Transport For London , December 2021, Section 114 "Bankruptcy" - Service Cuts?

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

In a wider context I am baffled why the Mayor spent the best part of a year doing

I’ve been scratching my head about all this too, the basic question being whether all that could practically be done to minimise costs during a revenue slump has been done.

 

TFL did use the furlough scheme, with something like 7500 (a third) of staff having been furloughed at some point, but what I don’t know is how far they were able to ‘switch off’ payments to the various service providers, especially in buses, when service levels were ramped down, and there is then the very difficult question of whether services were ramped-down far enough, and for long enough.
 

That last is a genuinely difficult question, because a very large number of people who provided other essential services throughout the pandemic were reliant upon TfL, and having transport Working was a vital ‘pump primer’ for re-starting the rest of the economy after each big lockdown.

 

Discouraging people from unnecessary travel, and from ramming themselves together in tubes and buses, in the middle of a pandemic seems more like very good behaviour than bad behaviour to me - The Mayor could hardly do otherwise given that he has a role in the overall well-being of London, and isn’t just accountable for public transport.

 

Maybe though, at the level of political nous, he would have been wiser to cut deeper, sooner, to avoid getting into the position where he can now be played like a puppet.

But, consider the other bodies that have got into really deep water due to revenue slumps over the past two years, it’s not just small local businesses that have gone to the wall, substantial firms like Clark’s shoes (down from £7.5M profit to £180M loss in a single year) have also found themselves having to do things they’d have never contemplated before at the behest of the funders that they’ve had to turn to. Virgin Atlantic went bust, and in the US Hertz car rentals went bust owing $20billion, which is pretty spectacular (they’ve since re-financed and come out of bankruptcy).

 

I’m not sure what to conclude, I don’t know enough of the detail, but you can see thatThe Mayor has got between a rock and a hard place, whether through public spiritedness, or naivety, or a bit of each. There are also his legal obligations to consider: he isn’t allowed to “make a loss” on transport, and has obligations to act to provide it.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Grizz]

The fare box is not the biggest erner...it is property and advertising. Although a considerable amount of property has already been disposed of since the subsidy was cut. From 700 million subsidy to nothing in two years, so it doesn't take much working out. At around the same time in front line OPS we got hit with the badly planned politicians dream of Night Tube, which lost us two nights track access for safety critical maintenance with no additional recourses to allow catch up on the few nights we could still get in. 

 

However the biggest issue is a silent one and still nothing effective is being done....it is easier to do nothing because it is extremely difficult and will cost vast amounts of money and take up huge resources. It doesn't have one simple cause. I have personal first hand experience of this issue during many years of Engineering Hours in the pipe, and it is much worse then because of the addition of concrete dust, which is ultra fine and is airborne. Caused when the concrete around sleepers is being broken out in a confined space. No amount of air flow or irrigation systems damp it down or remove it. 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6f381ad4-fef7-11e9-be59-e49b2a136b8d

 

Fortunately I don't have to breath this c''p in anymore but it has left me with major long term health problems and it is a silent killer and it is extremely difficult to prove that this where the damage was done. 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Grizz
splleing

[KingEdwardII]

4 hours ago, Bittern said:

Does the law still require schools to provide transport

The obligation is against the local authority, not the school, but it does exist, as you can read here:

 

https://www.gov.uk/free-school-transport

 

It applies for home-school journeys over 2 miles for the under-8s and 3 miles for the over-8s.

It applies to the "nearest suitable school", which means it may not apply to the school of your choice.

There is a bus that makes its way through our village at 8.20 taking the children to the secondary school in the local town.

 

BTW, it does not apply to sixth formers - we had to shell out serious money for bus season tickets when our children went to sixth form.

 

Yours, Mike.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

 

In a wider context I am baffled why the Mayor spent the best part of a year doing everything he could think of to discourage travel on TfL services despite knowing full well that the whole viability of the operation was more dependent on farebox revenue than at any time in history.  And with a conservative Government.  What did he think would happen?  It was inevitable there would be a price to pay and that his opponents were going to shine a light on anything he had done to help to create the underlying situation.  Completely bizarre imo.    

 

I'm not sure he had much choice - for starters the powerful trade unions would have kicked up even more of a stink than they have done already*, plus with all the scientific advise erring on the side of caution not discouraging travel would have left him open to the same accusations as Boris's government which any sane person looking at the evidence of the past 18 months generally did to little to late when it comes to restrictions.

 

 

* The RMT are still acting like Mayor Kahn can say "up yours to the Government" but money will magically appear to give them everything they want!

