skip to main | skip to sidebar

London Reconnections

Blogging on transport projects and transport issues
in and around London. If you are interested in contributing, please email me at
[email-masked]

Friday, 20 November 2009

The
South London Line In Parliament

Last week saw Simon Hughes and Martin
Linton bring up the question of the South London Line in Parliament. Although it
doesn't really add hugely to the debate, the dialogue between themselves and
Chris Mole, representing the Department for Transport, does neatly set out some
of the perspectives on both sides of the SLL debate. With this in mind, I
believe it's worth summarising it here.

As the parliamentary
representative for North Southwark and Bermondsey, Simon Hughes' interest in the
fate of the South London Line is easy to understand. His stated aim here was to
secure confirmation from the DfT that they would not oppose a solution to the
South London Line problem, assuming funding could be found. As he confessed, it
may seem an issue of negligable importance in the grand scheme of things, but at
a local level he believed it had serious ramifications.

I accept that it is not in the same league as ending the nuclear
arms race [the discussion before this one], but for people who live and work
in or visit this great capital city of ours, the future of the South London
line is very important.

Hughes began his arguments with a point
that will be familiar to many South Londoners:

Those of us who have represented south London for a while have had
many battles about transport. I was reflecting earlier on a debate that
occurred when I was first elected, in which Lynda Chalker — now Baroness
Chalker—was a Transport Minister. I remember that she conceded that south-east
London was a white hole on the London transport map and that we needed to do
something about it. In those days, the first battle was to persuade London
Underground, as it then was, to extend the Bakerloo line down to New Cross to
connect with the East London line, and to extend the Northern line down to
Camberwell. Both of those extensions seemed entirely logical to everyone — the
space was available and there were old railway lines at the Bricklayers Arms
yards — but we lost those opportunities, which was a mistake, as the
congestion on our roads and buses ever since has shown. I am keen to ensure
that we do not lose another opportunity to sustain the level of train and rail
services, especially given the changed pattern of services.

Both
Hughes and Linton (MP for Battersea) then stressed that they felt that while
South London possesed much in the way of infrastructure, too often long-distance
commuters received priority upon it, rather than services that would benefit
South Londoners. Hughes highlighted the number of local stations that have
disappeared in the South as evidence of this:

This morning at the Armistice day service in Bermondsey, someone
who had heard that I would be having this debate asked me, "Are you also
campaigning to make sure that the Spa Road station is reopened?" There used to
be more stations like that one, and one of the great battles of recent years
has been trying to get the train services to service the people of our
communities and not just to pass through, over or under us. I have some
suggestions on ways we can ensure that it does not happen
again.

Hughes continued by highlighting other projects that,
over the years, he felt had short-changed (or attempted to short change) South
London. The Jubilee Line received a mention:

the proposal that was the main runner was for the line to run from
Waterloo to
London Bridge and then directly to Canary Wharf without
stopping anywhere in between. That case required private legislation, and I am
happy to say that I blocked it for long enough to achieve what was needed. I
later saw a memo that said something like, "If we don’t give in to the local
MP, we're never going to get this line at all." So I think that the most
prized success of my political life has been winning two extra tube stations —
one in Southwark and one in Bermondsey — at a cost of £25 million each. They
are very valued stations, and it would have been a nonsense to have a tube
line extension that did not stop to serve the local business and resident
communities, and visitors. Fortunately, we were successful.

He
also highlighted the battles that have taken place over the East London Line
over the years, and both the need for it to be rebuilt and expanded into the
Overground line it soon will be, and the extension to be built as part of Phase
2.

Finally, Hughes highlighted the current Thameslink project, and its
effects on both the style and substance of Borough Market and the need to catch
night services from St Pancras.

Ultimately, Hughes' claimed, his argument
was simple:

I do not accept that as a result of Thameslink, all services on
the South London line should finish because it is impossible to accommodate
them at London Bridge. I know the lay-out of London Bridge and I understand
the arguments — it needs more through track and through platforms and fewer
terminus platforms—but I do not think it impossible in engineering or
structural terms to continue the service. That would mean that people starting
at Victoria or any other stop on the line could carry on around the same line
to London Bridge, or vice versa. That is important because clearly, people who
live and work in my constituency or visit it find it more convenient to use
one train than to change trains, with all the uncertainty that that always
produces.

I argue, therefore, that rather than promising a service that
will always connect - because, with the best will in the world, it does not
always connect—it is better to keep the existing good service, even if it does
not run as frequently as it does currently. If people know that there is a
regular service twice, three times or four times an hour, they can organise
their lives accordingly. If people know that it is more frequent during rush
hour than the rest of the day and on weekdays than at weekends, they can
organise their lives.

