Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[adb968008]

17 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I might have missed something here but would you still have Thameslink (or some other National Rail service) between Wimbledon and South Merton/Morden South or just the tram? The latter would (as currently set up) probably need to reverse at Wimbledon. And don’t some trains currently go round to Sutton and then continue back towards London, rather than going back via Wimbledon?

Thameslink between Wimbledon to Sutton is largely a wasted effort.

it runs as a balloon loop in both directions, but TL could  turnback at Wimbledon, just as it could Sutton from a revenue perspective, its only logistics that makes it run between Sutton and Wimbledon as it does… though at weekends frequently you do see the service curtailed on the Wimbledon - Sutton, and reverse from Sutton back via Carshalton.

 

This week was unusual in that South Sutton was used as a turnback (using the engineers crossing at St Helier) due to the murder at Sutton station.

 

Few passengers go from Wimbledon all the way to Sutton, as its much slower from the capital than via Carshalton.

So a short spur to the tram to morden south makes sense, but its the Northern line to Sutton that would be the winner.

 

For Thameslink the other way.. Adding those extra platforms in the central gap  at Cheam would do it… you can also add in the removed carriage sidings on the down sides of Sutton station, (both Beeches line and Cheam side) removed in the 1960’s.. the space is still there hidden in the undergrowth, if its really needed.

 

I wonder the future of both Tattenham corner and Downs branches… Downs has very few passengers, and two of the three stations are in the least used stations list… Tattenham corner branch is rotting away.. its covered in speed limits with major structures crumbling.

Edited December 11, 2023 by adb968008

[billbedford]

Shouldn't this be in the imaginary route improvement thread?

[adb968008]

19 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Shouldn't this be in the imaginary route improvement thread?

Yep… Elizabeth line also, as that is what it is too and nothing noodled here will change that either.

 

I do agree a thread about Suttons transport issues is worthy of its own thread.
 

(Rather than a sarky comment, Ive asked the mods if its possible to split these out to their own thread)… afterall the EL to TL is a valid juncture for passengers, at Farringdon :-)

Edited December 11, 2023 by adb968008

[RJS1977]

21 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

So a short spur to the tram to morden south makes sense, but its the Northern line to Sutton that would be the winner.

 

 

I've often wondered about the possiblity of redesigning Morden depot to include a couple of terminal platforms to allow some passenger trains to terminate there, with a pedestrian link to Morden South (and possibly also to Central Road via the mosque car park.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Almost have separate threads here.

 

but turning Wimbledon to sutton, from Morden South to Northern Line makes more sense. Demolish / replace the single lane road bridge above Sutton station, plus knock down a store room at the platform, and change a kebab shop to make an entrance from the main street and you have space for a tube platform 0.

Maybe have a short extension of Wimbledon tram to a terminal platform at Morden South.

We are in danger of going very OT here....

 

TfL have certainly looked into a Morden-Sutton extension - I remember compiling some engineering plans into a presentation for a colleague about five years ago - but I think it was decided at an early stage that the best/most cost-effective option to improve transport provision along the Sutton corridor would be a tram extension. 

 

I think it was also concluded that there isn't the space at Sutton for additional platforms, so the Northern Line would have to to track share and turn round in the existing pair.  There are just too many opportunities for disruption and migrated delays, plus all the challenges of incompatible signalling systems, different buffer heights (remember the tram/train interface scenario in Sheffield and how long that took to solve) etc.  Squeezing a route down the side of Morden depot would be quite a challenge in itself; if you lost stabling capacity at Morden depot you've got to create it elsewhere and the tube network isn't blessed with that sort of space for expansion.

[009 micro modeller]

54 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

We are in danger of going very OT here....

 

TfL have certainly looked into a Morden-Sutton extension - I remember compiling some engineering plans into a presentation for a colleague about five years ago - but I think it was decided at an early stage that the best/most cost-effective option to improve transport provision along the Sutton corridor would be a tram extension. 