[Nearholmer]

31 minutes ago, Grizz said:

The fare box is not the biggest erner...

It was before Covid, and probably still is, although clearly not big enough.

 

Words lifted direct from the 2019/20 Repirt and Accounts:

 

“………TfL’s primary source of gross income came from passenger fares income, which represented 82.4 per cent of all revenue generated. Fares income fell during the year from £4,854m in 2018/19 to £4,751m in 2019/20, reflecting the impact of Covid from March 2020 …..’

 

And, a graphic:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Nearholmer

[KingEdwardII]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

they want to reduce car use but can only find sticks (mostly with unintended consequences) and no carrots

Indeed - that is the general problem. People don't use public transport usually for good reasons and just making things harder for them often creates resentment and not the change in behaviour desired. When myself & my wife go to London, we drive to the Richmond area, park up and take train or tube. Train from Winchester is a possibility, but it is simply very expensive, even off-peak. Make it harder for us to drive & park and the consequence would probably be that we would visit London less, not switch to public transport. There are plenty of other places to visit in the UK.

 

My son and his partner live on the edge of Wimbledon and their commute is to central London by tube (their offices are close enough that they can meet for lunch). They are now commuting 3 days a week or less, initially prompted by the pandemic, but now more a matter of choice. Commuting is not great fun and many people have found that they can work very effectively from home. Not good news for city centre businesses depending on commuters as their customers.

 

Developments like Crossrail, which make the experience swifter and easier, are definitely the right sort of carrot. Give me a decent connection to Reading from Winchester and I'd seriously consider using Crossrail to get to the eastern parts of London that it serves. We've used the TfL Rail service from Richmond to Stratford in the past, but it is slow - takes about an hour. Crossrail looks way better than that, if they eventually get it open...

 

Yours, Mike.

[DY444]

1 hour ago, KingEdwardII said:

Indeed - that is the general problem. People don't use public transport usually for good reasons and just making things harder for them often creates resentment and not the change in behaviour desired. When myself & my wife go to London, we drive to the Richmond area, park up and take train or tube. Train from Winchester is a possibility, but it is simply very expensive, even off-peak. Make it harder for us to drive & park and the consequence would probably be that we would visit London less, not switch to public transport. There are plenty of other places to visit in the UK.

 

My son and his partner live on the edge of Wimbledon and their commute is to central London by tube (their offices are close enough that they can meet for lunch). They are now commuting 3 days a week or less, initially prompted by the pandemic, but now more a matter of choice. Commuting is not great fun and many people have found that they can work very effectively from home. Not good news for city centre businesses depending on commuters as their customers.

 

Developments like Crossrail, which make the experience swifter and easier, are definitely the right sort of carrot. Give me a decent connection to Reading from Winchester and I'd seriously consider using Crossrail to get to the eastern parts of London that it serves. We've used the TfL Rail service from Richmond to Stratford in the past, but it is slow - takes about an hour. Crossrail looks way better than that, if they eventually get it open...

 

Yours, Mike.

 

Absolutely couldn't agree more.  London councils have made it more and more difficult or more expensive or both to park near stations over the years. Sometimes with reasonable enough intentions (hassle to residents etc) but with the underlying assumption that the public simply have no choice but to get to those stations irrespective of the obstacles put in their way.  That assumption is now looking very flawed.

 

TfL really are screwed imo.  It boils down to the Treasury to decide whether good quality public transport in London matters enough to fund it or whether cuts will ensue thus creating the viscous circle of a bigger disincentive to travel.  The last time the tube was left to rot it took the thick end of 20 years to get it back in good nick which was finally achieved (just) in the run up to the 2012 Olympics.  It's not looking good and the die is being cast for the green revolution to fall apart before it has even started (see also predicted decimation of national rail services to save money and the half arsed IRP electrification proposals).  

[DY444]

As an aside I see the RMT, with its famed talent for impeccable timing and reading the mood of the room, is holding its second Underground strike in protest at something which ASLEF has happily accepted.  I'm sure the Treasury will be studying the live data on how the reduced service copes with the traffic on offer with great interest .

Edited December 4, 2021 by DY444

[KingEdwardII]

On 02/12/2021 at 16:55, Nearholmer said:

Just look at how transport energy consumption rose between 1970 and immediately pre-Covid,

That graph tells me that transport energy use has been flat for about 20 years. It also highlights the decline of industry in the UK.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, it does, but look at 1970 vs now, and now is a great deal higher, which considering that technology has allowed energy efficiency of vehicles to increase massively over that time tells you that we are zooming about a lot more than we were.

[Michael Hodgson]

Does it include energy expended using Boris bikes?