Hughes claimed that there were three
good reasons for keeping the South London Line in some form.

Firstly,
that boroughs such as Southwark and Bermondsey are likely to see major
population growth over the coming years.

Secondly, he argues that a
direct service between London Bridge, South Bermondsey and Denmark Hill (which
he points out has recently been refurbished) is important due to the number of
Hospitals this route covers:

[Denmark Hill] is the station for King’s College hospital and the
Maudsley hospital. London Bridge is the station for Guy’s hospital. Both serve
the university partnership, with the students and those who teach them, at
Guy’s and St. Thomas’s and King’s. There are huge numbers of patients, plus
all those pursuing their academic life. The numbers of patients are almost
unexpectedly high. There are 2 million patients locally, and a potential 5
million patients using the hospitals, as they are specialist teaching
hospitals. The Maudsley, with its Institute of Psychiatry, is the premier
psychiatric hospital in the country, and Guy’s is hugely busy internationally
as well as nationally. We are talking about very large numbers indeed. For
those people, the South London line is important, particularly for the
mentally ill, physically ill or disabled. Changing trains or finding access to
stations difficult adds to the burden, risk and difficulty or puts people off
altogether, and they resort to other, more expensive forms of transport such
as their own private car or a cab.

Thirdly, Hughes claims that
the presence of Millwall FC should be taken into consideration:

the New Den is at South Bermondsey, and is used regularly.
Millwall, happily, are doing fantastically well again, having just won in the
cup on Monday, and they are shooting back up to the top of their league. It is
also used for other events, not just football. It would be nonsense if we cut
off people’s direct access to such an important venue.

Linton
then built on Hughes' arguments by pointing out that the removal of the SLL
would leave Wandsworth Road without a direct link to Victoria, and leave
Battersea Park without a direct connection to the SLL stations.

Linton's
main argument was that this could be avoided through selective door operation
(of course, it is probably fair to say that this is an oversimplification):

Service into Victoria from all of them could be accommodated
easily provided that Network Rail got over its embarrassment at having
selective door opening so close to Victoria. That seems to be the only reason
holding it back grom continuing a direct link to Victoria from those
stations.

Hughes then returned to the debate, and
highlighted that although the publicised Options study - exploring possible
alternatives to the SLL - was underway and would be finalised shortly, it was
important to keep any discussion of possible options focussed on finding a
solution that maintained a connection to all stations on the loop, if it was in
any way possible.

It was Chris Mole, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Transport who was tasked with provided the DfT's response to the
comments made by Hughes and Linton. He was blunt and to the point - he
highlighted that the South London Line comprised two services at 30 minute
intervals that ran as two carriage formations off peak and four carriage at
peak. Only Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street, he pointed out, are not
served by alternate services already. He then commented on the usage figures for
SLL Services

These services on the South London Line, although busy in peak
periods, do not have a material crowding problem. Indeed, the latest
"passenger in excess of capacity" figures for autumn 2008 show fewer
passengers than overall capacity on all trains.

Chris Mole
then moved on to highlighting the inate problems upgrading London Bridge
presented to maintaining all existing services to the station:

It is simply not possible to rebuild a Victorian station that is
situated on a viaduct in a congested part of central London without some
disruption to services. We all recognise that that reduction in the number of
services that can operate into London Bridge is not ideal but, as they say, it
is simply not possible to make an omelette without breaking some
eggs.

Mole then laid out in simple terms the original
post-SLL plans:

The original plan, as consulted on by Network Rail as part of the
South London route utilisation strategy—or RUS—document, was to divert the
South London line service away from London Bridge. That would have created a
new Victoria to Bellingham service south of Catford, where sidings exist to
allow trains on that service to terminate.

The reason for the diversion
of the South London line between Peckham Rye and London Bridge is that that
line carries the smallest number of passengers into London Bridge of all the
services into London Bridge. Typically in the morning peak period, some 350
people are on each of the South London line trains arriving at London Bridge
between 8 am and 9 am. The evening peak loadings are significantly lower than
that.

I recognise that changes to these services will consequently
impact on these current users. However, similar train services into London
Bridge carry more than double the number of passengers compared with the South
London line, and South London Line passengers from Peckham Rye, Queen’s Road
Peckham, and South Bermondsey will have other services that they can use,
which operate from the East Dulwich corridor. For example, South Bermondsey
would still have six trains an hour to London Bridge at peak times and four
trains an hour in off-peak times.