 

I think it was also concluded that there isn't the space at Sutton for additional platforms, so the Northern Line would have to to track share and turn round in the existing pair.  There are just too many opportunities for disruption and migrated delays, plus all the challenges of incompatible signalling systems, different buffer heights (remember the tram/train interface scenario in Sheffield and how long that took to solve) etc.  Squeezing a route down the side of Morden depot would be quite a challenge in itself; if you lost stabling capacity at Morden depot you've got to create it elsewhere and the tube network isn't blessed with that sort of space for expansion.

What about the District line? Or does that create other issues crossing the main lines at Wimbledon?

 

Edit: I think at some point historically (1920s?) the UERL wanted to extend to Sutton but the Southern Railway objected, ultimately leading to the current situation. I’m not sure how useful it would be nowadays from a passenger point of view if there was no ability to travel to Wimbledon and then change, because the relatively fast Thameslink service would have been replaced by a slower tube one.

Edited December 11, 2023 by 009 micro modeller

[adb968008]

4 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

What about the District line? Or does that create other issues crossing the main lines at Wimbledon?

 

Edit: I think at some point historically (1920s?) the UERL wanted to extend to Sutton but the Southern Railway objected, ultimately leading to the current situation. I’m not sure how useful it would be nowadays from a passenger point of view if there was no ability to travel to Wimbledon and then change, because the relatively fast Thameslink service would have been replaced by a slower tube one.

Tube trains dont have to be slow.

Besides this branch is mostly 30mph anyway.

 

Regards Sutton, the was provision for a Bay platform here, its had a store room built on to it, (in red) and its double track width… the building is wider than the adjacent two tracks, remove that you have your platform space, albeit single platform, but if the line beyond is double, does it need two platforms ?

 

 

Remove a kebab shop (in yellow), youve a separate tube entrance.

 

The bridge this picture is taken from is a pain as its single lane, so kill two birds with one stone…replace the bridge with two lane, wider span and you’d have direct access to the Wimbledon lines on the other side without touching the Epsom lines.

before the 1930’s extension to Wimbledon, these lines were carriage sidings, indeed there was sidings on both UP and DOWN sides. Where the white bags are on the track was the Sutton South signal box for the sidings.

 

maybe one for the ghosts in the machine thread but theres an SR 1930s marker in the junction indicating Portsmouth one way, Wimbledon the other. It gets uncovered every summer when the weed trimmers pass through, theres another at Streatham South Junction, again pointing towards Wimbledon and Portsmouth.

Edited December 12, 2023 by adb968008

[RJS1977]

4 hours ago, Northmoor said:

  Squeezing a route down the side of Morden depot would be quite a challenge in itself; if you lost stabling capacity at Morden depot you've got to create it elsewhere and the tube network isn't blessed with that sort of space for expansion.

 

Surely all the space in a depot is only needed when the line is shut. Bakerloo Line trains run through Queens Park depot (presumably with trains stabled on the running lines overnight) so something similar could be done at Morden.

[phil-b259]

 

One thing people tend to forget in their excitement to extend tube lines is that doing so can easily makings worse rather than better for current users!

 

One of the reasons the plans for Crossrail 2 were altered by TFL to include a deviation via Balham was that onwards from the the Northern line was very overcrowded with people struggling to board trains because they were already very full by that point.

 

Similarly any ideas to take the Victoria line southwards from Brixton were quickly dropped due to it quickly becoming overcrowded.

 

Also, although some have campaigned for the Battersea Power station extension of the Northern line to go further (I.e. to Clapham Junction) one of the big reasons TfL won’t consider this is that in the absence of Crossrail 2, it would be overwhelmed by commuters from CJ there would be no space for people from the Nibe Elms development (whose developers actually paid a huge sum of money towards the extension in the first place.

 

By contrast it’s precisely because the Bakerloo line has spare capacity that extending it to Lewisham can be entertained by TfL - though if it does ever get there then I can easily see it becoming so busy that further extension becomes impossible.

 

Extending the Northern line any further south, particularly Sutton would (particularly given the current National rail provision) make things even worse for folk trying to use the Northern line at the likes of Clapham / Balham.

 

So can we please drop all this talk of extending the Northern line - it’s simply not going to happen.

Edited December 12, 2023 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

15 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

What about the District line? Or does that create other issues crossing the main lines at Wimbledon?