[Nearholmer]

I do hope so, because my experience is that propelling one of those along consumes about four times the energy required to propel my own bike.

[lmsforever]

I am so glad that TFL did not take over from Amersham to Aylesbury as so many polaticians wanted to happen even though they had a large opposition .We would have had a reduced service by now and one of the most vociverous supporters of TFL  has moved away and still writes every now and then promoting the takeover.The good that came from it remaining heavy rail is thae we got Chiltern .They are the best franchise in the UK with good trains, absolutely fantastic staff ,good services,good inovation ,and they have been renewed for six years.But  a certain train union leader has jumped out of his box complaining about it being owned by DB rail in  Germany.If he could find a Britishcompany as good and committed to giving a good service ,show us.But this union has no interest in members or passengers only in creating problems .I think that TFL needs to be taken away from GLC control and made into a franchise on the rail side and the number of bus companies cut .Then polotics will be out of the way and common sense management will take over .It works in many cities around the world so why not in London the origonal mass transit system.

[Nearholmer]

15 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

think that TFL needs to be taken away from GLC control and made into a franchise on the rail side and the number of bus companies cut .Then polotics will be out of the way

I suppose it might be  possible to create the illusion that politics have disappeared by removing a thing as far as possible from effective democratic control, and into the hands of poorly-accountable civil servants, but really all it does is move the politics from local to national level.

And, last time it was done it was a miserable mess.

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Nearholmer

[lmsforever]

If TFL rail  became a franchise at least the the owners would be able to set proper targets and run services without interference by the GLC who dont seem to have a clue what they are doing.Perhaps locals are not the right people to run such an important service ,it needs people who are used to dealng with problems and a knowledge of how to run a franchise.The buses seem to change the routes they run on a monthly basis this is not good for the companies that provide the services also there is a need to cut the number of owning companies.Remember in LT days one company ran a damn good service with well maintained buses and very good staff  responding to problems quickly whilst evoljng the fleet.

[Nearholmer]

The Mayor sets the targets; he’s elected to do so.

 

Why is that a problem?

[BoD]

40 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

If TFL rail  became a franchise at least the the owners would be able to set proper targets and run services without interference by the GLC who dont seem to have a clue what they are doing.

When did the GLC last meet?

[4630]

41 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

Remember in LT days one company ran a damn good service with well maintained buses and very good staff  responding to problems quickly whilst evoljng the fleet.

 

Which ‘LT days’ are you referring to there?
 

London Transport was a public body continuously from its establishment in 1933 under the London Passenger Transport Board;

its successor The London Transport Executive in 1948;

until 1963 when it became the London Transport Board;

and then from 1970 when responsibility for public transport within greater London came under the responsibility of the Greater London Council;

which lasted until June 1984 when London Regional Transport (LRT) took over.

 

LRT established separate companies for London Buses Limited and London Underground Limited, but they were still public bodies responsible to LRT, which reported to the Secretary of State for Transport. 
 

Tendering with the private sector for some bus services started in 1985, but the separate bus units that LRT also created at this time remained part of a public body until the units were sold in 1994/95.  LRT remained the public body in charge of public transport in London until replaced by Transport for London in July 2000.

 

 

 

[lmsforever]

I am talking about the years from the fities to the seventies the high spot was the sixties good vehicles and crews  a management that knew what they were doing and a maintainence facility that actually worked.The training of the staff was done properley .My cousins husband was a gold badge instructor and boy he knew how to do his job and my cousin was a clippie during the fifties and sixties.LT was an organisation that had much talent working for it the railways worked like clockwork and the rolling stock matched in quality.The rot set in when polotics took control  descions were coloured by the colour of the controling party. It has progressively got worse and its disgusting that things are so bad .

[Nearholmer]

17 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

The rot set in when polotics took control  descions were coloured by the colour of the controling party.

 

LT was a nationalised industry during the period you're talking about, prior to 1963 it was accountable to the BTC, after 1963 it was accountable direct to The Minister, so the decisions on funding were very much at the mercy of the party in government.

 

But, I can sort of see where you're coming from, because first the BTC, and then Ministers, "ran it on a long leash", so the Board and Officers were left to get on with most things with very little in the way of detailed control from above, a situation that was repeated to some degree (but with the added spice of more DfT involvement) in the period between the GLC and GLA, whereas under the GLC, and again under The Mayor and GLA, the flip side of the good things that come from a short chain of democratic accountability was/is detailed lists of wants.