Although it was recognised that links
between South London line stations west of Peckham Rye and London Bridge would
be cut, journeys would still be possible via a change of train at Peckham Rye
or Queens Road, Peckham, and that is without having to change
platform.

As to why those plans would now not be carried out.
Mole was again concise and to the point - and also clearly indicated who the DfT
felt should carry any burden of blame (bolding mine).

It was the Department's intention to implement a Victoria to
Bellingham service in late 2012 in place of the existing Victoria to London
Bridge service. The service changes made by TfL now mean that such a
replacement strategy will not be implemented as originally planned. The
changes were made at the request of the Mayor and
TfL.

Mole then went into some detail describing the
background to the ELL Extension Phase 2, beginning with what could perhaps be
interpretted as a subtle dig from the DfT on the issue of transport
priorities:

I turn now to the East London line extension phase 2 to Clapham
Junction. The south London route utilisation strategy highlighted the
potential benefits that the extension of the East London line to Clapham
Junction would bring to this area of south London in providing new orbital
links to and from south, west, east, north and north-east London and reducing
passenger congestion on London Bridge while rebuilding works were under way.
However, despite a significant increase in the budget made available to them
in recent years, TfL and the Mayor did not believe that the £75 million scheme
was affordable within the TfL budget. That reflected the priority that the
Mayor gave to this scheme against other transport improvements in
London.

Mole continued:

The Department recognised that the East London line would deliver
some additional benefits to passengers, and therefore accepted the
responsibility to fund a £19 million addition to Network Rail’s borrowings to
fund works on the national rail network. It also supplied a further £20
million increase to TfL’s overall grant to fund part of the East London line
project and help fund other transport schemes in London. I understand that
around £15 million of that was earmarked for the East London
line.

It was at this point, Mole claimed, that TfL approached
the DfT and requested the decision be made that would ultimately lead to the
current sitution:

TfL therefore proposed to fill the funding gap by withdrawing the
replacement South London line service to Bellingham in its entirety from late
2012, with the money saved being diverted towards the capital costs of the
East London line extension. The cost savings over 10 years for not operating
this service were £24 million, which the Department agreed to provide to
TfL.

Put simply, as far as the DfT was (and indeed one assumes
remains) concerned. The decision was TfL's and TfL's alone. Something Mole then
elaborated on further:

TfL made the judgment that the East London line service to Clapham
Junction provided better overall benefits than the South London line to
Bellingham. As London’s transport planning body, it is entirely appropriate
that it should make that judgment and assess the trade-offs between the
different service proposals, especially as the service operates solely within
the zone 2 boundary.

TfL analysis showed that some 12 million people
would use the second phase of the East London line, compared with 5 million
who would use the Bellingham service.

The DfT's points made,
Linton asked what he regarded as a simple question - did the DfT believe that it
would be a simple matter to restore service to several stations be adding stops
to existing services.

Mole, in reply, indicated that there were a number
of options under consideration, but once again returned to what appeared to be
the DfT's simple, and brutal, point. Options may exist, but they are not the
DfT's decision to make:

The decision not to implement the proposed London Victoria to
Bellingham service was requested by TfL and the Mayor. Implementing both the
Bellingham service and the East London line would have been ideal. TfL and the
Mayor judged that the East London line extension provided more benefits than
the South London line and decided to use funds allocated to a replacement
Victoria to Bellingham service to finance a shortfall in funding allocated by
the Mayor to the East London line. As a result, central Government will be
funding over three quarters of the overall budget for the scheme, with the
Mayor funding around £17 million.

The DfT would approach
Southeastern on TfL's behalf, he indicated, to raise the question of the
possibility of adding stops to services run under that Franchise but the DfT's
attitude would remain the same:

Let me be clear. Funding in forthcoming years will be tight and we
would expect TfL to fund any additional services, given that the Victoria to
Bellingham service would have maintained these links and that TfL requested
that that service should not be implemented.

This, effectively,
marked the end of the debate. Mole finished by pointing out that whilst services
to the Hospitals named by Simon Hughes would indeed be affected, other
improvements already underway in the area - including the ELL line - would
compensite for these.

Thus, with the attitudes of both Parliamentary
Members and the DfT clearly laid out, the debate ended. Concurrent with this
meeting, a delegation from the London Assembly and the Mayor were in discussion
with Mole's colleague at the DfT, Sadiq Khan, over possible options. Val
Shawcross indicated afterwards that this had been a relatively fruitful
discussion and the DfT had seemed open to ideas.

If Mole's comments in
Parliament are any guide, however, it seems there are two areas which the DfT
are likely to be more closed on - funding and blame.