 

Edit: I think at some point historically (1920s?) the UERL wanted to extend to Sutton but the Southern Railway objected, ultimately leading to the current situation. I’m not sure how useful it would be nowadays from a passenger point of view if there was no ability to travel to Wimbledon and then change, because the relatively fast Thameslink service would have been replaced by a slower tube one.

 

The Wimbledon - Sutton line did indeed start life as a District Railway proposal and would have included a flyover over the SWML (even in the early 1900s a flat crossing of the SWML wasn’t considered feasible) but the LSWR (and later the SR) were not exactly keen on the idea of having their passengers stolen so they frustrated any attempts to build it.

 

Later the Southern came to an agreement with UERL (Underground Electric Railways of London the parent company of both the District Railway and the City & South London Railway) where the tube line could be built to Morden as UERL wanted but they would have to abandon any idea of taking the District to Sutton with the Southern Railway building the Wimbledon - Sutton line instead.

 

Unfortunately for the Southern, UERL also owned several bus operators and by using the new Morden station as a railhead for said busses the new Tube quickly proved to be the preferred method of travel for the new commuters moving into the area as it developed.
 

Had the Wimbledon - Sutton route been properly integrated into the SWML suburban service pattern (rather than being an extension of the ‘round the houses LBSCR link via Tooting) to get to London then it might have stood a better chance at securing custom…..

Edited December 12, 2023 by phil-b259

[009 micro modeller]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Later the Southern came to an agreement with UERL (Underground Electric Railways of London the parent company of both the District Railway and the City & South London Railway) where the tube line could be built to Morden as UERL wanted but they would have to abandon any idea of taking the District to Sutton with the Southern Railway building the Wimbledon - Sutton line instead.

I thought at one point they were considering extending the C&SLR (now Northern line) itself over part of the Wimbledon to Sutton line as well.

[adb968008]

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

One thing people tend to forget in their excitement to extend tube lines is that doing so can easily makings worse rather than better for current users!

 

One of the reasons the plans for Crossrail 2 were altered by TFL to include a deviation via Balham was that onwards from the the Northern line was very overcrowded with people struggling to board trains because they were already very full by that point.

 

Similarly any ideas to take the Victoria line southwards from Brixton were quickly dropped due to it quickly becoming overcrowded.

 

Also, although some have campaigned for the Battersea Power station extension of the Northern line to go further (I.e. to Clapham Junction) one of the big reasons TfL won’t consider this is that in the absence of Crossrail 2, it would be overwhelmed by commuters from CJ there would be no space for people from the Nibe Elms development (whose developers actually paid a huge sum of money towards the extension in the first place.

 

By contrast it’s precisely because the Bakerloo line has spare capacity that extending it to Lewisham can be entertained by TfL - though if it does ever get there then I can easily see it becoming so busy that further extension becomes impossible.

 

Extending the Northern line any further south, particularly Sutton would (particularly given the current National rail provision) make things even worse for folk trying to use the Northern line at the likes of Clapham / Balham.

 

This exceeds “the wrong kind of snow” in absurdity to say were not going to do it, because “demand is too high”.

This reminds me of communist ideology.

 

You would never get that mentality in the private sector, and defies logic.

try reading this..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spira_(confectionery)
 

Quote

Following a million-pound investment in plant at the Bournville factory, Cadbury first test-launched Spira in the Granada television region. The chocolate was successful enough to gain a 6.3% market share and the number two chocolate position, but it proved impossible to produce sufficient quantities to keep up with demand at this stage. The bar was withdrawn from market and a new test market was established in the south-west while additional factory capacity was built

Thats an example capitalism handling demand, not just 1, but 2 factories built to meet demand.

 

I should point out this thread is about the Elizabeth Line, whos demand has overwhelmed all expectations. This was obvious to anyone who used the central line, that a better and faster route / service will attract the passengers.

 

Therefore on this logic, the EL should never have been built, as we see today its the worst for performance, least reliable, most over crowded line in London. Its an Austere disaster of a design and a short cut of engineering mess, its a total budget bungle and the rolling stock is unsuitable in emergencies…

However you’d be lynched and run of of town if you suggested closing it.

 

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

So can we please drop all this talk of extending the Northern line - it’s simply not going to happen.

just because something isnt going to happen doesnt mean its illegal to discuss it.