 

Personally, I think that the positives of a short chain of democratic accountability outweigh the potential disadvantages. Having been "on the inside" I can say that Commissioner (Sir Peter Hendy, then Mike Brown, both of whom really, seriously know their onions) did a cracking job of keeping the "politicos" out of operational decision making, while leaving nobody in any doubt what the "politicos", on behalf of the electorate, wanted.

 

I reckon Londoners get far more of what they vote for in transport terms than ever is the case in most of the rest of England, because in London transport is a big issue come an election, whereas in most places it is way down the pile of priorities.

 

 

[Pandora]

13 hours ago, lmsforever said:

I am talking about the years from the fities to the seventies the high spot was the sixties good vehicles and crews  a management that knew what they were doing and a maintainence facility that actually worked.The training of the staff was done properley .My cousins husband was a gold badge instructor and boy he knew how to do his job and my cousin was a clippie during the fifties and sixties.LT was an organisation that had much talent working for it the railways worked like clockwork and the rolling stock matched in quality.The rot set in when polotics took control  descions were coloured by the colour of the controling party. It has progressively got worse and its disgusting that things are so bad .

I attended a local history talk, the speaker dealt with the Underground,  post WW2 the population of London was steadily reducing in numbers,  in the 1970s the Underground system was viewed as obsolete, a dinosaur, not worth developing, in the mid 1980s, the population trend bottomed and began to rise, today we have nearly 50% more people in London than 1985,  somehow, the Underground has coped with passenger volumes far greater than the Edwardians  or the planners of the 1970s  ever envisaged.

 

Read an account by Mayor Khan,  TFL had several years of planning for efficiencies, efficiencies to  TFL being on budget to go from subsidy to self-funding for operation in 2023/4, no subsidies other than big capital expenditures such as new rolling stock which are paid for by Govt,  it went wrong with delays  to Crossrail, and then the coup-de-grace of Covid lockdown.

 

it seems to me to be unfair for Minister Shapps to shoot at TFL, TFL  implemented Govt policy to Covid, TFL could not predict or swerve around Covid

As a Londoner, I tend to agree with Nearholmer, we do get "London perks", my over 60s Oystercard, 6 years of London-wide free travel, I saved £1000s,  elsewhere I would have wait until state pension age for a bus pass, looking to leave London, I note my community charge bill is about 2/3rds  of the  similar properties I have viewed outside London, and it is easier to earn the money to pay the bill in London than those areas. the news is quiet, but December 11th is the cutoff for funding. I await further developments!

Edited December 5, 2021 by Pandora

[phil-b259]

On 04/12/2021 at 18:13, lmsforever said:

If TFL rail  became a franchise at least the the owners would be able to set proper targets and run services without interference by the GLC who dont seem to have a clue what they are doing.

 

Hate to break it to you but even the likes of Chiltern were constrained by something called a 'franchise agreement' which still gave the DfT considerable influence on what Chilterns management could or could not do.

 

More recently the Government has moved to 'management contracts' - which basically is " here have a load of money and run everything exactly how we tell you".

 

Chiltern might well be a good company - but only last year they almost had a head on collision with a tube train at Chalfont and Latimer, largely because that bastion of common sense called the DfT refused to let Chiltern strengthen (raise wages or hire more people) in their driver standards department!

 

last week the DfT did give a management contract to Ariva to carry on running Chiltern for another three years - but don't kid yourself its very much a case of Whitehall mandarins calling the shots.

[lmsforever]

I do know what a franchise agreement is and why they are there ,Chiltern have fulfilled  the requirements of it and more and they deserve to stay for another six years. Franchises are the way to run our system and someone has to be in control hence Whitehall so whats your problem ?

[62613]

On 05/12/2021 at 20:27, lmsforever said:

I do know what a franchise agreement is and why they are there ,Chiltern have fulfilled  the requirements of it and more and they deserve to stay for another six years. Franchises are the way to run our system and someone has to be in control hence Whitehall so whats your problem ?

Overall control, yes, to set goals for the railway to attain; what's "policy"? However, the DfT should not concern itself with its day-to-day running, or the detail design and specification of the trains, as has sometimes happened recently. In the days of BR there was the board interposed between the ministry and the actual railway; there isn't really such a thing now.  

Edited December 7, 2021 by 62613
Correct spelling of board

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, lmsforever said:

Franchises are the way to run our system

 

I don't think that's quite what The Minister himself has signed-up to in the form of the rail review. So far as I understand, that is partly about using service contracts, rather than franchises, and that idea has been lifted from dear old TfL, to national level, because it works far better, and is far less vulnerable to collapses such as those that several franchised operations have suffered.

 

The franchise model is gradually being shunted into a weed-grown siding, there to rust quietly away.