Posted by John Bull at 13:23
6
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
DfT, ell,
sll, tfl

Thursday, 19 November 2009

New
ELL Footbridge

Daimler_fan has kindly passed on some photos of
the new footbridge at Trundley's Terrace/Oldfield Grove. The original was
removed as part of the early ELL works and it's good to see that access across
the line will soon be restored (if, indeed, it hasn't opened already).

Posted by John Bull at 23:05
7
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
ell

Monday, 16 November 2009

In
Pictures: 38 Debendification

Did any readers commute on one this
morning?

the warning signs
last week, courtesy anonymous MMS sender

Replacements at the Lea Bridge roundabout yesterday,
courtesy of me on the way to the pub.

On the inside,
courtesy of my Missus earlier today.

Pulling up to the bus stop this morning, courtesy of
my Missus

Posted by John Bull at 12:56
28
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
buses

Friday, 13 November 2009

Oyster
PAYG On National Rail From Jan 2nd

London Reconnections understands that the
current intention is to have Oyster PAYG in place on National Rail services from
the 2nd January 2010. This is obviously
good news, but will also mean some changes to the way Oyster works –
particularly for Season Ticket Holders.

Oyster Extension Permits

Before looking
at fares, it's worth drawing attention to a new element of Oyster ticketing that
this change will usher in for Season Ticket holders – Oyster Extension Permits.

When Will I Need One?

From the 2nd
of January, if you have a season ticket on your Oyster Card, you will need to
charge it with an “Oyster Extension Permit” if you wish to make a journey via
National Rail services that will take you outside your paid-for zones. In this
context, “National Rail” effectively means “non-TfL” - so no OEP is required for
travel on the Overground.

So, essentially, if all three of following are
true:

You are starting your journey “inside your zones”

Your final destination is “outside your zones”

You will, at any point, be travelling on a service that ISN'T part of the
London Underground or London Overground

You will need to acquire an
Oyster Extension Permit before tapping in
to begin your journey. If you don't have an OEP, then you will be liable for a penalty fare if you happen
to have the misfortune to bump into a National Rail ticket inspector outside of
your zones.

So, to give some examples, lets assume (um... hypothetically) that for the purpose of these
examples this author is a Hackney resident with a Zone 1-2 Oyster Season
Ticket:

Rectory Road – Liverpool Street: journey is on National Rail, but purely
within zones so no OEP required.

Rectory Road – Enfield Town: journey starts “in zone” and finishes
outside. NR services all the way. OEP required.

Hackney Central – Stratford: journey starts “in zone” and finishes
outside. TfL services all the way. No OEP Required.

Bethnal Green – Enfield Town via Liverpool Street: journey starts “in
zone” on Tube, changes to NR services and requires leaving zones. OEP
required.

How Will They
Work?

OEPs themselves are free but (and it's potentially a very big but) they
will only be available at places that already sell Oyster top-ups. So you'll be able
to get one in any TfL-run station, but - to use the above Rectory Road example
again – if I wanted to make the second example journey above and didn't already
have an OEP on my Oyster Card, I would need to find a nearby newsagent that sold
Oyster top-ups in order to get one added to my card. I wouldn't be able to get
one in Rectory Road station itself.

Also, whilst OEPs themselves are
free, in order to have an OEP added to your Oyster card, you will also need a
minimum PAYG balance on the card of £1.50 – this is because OEPs aren't really a
ticket (they don't carry or contribute to your fare), they are effectively
simply an electronic “permit to travel.”

In expiry terms, OEPs are
effectively “one shot” - the OEP is removed the first time you tap out outside
your zones. They do not, however, carry a time-linked expiry. This means that
one can be added to an Oyster Card at any point and it will not expire until it
is either used, or removed by a member of staff. LR also understands that only
one OEP can exist on an Oyster Card at any given time.

The Fares

From the 2nd, there will be
three different fare-scales that apply on Oyster – “National Rail only,” “TfL
and National Rail” and “TfL only.”

Broadly speaking, the rate for
National Rail travel will be half that of an Off-Peak Return rounded down to the
nearest 10p – this generally makes it a little bit cheaper than the equivalent
single paper fare.

The fare tables below are taken from the Fares
document
presented to the London Assembly in October and are, we understand,
accurate.

When reading these tables, you'll notice Zones W and G making
an appearance. W is Watford Junction via London Midland services and G is
Purfleet, Rainham, Grays and Chafford Hundred (all C2C stations).

National Rail
Only

TfL and National
Rail

Tfl
Only

The other fare-related change is in the initial charge made to an
Oyster Card on tapping in. This changed a couple of months back from being a
minimum fare to a maximum one, and this is set to continue under the new January
fares.