Aliens and Scifi have their own industry, and that wont happen either.

 

Suttons had transport issues for 20 years, and its clear it will continue to have transport issues for another 20 years.

 

Solutions could exist, but no one wants to put their hand in there pocket, thats the ultimate problem.. Sutton isn't as glamorous as other parts of London, its off the main roads, so no one really cares and politicians play to the camera, from Zone 1, but they never go there, simples. Its a suburban cash cow for central London thats all.

 

Sutton itself is blessed with 12 stations within c2/3 miles of its own station, yet of those 12,  6 are in the lesser used stations in the country… the demand is very focussed.. Cheam, Both Carshaltons, Wallington and Hackbridge, plus obviously, Sutton to extend overground by 5 minutes from West Croydon.

 

Demand from Banstead, Belmont is so low its double digits a day. South Sutton, West Sutton, Sutton Common and St Helier is like a northern branchline, no growth potential at any of that lot.

 

6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Had the Wimbledon - Sutton route been properly integrated into the SWML suburban service pattern (rather than being an extension of the ‘round the houses LBSCR link via Tooting) to get to London then it might have stood a better chance at securing custom…..

 Yes but referring to your own post… A waterloo to Sutton would be too popular, as it would offer a c20 min sprint to Sutton and be faster than the current alternatives.

This too would be an easy solution, Terminate in 1.. reinstate the carriage sidings on the Beeches line, and turnback from there to platform 2.

 

It could also goto a reinstated Platform 3 at West Croydon, or become its own roundabout back to Victoria needing no infrastructure changes at all, but that really would be too easy.. whats more theres no shortage of paths…

 

The demand is also quite clear.. put the train express to Wimbledon, Express to Sutton, then either Carshalton/Hackbridge, express to Balham, or Carshalton Beeches/Wallington then West Croydon… both head off to Vic and vv… strangely, this sounds almost like the pre covid rush hour service that used to terminate at Sutton with 455’s. (they didnt bother going to Epsom Downs, because there was no passengers). They actually turned back in 3 or 4.. they very platforms that started this OT debate when you said there was no turnback capability at Sutton.

 

So Improving a service therefore should not be considered, as it affects the status quo for others who already have it cushy too much.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I thought at one point they were considering extending the C&SLR (now Northern line) itself over part of the Wimbledon to Sutton line as well.

They (UREL) were indeed considering that - but they agreed to drop that ambition (along with the whole District line extension) as the price for the Southern Railway dropping their opposition to the whole Northern line extension from Clapham.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

 

This exceeds “the wrong kind of snow” in absurdity to say were not going to do it, because “demand is too high”.

This reminds me of communist ideology.

 

You would never get that mentality in the private sector, and defies logic.

try reading this..

 

 

 

Nope! It’s called being pragmatic!

 

Public transport is not intrinsically profitable these days (particularly once you factor in the large capital cost of fleet / infrastructure renewal plus the desire to keep fares low so as to encourage its usage over cars.
 

In private sector this lack of profitability is precisely why you don’t get shareholders sinking private capital into public transport operations (don’t forget much of the money raised to build the initial London tube network was a raised from overseas, particularly the USA) because traditional investors judged it offered a poor financial return.

 

Secondly due to public transport being requiring finically support from tax payers there simply isn’t the ability to turn around and effectively say ‘screw you’ to existing user! In private business it certainly can make financial sense to alienate an existing group of users if that enables you to concentrate on a more profitable group  (most recently seen at Barclays where lots of small charities have seen their accounts closed and there are accusations that this is because such accounts don’t generate enough revenue / profits for the bank).

 

Therefore if all a new extension does is effectively swap groups of residents (I.e. those closer to the centre loose out at peak times because they cannot board) the extension is not actually helping the public transport operator financially (although more people might be paying slightly higher fares there is the cost of the extension to pay for) plus given those residents who have effectively been prevented from using a public transport service are going to be mightily peeved off - with that anger reflected the next time a politician comes asking for votes….

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

just because something isnt going to happen doesnt mean its illegal to discuss it.

Aliens and Scifi have their own industry, and that wont happen either.

 

Suttons had transport issues for 20 years, and its clear it will continue to have transport issues for another 20 years.

