East london line to close

[Tubeboy]

Just saw on BBC local news that the East london line is to close for two years to prepare for its extension and carry out engineering work. It will close from december 2007 until late 2009, before transferring to the private sector when it opens in 2010. Bobby Law from the rmt said he isnt happy, and that its privatisation by the back door, and warns the district line may be next line to go private. Also he said he sees strikes occurring as a result of the planned ell closure. Havent we known for ages it will transfer to one of the tocs anyway?

[Colin]

Sounds like typical RMT - spouting off before before they check their facts.

[Deleted]

network rail acquire the management of the line in 2007 and we cease to maintain the line in april of that year

[Deleted]

aetearlscourt said:

network rail acquire the management of the line in 2007 and we cease to maintain the line in april of that year

And the only reason for that is because, as we all on this forum know, it'll run suburban rail stock on 3rd rail. As for the District being privatised, I'm surprised the BBC broadcasted that load of tripe from the RMT!

[Chris W]

Ladies & Gents

I know that this may be tied in with the 2012 Olympics, however if this is a success I'm just wondering if this is the shape of things to come with the whole of LU being opened up to the private sector. Perhaps the lines as a whole or individually may be sold off with TfL dictating policy to private companies who run/own the services.

I say this being aware that fixed year franchises have been awarded on LU lines (e.g. Metronet) to run services - perhaps this is just a extension to this policy of selling of services and TfL/LU are using the East London Line as a prototype to see if selling off the actual assets might work. As an alternative perhaps TfL have the opinion that the ELL isn't an integral part of LU and losing/selling it off might be the cheapest option to maintain a service, as opposed to rebuilding the infrastructure.

Just think, if this is the pre-cursor to selling of LU lines/assets, remember that things do go full circle - nationalisation in the late 1940's, privatisation in the 1990's... okay, the political will for nationalisation is at the opposite end of the spectrum today, but who knows what'll happen later in the 21st Century....

Regards

Christopher

[Deleted]

The date for closure of the East London Line is 22 Dec 2007, according to the local TV news.

[Deleted]

cjw said:

Ladies & Gents

I know that this may be tied in with the 2012 Olympics, however if this is a success I'm just wondering if this is the shape of things to come with the whole of LU being opened up to the private sector. Perhaps the lines as a whole or individually may be sold off with TfL dictating policy to private companies who run/own the services.

I hope not. Franchising the maintenance sector is bad enough; franchising the operations sector would be even worse!

cjw said:

I say this being aware that fixed year franchises have been awarded on LU lines (e.g. Metronet) to run services - perhaps this is just a extension to this policy of selling of services and TfL/LU are using the East London Line as a prototype to see if selling off the actual assets might work.

Unfortunately, you're a bit off - Metronet and Tube Lines hold franchises to maintain the infrastructure, not operate it. Operation of the LU lines (and indeed ownership of the fixed and mobile assets) is in the hands of TfL LU.

cjw said:

As an alternative perhaps TfL have the opinion that the ELL isn't an integral part of LU and losing/selling it off might be the cheapest option to maintain a service, as opposed to rebuilding the infrastructure.

The line doesn't make much sense as an Underground line anymore; frankly I believe it is better off being transferred to NR.

cjw said:

Just think, if this is the pre-cursor to selling of LU lines/assets, remember that things do go full circle - nationalisation in the late 1940's, privatisation in the 1990's... okay, the political will for nationalisation is at the opposite end of the spectrum today, but who knows what'll happen later in the 21st Century....

If operation of LU lines is ever franchised, the whole system will, IMO, suffer.

[Deleted]

I think the East London Line is a special case, being extended specifically to link in with NR. Don't see how it's a precedent for other lines.

[Chris W]

theonekea said:

cjw said:

Unfortunately, you're a bit off - Metronet and Tube Lines hold franchises to maintain the infrastructure, not operate it. Operation of the LU lines (and indeed ownership of the fixed and mobile assets) is in the hands of TfL LU.

I know what I meant




;D ;D ;D

adw said:

I think the East London Line is a special case, being extended specifically to link in with NR. Don't see how it's a precedent for other lines.

Let me explain...... my rationale is that should effectively privatisation of this line be deemed successful (& in my opinion the political pressure will demand that it is seen to be), privatisation might been seen as being a method of trying to:
1) weaken the unions
2) become the cheaper option of providing railway services

Its only a theory.... I may be right.... but I acknowledge that I'm probably wrong, but regardless I'm still interested in thoughts regardless of positive or negative.......

[agoodcuppa]

cjw said:

Let me explain...... my rationale is that should effectively privatisation of this line

The line isn't being "privatised", ownership remains with TfL.

The nature of the services that operate over it are being changed to provide better transport options for more people. Those services will be operated by mainline TOCs rather than LU.

It was a main line railway long before it became part of the underground system with services operating from Brighton to Liverpool Street. I expect there are people who would welcome the reinstatement of such services.

[Ben]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that railtrack wanted to take over what now forms the SSL. Their proposal was to reinstate links at paddington and liverpool st. I really wish I knew where I heard that though.

My personal opinion is that, very unfortunately, we will see a greater seperation of tube lines and surface lines over the next 30 years. One day someone will suggest that it would be useful to combine some mainline (possibly the orbirail/metro schemes) and surface services to acheive greater flexibility or whatever. Maybe parts will become electrified with overhead aswell as 4 rail. I stress this would be a very gradual process though. Maybe not even 30 years, maybe 50. Nothing like being a cynic, eh?? Something will change, big time too.

[Deleted]

The thing is that the District and Met are used pretty close to capacity as it is. The East London line is a useful cross-river link that is currently underused.
Any attempt to use the District or Met for mainline services comes up against the question: What exisitng services do you cut to make room for them?

[prjb]

benedict said:

I seem to remember reading somewhere that railtrack wanted to take over what now forms the SSL. Their proposal was to reinstate links at paddington and liverpool st. I really wish I knew where I heard that though.

I also read about that somewhere. Wasn't it an early alternative to Cross rail? Troop trains used to run through to Southend regularly in WWII.

[agoodcuppa]

prjb said:

Troop trains used to run through to Southend regularly in WWII.

There was a regular service from Ealing Broadway to Southend until the start of WW2 (DR electric locos to Barking, LTS steam from there on). I've not heard about through troop trains before though.

[mandgc]

Troop Trains on ELR.

The East London Railway was a Joint ( LNER, LPTB and Southern) Line until Nationalisation in 1948. The Met Line ran the normal Passenger Service and the LNER any other trains so it is quite possible that special Passenger trains passed through when required though Troop trains generally,I think, encircled London ( via West London, North London or Tottenham and Forest Gate Lines for instance) .

[Colin]

cjw said:

Let me explain...... my rationale is that should effectively privatisation of this line be deemed successful (& in my opinion the political pressure will demand that it is seen to be), privatisation might been seen as being a method of trying to:
1) weaken the unions
2) become the cheaper option of providing railway services

Its only a theory.... I may be right.... but I acknowledge that I'm probably wrong, but regardless I'm still interested in thoughts regardless of positive or negative.......

From personal experience - the unions are doing a good job of weakening themselves without the need for outside help