Basically, to use an example, a Travelcard holder currently
tapping in outside their zone has £2.80 deducted from their card balance. This
is equivalent to the charge for a zone 1-4 fare, and is – broadly speaking – the
maximum any travelcard holder is likely to pay for their travelcard extension.
Upon tapping out, the balance of the card is updated, refunding whatever sum is
required to “correct” the fare.

From January, this will be true for both
PAYG and Travelcard holders starting a journey outside their zone, with the
Travelcard charge jumping to £4.20 - the appropriate value for a TfL and
National Rail Zone 1-4 fare.

BorisWatch
and 853
both have some interesting posts on these fares, which are worth a read
(BorisWatch also
have graphs).

Obviously both the issue of OEPs and the fares
themselves open up lots of questions [and I'm
looking forward to the discussions in the comments - JB]. Unfortunately
answers to many of them aren't currently available – this post has been confined
to information that we have been able to confirm.

Hopefully more
information will become available once an official announcement concerning
National Rail appears from TfL

Posted by John Bull at 22:50
87
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
National Rail, news, oyster, tfl

Thursday, 12 November 2009

DLR:
3 Car Trains and Footbridges

Apparently its not just the MOD who leave
things on trains. A staff briefing note for the upcoming DLR Bank blockade,
which turned up on a DLR train last night, contains an update on the 3-Car
project. This appears to suggest that the current plan is to begin operating
3-Car services immediately after the blockade. The current plan appears to be
for 3-Car units to enter passenger service from Monday 25th January 2010 onwards, with the
first services running between Bank and Lewisham on weekdays.

Obviously
the above will no doubt be subject to change, but at the very least it
demonstrates that we're likely to see 3-Car services sooner rather than
later.

In other DLR news the footbridge at Stratford has now reopened as
well, which is good news.

Thanks to
Phil J and RB for the spots.

Posted by John Bull at 11:34
6
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
DLR

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

The
End of the Bendy 38

According to signage on the route, this
weekend marks another major change in the London Transport Landscape - on
Saturday the 14th, double-deckers will replace Bendy-buses on the 38 bus
route.

According to London Bus Routes, a mixed
fleet of 72 buses will replace the existing Bendies on the route. For those
interested, the fleet composition will apparently be 56 10.4m DB300/Gemini 2 DLs
and 16 9.9m Trident/Enviro400s.

As part of the change (and to compensate
for the lower capacity of the buses), service frequency will be increased to
every 2-3 minutes Monday to Friday during peak hours, 3-4 minutes Monday to
Saturday during shopping hours, and 5 minutes during Sunday shopping hours and
daily early evenings.

On the downside (if you're a Clapton resident at
least) alternate 38s will now terminate at Hackney Central on Mondays to Fridays
(except evenings). This is in line with the recommendations made in the Bus
Consultation carried out by KPMG earlier this year, where it was indicated this
would lead to a unit saving overall.

The changeover on the 38 will
arguably represent a major test of the Mayor's debendification strategy. Even
with the issues of load times and capacity set aside, Amhurst Road and the
Narrow Way in Hackney are both highly susceptable to bus-jams already, and even
early termination of the extra 38s will do little to help mitigate that (they'll
still need to turn). It'll be interesting to see what happens next
week.

Thanks to MD for the spot.

Posted by John Bull at 13:50
21
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
buses

Saturday, 7 November 2009

Oyster
PAYG on Victoria - Balham Services From Tomorrow

From Sunday, travellers will be able to use
Oyster PAYG on Southern services from Balham, Wandsworth Common, Clapham
Junction and Battersea Park to London Victoria.

Confirmation of this can
be found on
the Southern website here. Sadiq Khan also makes mention of it in his latest
email to Tooting constituents, which makes interesting reading.

To steal
a phrase from Railway Eye, "Sadiq
says":

From Sunday people travelling from Balham and Wandsworth Common
(and Clapham Junction) to London Victoria will be able to use Oyster
Pay-as-you-go - which is great news and something I have been campaigning for
since I was elected in 2005.

It should mean shorter queues for tickets
in the morning, cheaper journeys and greater convenience
all-round.

There's been a lot of work done behind the scenes (including
a financial contribution from my Department for Transport) in recent months to
get all of London's train operating companies on board, but we're finally
there. I'll hopefully have good news for residents near Earlsfield Station
too!

Thanks to Anonymous and AG for
the spots

Posted by John Bull at 09:17
21
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
oyster, Southern, tfl

Wednesday, 4 November 2009

Kings
Cross Ticket Hall Opens 29th November

If First
Capital Connect are to be believed, London Underground's new Kings Cross
Ticket Hall opens on the 29th of this month.