 

Solutions could exist, but no one wants to put their hand in there pocket, thats the ultimate problem.. Sutton isn't as glamorous as other parts of London, its off the main roads, so no one really cares and politicians play to the camera, from Zone 1, but they never go there, simples. Its a suburban cash cow for central London thats all.

 

 

There is a difference between possible and practical…. 
 

After all there is nothing scientifically wrong with Archimedes quote “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world”

 

While it may be interesting to discuss transport in a ‘Crayonista’ mentality, (and I have done that myself many many times) - transport does not exist in a vacuum, with finance and politics being integral to the ability to actually DO anything! 

 

Yes nobody ‘wants to put their hand in the pocket’ as you put it but the brutal truth is that the people who would need to be doing this are either London tax payers or the country’s population as a whole!
 

Given the political focus / rhetoric of the past three decades has been about Lowering the tax burden on individuals / business then it’s pretty obvious that raising the necessary funds to extend the Northern line (plus provide mitigating measures to relieve overcrowding closer to the centre) is not going to be forthcoming.

 

In any case Sutton isn’t alone - both the London boroughs of Bexley and Bromley have been complaining for decades that their residents are overlooked by LT / LU / the GLC / TfL / the GLA / the Mayor who simply use residents as cash cows to fund projects elsewhere….

 

If you really want someone to blame it’s the Victorians who built so many railways in areas that (1) lacked heavy industry / mining and (2) were so close to the SE coast both of which forced said railways to go after suburban passenger traffic. Had the southern companies been more like the companies which terminated on Euston Road then it’s more than likely that the tube network would of filled in the gaps / taken over railways like they did in north London…

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

13 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

 Yes but referring to your own post… A waterloo to Sutton would be too popular, as it would offer a c20 min sprint to Sutton and be faster than the current alternatives.

 

The problem with coupling the Sutton line with the SWML lies with the SWML itself! That line is intensely used with little or no spare paths and no ability to expand capacity onwards to Waterloo (hence why Crossrail 2 was proposed to enter its tunnel as far out as Wimbledon).

 

Given it would have been just as busy in the 1930s I suspect that might have been one of the main reasons the Southern Railway linked their new line to Sutton with the ex LBSCR line to Tooting and ran services to Holborn Viaduct.

 

So ironically possibly the best chance of an improved Sutton service would be for Crossrail 2 to be built - with which the Sutton line could be linked and would politically speaking be a much easier sell to exsisting user groups (plus of course bringing serious relief to other bits of the tube network) than simply extending the Northern line.

 

However as you observed that requires some serious ‘putting hands in pockets’ on behalf of taxpayers and although something like Crossrail 2 (which brings benefits to lots of different bits of London so makes tax hikes more palatable) would be significant more expensive than a Northern line extension, it would also be of much grater benefit to the public transport network as a whole.

Edited December 12, 2023 by phil-b259

[adb968008]

Of course the other solution, is to start taking railways / some lines wholly private.

Very quickly routes will be optimised around where the revenue comes from, and servicing it.

 

That is why the lbsc, lswr etc built the lines they did, Sutton was on the Portsmouth direct, and with express services until Gatwick Express days, when priorities changed, but civil service pockets werent deep enough to do both.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

 

So Improving a service therefore should not be considered, as it affects the status quo for others who already have it cushy too much.

 

 

That’s not what I have said - but the normal rule with service changes is they MUST ensure they do not bring significant dis-benifits!

 

The proposed change of Wimbledon loop to an out and back from Blackfriars is an example of a low cost service change which would have made things better for lots of folk but which got chucked out because too many influential people complained and the Politicians blocked it!

 

Do not think that this sort of thing won’t happen again when coming up with wish lists of rail improvements.

 

Granted the DfT seem to have forgotten that when they slashed train service frequencies (and train lengths) post Covid, but that’s the intrinsic problem with having the DfT administer suburban rail services - there is no accountability so they can do as they wish! By contrast with TfL being under control of the Mayor / GLA have to be a lot more careful about what they do in terms of service alterations.

 

In an ideal world ALL rail services terminating within or close to zone 6* should be TfLs remit - and in the case of Sutton the only ‘Southern’ (or DfT accountable trains) would be to / from Dorking.

