all south eastern rail services!! I
believe that TfL should exercise control over inner surburban services
lying wholly or almost wholly within its remit, such as services to
Watford, Dartford, Chingford, Croydon, Orpington/Sevenoaks, Hampton
Court etc. I do *not* believe that TfL should be given control over
services to Ashford, Cambridge or Southampton for example, as they're a
completely different kettle of fish, and *I understand that*.

You seem to be getting the impression that I'm more self-interested than
I really am. If I were completely self-interested, I wouldn't give a
toss about inner surburban services as I rarely use them.

I was merely being sceptical and playing devil's advocate with regard to
the accountability of a Greater South East rail body mentioned to start
off with. Theoretically, the best representative body for rail services
would be the DfT, controlled by central government to whom we elect
representatives. And look who's taking over control of rail services
shortly!

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

Dave Arquati wrote:

I was merely being sceptical and playing devil's advocate with regard to
the accountability of a Greater South East rail body mentioned to start
off with. Theoretically, the best representative body for rail services
would be the DfT, controlled by central government to whom we elect
representatives. And look who's taking over control of rail services
shortly!


Fair enough. We will leave it at that.


Tony

In article ,
(Tony Polson) wrote:
Ian Jelf wrote:

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

Didn't that get to Exeter, though?!

Yes, but only for sound operational reasons.

You couldn't sensibly operate two separate services (commuter/Inter
City) over the one route in NSE days. Maybe it could be done now?

King's Lynn then? It's part of the Cambridge service and that does include
London commuting. We don't want to be run from London though London-like
public transport rules would be an improvement.

While commuters (including part-time ones like me) go one-way, to central
London, tourists go both ways, in large numbers.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin wrote:
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

Why does that TfL suggested area cover the blue area (low train share
of commutes) at Aylesbury, but not the red area (high train share of
commutes) in South Essex (lines to Southend and Southminster)? stupid!
Can anyone give a good reason why they haven't included these lines,
because I cannot think of any? Also crossrail would go outside of the
boundary, unless there are plans to reduce it even further - just to
Slough. Ebbsfleet is not on it, and neither is a particually yellow/red
patch around Tonbrige - again any suggestions why TfL don't want to
look after these routes?

Anyway I feel that neither of these destinations are "Inner Suburban".
I note that the WCML route only goes as far as Watford, but the ECML
goes as far as Stevenage. It's not consistant really and that what
annoys me most about the extent of the proposals.

I also laugh that, though it's LU, Chesham station would just be
outside of the area - you'd have thought that they would adjust the
line slightly to cover that.

Simon

simon wrote:
Colin wrote:

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

Why does that TfL suggested area cover the blue area (low train share
of commutes) at Aylesbury, but not the red area (high train share of
commutes) in South Essex (lines to Southend and Southminster)? stupid!
Can anyone give a good reason why they haven't included these lines,
because I cannot think of any? Also crossrail would go outside of the
boundary, unless there are plans to reduce it even further - just to
Slough. Ebbsfleet is not on it, and neither is a particually yellow/red
patch around Tonbrige - again any suggestions why TfL don't want to
look after these routes?

Aylesbury is in it because co-ordination of services to Amersham would
include Chiltern services there, all of which extend to Aylesbury.

South Essex is probably outside because those services serve few
destinations inside the GLA area. Generally the boundary has been set so
that stopping services at GLA stations are included; those stopping
services extend outside the GLA boundary to the places marking the TfL
London Rail boundary.

Anyway I feel that neither of these destinations are "Inner Suburban".
I note that the WCML route only goes as far as Watford, but the ECML
goes as far as Stevenage. It's not consistant really and that what
annoys me most about the extent of the proposals.

I also laugh that, though it's LU, Chesham station would just be
outside of the area - you'd have thought that they would adjust the
line slightly to cover that.

Since this is a London Rail area, Chesham isn't included because it's a
London Underground-only service!

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