This won't mark the full
completion - the step-free works will continue until the middle of next year -
but it's certainly a major milestone.

First's press release helpfully
includes a fly-through video (which I've included at the foot of this post) and
the map below (which I've blown up).

They've also provided a breakdown of the estimated time-savings
for interchanging between Thameslink and FCC services out of platforms 9, 10 and
11. It'll be interesting to see how accurate these turn out to be.

From Thameslink/St Pancras platforms

Piccadilly line: 5 mins 40 secs (currently 8 mins)

Victoria line : 7 mins (currently 8 mins)

Northern line: 5 mins 50 secs (currently 9 mins 30 secs)

Circle, Metropolitan & Hammersmith and City lines: 4 mins (route
doesn’t change)

From Platforms 9,
10 & 11

Piccadilly line: 4 mins 30 secs (currently 6 mins – or up to 11 mins if
station entrance temporarily closed in the morning rush hour)

Victoria line: 6 mins (no change – but currently can be up to 11 mins if
station entrance temporarily closed in the morning rush hour)

Northern line: 4 mins 40 secs (currently 7 mins – or up to 12 mins if
station entrance temporarily closed in the morning rush hour)

Finally,
for those who have not seen it before, the flythrough video:

Thanks to U
Thant for the spot.

Posted by John Bull at 11:36
21
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
construction projects, kings cross, tfl

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

New
Online Lost Property System Inbound

Computing are reporting that Software
Developers PDMS have picked up a contract to develop a new Management System for
TfL's Lost Property services.

Public Sector software development is a
notoriously tricky business, largely due to the difficulties the tendering
process presents to projects that by their nature require a certain degree of
scope flexibility (at least that's been this author's experience on both sides
of the process). PDMS picked up an award last year for their work on the NHS'
Pharmacy software, however, and TfL have a well-deserved reputation for being on
the ball when it comes to software - particularly for the web. With any luck
this will increase the chances that the new system is a success. The timetable
attached to the project is certainly an ambitious one - the intention is
apparently to have the new system in place by the middle of 2010.

The
most notable change for commuters and travellers with the introduction of the
new software will apparently be the addition of new Online Lost Property
services. According to Reuters, it will be possible to register lost items
online, as well as search for them amongst the items TfL already
hold.

Given that TfL currently collect upwards of 200,000 items of lost
property a year (a figure that is only likely to grow with the arrival of the
Olympics), the online service seems likely to face some serious usability issues
("your search for 'black umbrella' returned 27,000 results") and it'll be
interesting to see how it tackles them. Again, TfL have a relatively good
reputation in this area, which is likely to help.

Overall, therefore,
it'll be interesting to see what comes of the project. Whether it helps
streamline the Lost Property process for both sides remains to be seen, but at
the very least its online search may prove an interesting gateway for those
curious to find out what mysterious and unusual lost objects lurk in the
Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-esque store-rooms of TfL.

Posted by John Bull at 09:45
4
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
tfl

Monday, 2 November 2009

The
Post-Metronet Management Structure

The DfT put out a statement at the end of
last week, confirming the arrangements for the management of the BCV and SSL
contracts post-Metronet.

The Department confirmed that, for the
foreseeable future at least, the responsiblity for managing the maintenance and
renewal contracts on the Metronet lines will remain with London Underground.
This arrangement reflects the findings of the Joint Steering Committee (on which
LUL, TfL, the DfT and the Treasury all sat) commissioned to evaluate the
post-Metronet options.

The decision not to throw the contracts back out
under a new PPP arrangement is one that will probably be greeted with
substantial enthusiasm within LUL and TfL, but it does come at a price (so to
speak) - as part of the deal, TfL have agreed to a shake-up of their
accountability structure.

Going forward, a new committee will be
appointed with the responsibility for scrutinising the entirety of the TfL investment programme -
including all maintenance, renewal, upgrades and major projects.

The
members of this committee will come from a shortlist of nominees drawn up by the
Mayor and TfL, with the final appointments agreed with the Secretary of State.
The terms of reference for the committee will also be agreed by both the
Secretary of State and the Mayor.

This committee will then report
directly to the TfL Board and, in the words of Lord Adonis himself will:

...be able to review all aspects of project delivery including
cost and programme deliverability. It will also review delivery of the
investment programme at a portfolio level, including management and
organisational capability and the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of
delivery of the investment programme. The panel will report its findings
directly to the TfL board, which will also receive a TfL management response
setting out how the issues raised have been or will be dealt with. The panel
will commission other reports as it or the TfL board consider appropriate. It
will publish an annual report making overall conclusions on the delivery of
the investment programme.
In addition to all this, LUL themselves
will also be required to be more accountable to TfL with regards to the delivery
of upgrades, including the identification of "project sponsors" - a term that
some LUL directors will no doubt come to dread.