 

* Dartford, Orpington, Caterham, Tottenham, Sutton / Epsom Downs, Epsom, Hampton Court, Sheperton, Kingston loop, Hounslow loop, Wimbledon loop

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by phil-b259

[adb968008]

That kind of brings us back to topic, in that Cross rail, only forms part of the cross.

Thameslink provides a second cross.

 

But ideally it needs two further crosses, which Crossrail 2 is only part. It picks out certainly the hotspots, especially in the south, but there is one glaring omission from these plans…

 

It fails to recognise that anyone in South London, anywhere: Wimbledon, Balham, Clapham, East Croydon … Would want to use HS2 !!!

 

Something linking HS2 at either Old Oak or Euston is needed to remove the cross london tubular pain of connecting multiple times to go north, from southern suburbia… you would think the transport planners only lived up north, or in zone 1 looking at these designs.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Of course the other solution, is to start taking railways / some lines wholly private.

Very quickly routes will be optimised around where the revenue comes from, and servicing it.

 

That is why the lbsc, lswr etc built the lines they did.

But then we come back to the fundamental truth that the world has changed since the 1880s and no passenger railway anywhere in the world is truly profitable (which is to say the profits are not only large enough to pay day to day costs, they are sufficient that they can also bankroll big ticket items every 40 odd years or so!

 

Some may get close to it (particularly newer builds) but ultimately what you can charge passengers simply doesn’t bring in enough cash to cover everything- particularly regular renewal of rolling stock and signalling every 40-50 years

 

Even though BR got pretty close with InterCity in its final years - the yearly ‘profit’ the sector made was insufficient to fund new rolling stock or engage in large scale re signaling / electrification schemes.

 

The London Underground is similar - while it does make a yearly profit for TfL that profit is not enough to buy new trains or re signal the network!

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

That kind of brings us back to topic, in that Cross rail, only forms part of the cross.

Thameslink provides a second cross.

 

But ideally it needs two further crosses, which Crossrail 2 is only part. It picks out certainly the hotspots, especially in the south, but there is one glaring omission from these plans…

 

It fails to recognise that anyone in South London, anywhere: Wimbledon, Balham, Clapham, East Croydon … Would want to use HS2 !!!

 

Something linking HS2 at either Old Oak or Euston is needed to remove the cross london tubular pain of connecting multiple times to go north, from southern suburbia.

 

 

Given the existence of Thameslink (which gives easy access to Euston Road from the south), the short distance between Euston and St Pancras*, the difficulties of threading yet another large bore tunnel under London and a lack of a suitable northern outlet for trains I really don’t see a direct link from south London to Euston as a viable proposition..

 

If anything close to that sort of money is available (after CR2) then it would far better used at Old Oak to improve connections there - a spur off the WLL and some platforms closer to the HS2 station entrance would allow for a Croydon / Sutton / Clapham - Old Oak service. 

 

* It is perfectly walkable for most - though Its a shame the Francis Crick institute gets in the way of providing a people mover between St Pancras and Euston because that would be the optimum solution

[adb968008]

28 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

But then we come back to the fundamental truth that the world has changed since the 1880s and no passenger railway anywhere in the world is truly profitable (which is to say the profits are not only large enough to pay day to day costs, they are sufficient that they can also bankroll big ticket items every 40 odd years or so!

 

Some may get close to it (particularly newer builds) but ultimately what you can charge passengers simply doesn’t bring in enough cash to cover everything- particularly regular renewal of rolling stock and signalling every 40-50 years

 

Even though BR got pretty close with InterCity in its final years - the yearly ‘profit’ the sector made was insufficient to fund new rolling stock or engage in large scale re signaling / electrification schemes.

 

The London Underground is similar - while it does make a yearly profit for TfL that profit is not enough to buy new trains or re signal the network!

perhaps the issue isnt revenue, but runaway costs.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/faredodger-barriers-cost-ps230-000-but-are-left-open-6764915.html#:~:text=Rail bosses have spent nearly,open because of staff shortages.

