Recently Updated Posts

Whilst I wasn't Forum Staff at the time, I understand that the rule was introduced when a forum member turned up and demanded a cab ride from a Train Op who is a member here.

I'm sure of the more senior Forum Staff will provide the full background.

Graham Hewitt has been known to describe Network South East as the de facto Home Counties PTE in its day.

The discussion above highlights two things:

a) a clear recognition that the region needs a better positioned Transport Authority to cover London, a large part of the Home Counties and in some cases a little beyond - with overlaps to adjoining administrations at the boundaries, so that rail operations which directly affect the well-being of Londoners and businesses operating in London (and paying rates and levies) can be managed for the benefit of those concerned, and likewise a coherent administration of provision of bus, coach, taxi, bicycle and exotic forms of transport, and proper co-ordination of the strategic road network.

b) a strong desire for the "Greater, Greater London" and South East England economic area to become an empowered regional government (like Scotland, or at least not less that Wales or Northern Ireland).

The political ramifications of (b) are widespread and will take time to work through. By contrast, setting up a London and Home Counties PTE or PTA might be easier, especially if:

1) TfL is subsumed into it;

2) the Board Members are drawn from each representative political unit plus executive members (effectively each County* and the GLA);

3) Each representative has voting rights in proportion to their constituency's population, rateable value and GDP - weightings for each might vary;

4) The Board oversees an administration which in turn either directs subsidiary companies (eg LU), manages concessions (eg LOROL) or lets and supervises management contracts (eg as proposed for the initial Thameslink "franchise"). The administration might be termed TfLHC (London & Home Counties) or TfLSE (London & South East) or TfSEE (South-East England).

In terms of coverage, I doubt whether far eastern and south-eastern Kent would be part. (*) That would mean Kent's voting powers would have to be adjusted to reflect the actual areas covered. Beyond the immediate ring of Home Counties, others such as Beds, Cambs, Berks, Northants, Sussexes etc would be at least partially represented. "County Towns" like Luton likewise would be represented (*).

The boundaries would likely be set by "natural" terminating points for train services or by an overlap point where the "natural" terminating point may be further out or the overlap station is a "natural" terminus but is outside or at the edge of the L&HC/L&SEE area, for example:

a) Southampton (overlap)
b) Bedford (boundary)
c) Peterborough (overlap)
d) Cambridge (boundary)
e) Ipswich (boundary)
f) Northampton (overlap)
.... and so on.

Now these are details to illustrate my thinking, not by any means my proposal. So please let's not argue about the details of the boundary but the principle I'm seeking to illustrate.

Here you go:

Case C-81/98

Some help as the location hasn't been guessed:



*Click image for a larger version*

Well I get off the Northern at Bank/Tottenham Court Road depending on which branch train comes first, but tomorrow I have to go to Putney early in the morning, so I have to suffer from Notting Hill Gate to Chancery Lane... Right, it's spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch... got it!

Well if the Standard is correct, and I suspect they are, this is clearly a political and not a transport based decision. The Coalition are clearly concerned about some sort of political backlash in Kent and have given that more weight than any political consequences for them or the Mayor in South East London. I may have said this on here before, and if I have then I apologise, but I still fail to see the problem about a small proportion of services that serve stations in Kent being run by TfL. It is completely clear that there are regulatory and capacity constraints that would stop TfL wrecking longer distance services. Not having Oyster available at Dartford is utterly bonkers given there are TfL bus services in town but such is our daft transport system.

I do think that when a formal announcement is made, which confirms South Eastern services remain unchanged, that there will be a huge outcry and Boris will reap the negative whirlwind. An awful lot of people seem very fed up with the standard of service provided by South Eastern and the prospect of a long franchise extension (courtesy of the DfT's mess over WCML) will cause dismay. It will be interesting to see if the DfT can negotiate anything meaningful with South Eastern in return for the franchise extension that is in prospect.

Being resident in NE London let's hope Greater Anglia are booted out and we see TfL take over the suburban services. We already have Lea Bridge reopening and extra tracks through T Hale due to happen so a new concession bringing more frequent services and (hopefully if Mr Osborne breaks open his cheque book) GOBLIN electrification will be our gain. I feel sorry for SE London commuters but they know who to vent their anger against!

I was thinking from the perspective about people getting home rather than tourists venturing into the regions, but that would probably be more useful!