In some ways, thanks to
the role played by the Secretary of State in the reporting and appointing of the
committee, this arrangement harks back to the pre-TfL days of London Regional
Transport. Up until 2000, LRT fulfilled the role largely carried out by TfL and
reported directly to the Secretary of State for Transport. Obviously, the
situation is by no means an exact parallel - this Committee's power is limited
to the advisory and the admonisory (if that's not a word then it should be), and
the remaining PPP contract with Tube Lines is specifically excluded from its
mandate. It's an interesting similarity nonetheless, and one that the Secretary
of State justified by pointing out that about 40% of TfL's budget comes from the
transport subsidy granted to the GLA by Central Government.

As has been
commented (perhaps uncharitably) elsewhere, something about the tone taken by
Lord Adonis before Parliament doesn't exactly suggest that he envisions the
Mayor having much of a say in the committee's appointments and role, despite the
theoretical dual responsibility.

Lord Adonis does, however, make one
thing abundantly clear about this post-Metronet setup:

These arrangements are in accordance with the existing framework
of devolution of powers to the mayor, who now bears full responsibility for
delivery.
One can't help but feel that's a situation that the Mayor
might have preferred not be made quite so explicit.

The official DfT
Press Release for this announcement can
be found here, although it doesn't add much more in the way of detail. In
fact, it's largely a paraphrase of Lord Adonis' statement to Parliament on the
arrangement which can
be found in Hansard here, and which contains a little more detail (including
the quote included above).

[UPDATE: I've tweaked the wording on the
appointments process, as the previous text wasn't quite right - JB]

Posted by John Bull at 22:33
5
comments Links
to this post

Labels:
DfT, london underground, metronet, tfl

Older
Posts

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

The News In Brief

Loading...

Contact Us/News

Know something we should know?

Email us at [email-masked]

We Need Your Help!

Become
a Spotter

Become
an Author

Labels

395 (1)

aerial
(6)

airtrack
(2)

airwave
(2)

amersham
(1)

and
finally (13)

baker
street (3)

bakerloo
line (7)

balfour
beatty (4)

Bank
station (1)

battersea
extension (9)

blackfriars
(9)

board
meetings (24)

bombardier
(11)

books
(1)

boris
johnson (25)

borismaster
(2)

brent
cross (3)

brixton
(1)

buses
(29)

camberwell
extension (4)

cannon
street (2)

central
government (1)

central
line (11)

channel
tunnel (1)

christmas
quiz (2)

circle
line (13)

congestion
charge (3)

construction
projects (149)

cricklewood
(1)

cross
river tram (16)

crossrail
(52)

crossrail
2 (8)

crossrail.tfl
(1)

croxley
rail link (6)

croydon
tram link (10)

cycles
(5)

dagenham
dock extension (5)

depots
(2)

DfT (18)

discussions
(2)

district
line (13)

DLR (47)

dlr
horizon 2020 (13)

east
london line (27)

east
london transit (4)

east
thames buses (2)

ecml
(1)

edgware
road (1)

electrification
(1)

ell (23)

engineering
(7)

eurostar
(1)

euston
arch (2)

evening
standard (3)

fares
(1)

farringdon
(6)

financial
reports (2)

first
capital connect (12)

first
great western (2)

freight
(2)

gatwick
(1)

gclr
(1)

GOBLIN
(6)

hammersmith
and city (20)

heritage
(4)

High
Speed One (4)

history
(8)

i'll
get you butler (1)

imperial
wharf (5)

in
pictures (6)

itso
(3)

johnston
(1)

jubilee
line (8)

ken
livingstone (4)

kings
cross (4)

LCN (1)

light
rail (2)

local
authorities (1)

london
assembly (11)

london
bridge (6)

London
Cycle Hire Scheme (2)

London
Midland (2)

london
orbital (1)

london
rail (1)

london
underground (20)

mayor's
office (3)

mayor's
transport strategy (5)

mayors
questions (51)

metronet
(7)

metropolitan
line (16)

monorail
(1)

moorgate
(1)

national
express (1)

National
Rail (25)

network
rail (23)

news
(18)

north
london line (23)

northern
line (26)

nothern
line (1)

obituaries
(1)

old
stations (1)

olympics
(15)

ORR (1)

out
of station interchanges (3)

outer
london (1)

outer
london commission (1)

overground
(96)