 

£250k on barriers, a bloke with a folding ikea table could do the same job… and did do the same job in the 1880’s. indeed the barriers arent even saving the cost of the bloke, because they are short of blokes…., so they are just saving the £10 ikea table in costs…

 

I assume they cost the customary 1/3 rd cost annually to service and maintain too ?.. £85k ?.. theres another few blokes salaries for life.

 

You have to wonder if all tech spend, is wisely spent… if there was a few more people on the barriers they could save on the cctv, and perhaps secure the car park saving cctv and ticket machines there too.

 

Other industries only use tech where the time, quality and cost benefits are clear.. you dont find many cinemas with ticket barriers, football clubs manage tens of thousands through turnstiles the old fashioned ways.. a bloke with a handheld device.

 

But railways really are pricing themselves out of reality with projects like this

https://www.rombaldsradio.com/news/local-news/cost-of-new-steeton-rail-station-car-park-almost-triples-to-7-million/

 

£1.7m for basically overtime, and £300k in “management fees”.

 

and it looks like £10mn for cctv here…

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-67279684
 

The taxpayer is being fleeced, no corporate would pay this, and they’d get better efficiences.

 

Railways are increasing removing people from its business with an obsession on automation, in some areas this makes sense, in others it does not. Its also lazy in reliance on outsourcing…

 

£14mn for a siding ?.. stop blaming inequalities for road haulage to rail haulage.., these kinds of costs are why railfreight business dwindles and wins so hard to come buy…

https://www.rfg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/RFG-News-Issue-135-May-2019.pdf

A fraction of the cost would probably buy a fleet of lorries, job done.

 

indeed if Crossrail was private this would have been a whole different story, because of accountability, tightness of contracts and general corporate mentality.

The railway needs to become competitive to survive.

Edited December 12, 2023 by adb968008

[adb968008]

28 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Given the existence of Thameslink (which gives easy access to Euston Road from the south), the short distance between Euston and St Pancras*, the difficulties of threading yet another large bore tunnel under London and a lack of a suitable northern outlet for trains I really don’t see a direct link from south London to Euston as a viable proposition..

 

If anything close to that sort of money is available (after CR2) then it would far better used at Old Oak to improve connections there - a spur off the WLL and some platforms closer to the HS2 station entrance would allow for a Croydon / Sutton / Clapham - Old Oak service. 

 

* It is perfectly walkable for most - though Its a shame the Francis Crick institute gets in the way of providing a people mover between St Pancras and Euston because that would be the optimum solution

Except when it rains

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

There is a difference between possible and practical…. 
 

After all there is nothing scientifically wrong with Archimedes quote “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world”

 

While it may be interesting to discuss transport in a ‘Crayonista’ mentality, (and I have done that myself many many times) - transport does not exist in a vacuum, with finance and politics being integral to the ability to actually DO anything! 

 

Yes nobody ‘wants to put their hand in the pocket’ as you put it but the brutal truth is that the people who would need to be doing this are either London tax payers or the country’s population as a whole!
 

Given the political focus / rhetoric of the past three decades has been about Lowering the tax burden on individuals / business then it’s pretty obvious that raising the necessary funds to extend the Northern line (plus provide mitigating measures to relieve overcrowding closer to the centre) is not going to be forthcoming.

 

In any case Sutton isn’t alone - both the London boroughs of Bexley and Bromley have been complaining for decades that their residents are overlooked by LT / LU / the GLC / TfL / the GLA / the Mayor who simply use residents as cash cows to fund projects elsewhere….

 

If you really want someone to blame it’s the Victorians who built so many railways in areas that (1) lacked heavy industry / mining and (2) were so close to the SE coast both of which forced said railways to go after suburban passenger traffic. Had the southern companies been more like the companies which terminated on Euston Road then it’s more than likely that the tube network would of filled in the gaps / taken over railways like they did in north London…

 

 

I was always told that geology, namely the absence of London clay, South of the Thames is what caused the paucity of tube lines south of the river. 

 

Jamie

[phil-b259]

9 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I was always told that geology, namely the absence of London clay, South of the Thames is what caused the paucity of tube lines south of the river. 

 

Jamie

It is a factor - but by far away from the only factor! The existence of the Northern line to Morden rather proves that point.

Edited December 12, 2023 by phil-b259