Oxford
Circus (1)

oyster
(23)

piccadilly
line (9)

planning
(1)

policy
(1)

rail
replacements (1)

renovation
works (1)

rest
of the world (1)

river
crossings (5)

river
ferry (2)

river
services (3)

rmt (1)

road
(8)

rolling
stock (47)

rotherhithe
(1)

routemasters
(1)

ryder
line (1)

shepherds
bush (6)

sll (1)

smartcards
(1)

snow
(3)

snowday
(5)

South
Central (3)

south
eastern (7)

south
london line (7)

south
west (2)

Southern
(8)

station
improvements (1)

strike
action (2)

surrey
canal road (2)

tax (1)

tfl (125)

tfl
board reports (1)

TfL
Business Plan (4)

thames
crossings (1)

thames
estuary airport (3)

thames
gateway bridge (3)

thameslink
(38)

thameslink
programme (4)

tottenham
court road (2)

transpenine
express (1)

transport
committee report (2)

travelwatch
(1)

tube
lines (16)

underground
(28)

vcp (1)

victoria
line (9)

video
(1)

virgin
(3)

waterloo
(4)

waterloo
and city (2)

waterways
(2)

weekend
works (1)

West
Coast Main Line (1)

west
london line (6)

wood
lane (1)

woolwich
arsenal (5)

Mr T's Suggested Links

TFL News
Centre

Transport Briefing

District Dave

Skyscraper
City

uk.transport.london

Other Good Reads

London Shop Fronts
PhotoBlog

Regen and Renewal Blog

The Ticket
Collector

Blog Archive

▼
2009
(364)

▼
November
(10)

The
South London Line In Parliament

New
ELL Footbridge

In
Pictures: 38 Debendification

Oyster
PAYG On National Rail From Jan 2nd

DLR:
3 Car Trains and Footbridges

The
End of the Bendy 38

Oyster
PAYG on Victoria - Balham Services From Tom...

Kings
Cross Ticket Hall Opens 29th November

New
Online Lost Property System Inbound

The
Post-Metronet Management Structure

►  October
(39)

Uncircling
The Circle - Publicity Begins

TfL
Withdraws BCV and SSL Civil Maintenance Framew...

In
Pictures: A Return To The Crossrail Webcam

Northern
Line News From Battersea

Things
That Go Bump in the Night – Latchmere Road

In
Pictures: New South Quay DLR Station Opens

East
London Line Videos

From
Dartford to Westminster

The
October Meeting of the London Assembly Transpo...

The
Thames Estuary Airport Report

Oyster
On National Rail: Linguae Centum Sunt, Oraq...

With
a Ladder and Some Glasses - Hornsey Thameslin...

C-Charge
Up, Fares Up And Cuts Coming

Crossrail:
Abbey Wood - Gravesend Safeguarded

In
Pictures: New West Hampstead Station

Mayor's
Transport Strategy Released

SLL:
A Letter From Sadiq Khan To Boris Johnson

RAC
Report Alleges Weaknesses in Communication and...

Quick
Note: Waterloo Station Consultation

The
2008 Planning Act: New Game – New Rules. Faste...

In
Pictures: The First ELL Test Train

Exploring
the Kingsway Tram Tunnel

DLR
Horizon 2020: A Summary

DLR
Horizon 2020: A Bank Loop via Barbican and Can...

DLR
Horizon 2020: Bank - Barbican (Previously Farr...

DLR
Horizon 2020: Bank - Liverpool Street - Bishop...

DLR
Horizon 2020: Bank - Liverpool Street

DLR
Horizon 2020: The Dagenham Dock Extension

Quick
Note

DLR
Horizon 2020: A Branch to Thamesmead

DLR
Horizon 2020: A Branch from Greenwich to New C...

DLR
Horizon 2020: All Saints - Crossharbour

DLR
Horizon 2020: A Bow Church - Hackney Central B...

DLR
Horizon 2020: Stratford - Lea Valley - Tottenh...

DLR
Horizon 2020: Lewisham - Catford

DLR
Horizon 2020: Bank - Aldwych - Charing Cross

First
Train Runs on New ELL

Fusing
the Fords of Stratford and Chingford

A
Restoration Story: The Wood Lane Facade

►  September
(37)

South
London Line - The TfL/Travelwatch Joint Stud...

►  August
(29)

►  July
(45)

►  June
(35)

►  May
(26)

►  April
(24)

►  March
(57)

►  February
(34)

►  January
(28)

►  2008
(150)

►  December
(37)

►  November
(23)

►  October
(28)

►  September
(32)

►  August
(30)