TfL's submission to the Comprehensive Spending Review

[t697]

Oct 15, 2020 8:47:21 GMT Dstock7080 said:

Oct 15, 2020 7:15:37 GMT t697 said:

Install CSDE kit, maybe continue using platform OPO mirrors and monitors? Traction pack software tweak to revert to pre-ATC performance. CIS data set for the Bakerloo:- Not difficult, it's a simple end-to-end line like the Jubilee. Etc., etc.

I also like the idea of using surplus ‘96 Stock on the Bakerloo.
hopefully retaining in-cab CCTV so that train cabs could be slightly in tunnel at the tight stations, as the difference of 123cm (4’) maybe significant.

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that in my 'on the cheap' option, the 96TS would revert to 6 car for the Bakerloo and existing OPO might be usable, maybe with some camera moves at curved platforms as car sides won't be in exactly the same places. If it was still 7 car, you'd probably need the in-cab transmission system installed and camera reconfiguration to cover the additional train length.

I've already been chided nicely about refitting tripcocks of course

Yes, as a 6 car, capacity is reduced but then the part parallel Jubilee line capacity will be increased by its new trains and souped up signalling won't it?

[aslefshrugged]

Oct 15, 2020 19:03:25 GMT jimbo said:

TfL's CSR submission does include new stock for the Bakerloo, but a case still has to be made that the investment is the best use of that money. When the case for all four lines was drafted out, the Bakerloo didn't come up to scratch! The solution was to blend it with the Lewisham extension plans, since they must include a new fleet of trains to provide enough to interwork with the existing line. Now Lewisham fades into the distance, and the replacement fleet for current Bakerloo again stands alone. Last time the continual patching of the current fleet made more sense than a new fleet for such a short, relatively quiet line.

Would there be enough of the 63 old Jubilee trains for the Bakerloo to get 36+? The Northern NLU2 wanted 17 more trains for 30tph on current service pattern, but CSR submission talks of line split for 30+tph. 36tph business case required 44 trains, and the lowest split option was 30 extra trains, so not enough for the Bakerloo. But assuming money for Camden station improved interchange is not available, the best no split service required 26 trains which leaves 37 for the Bakerloo. So it still remains a possibility in hard times!

New trains for the Jubilee Line (1.9bn) + Northern Line splitting/Camden Town rebuild (£0.6-1.3bn) = (£2.5-3.2bn)
New trains for the Bakerloo and Central (£1-2bn)

Given the age of the 1972 stock, the lower overall cost and the current financial situation I think Bakerloo stands a much better chance of getting new trains than the Jubilee.

[North End]

Oct 15, 2020 23:12:30 GMT aslefshrugged said:

Oct 15, 2020 19:03:25 GMT jimbo said:

TfL's CSR submission does include new stock for the Bakerloo, but a case still has to be made that the investment is the best use of that money. When the case for all four lines was drafted out, the Bakerloo didn't come up to scratch! The solution was to blend it with the Lewisham extension plans, since they must include a new fleet of trains to provide enough to interwork with the existing line. Now Lewisham fades into the distance, and the replacement fleet for current Bakerloo again stands alone. Last time the continual patching of the current fleet made more sense than a new fleet for such a short, relatively quiet line.

Would there be enough of the 63 old Jubilee trains for the Bakerloo to get 36+? The Northern NLU2 wanted 17 more trains for 30tph on current service pattern, but CSR submission talks of line split for 30+tph. 36tph business case required 44 trains, and the lowest split option was 30 extra trains, so not enough for the Bakerloo. But assuming money for Camden station improved interchange is not available, the best no split service required 26 trains which leaves 37 for the Bakerloo. So it still remains a possibility in hard times!

New trains for the Jubilee Line (1.9bn) + Northern Line splitting/Camden Town rebuild (£0.6-1.3bn) = (£2.5-3.2bn)
New trains for the Bakerloo and Central (£1-2bn)

Given the age of the 1972 stock, the lower overall cost and the current financial situation I think Bakerloo stands a much better chance of getting new trains than the Jubilee.

There does need to be a realisation that the 72 stock is already quite likely to see 60 years in service, and there comes a point where old vehicles become troublesome no matter how much is spent on them. I run an old car which would be completely financially unviable if decisions were based on pure economics - reality is as it ages it has become increasingly troublesome even with reduced usage. The 72 stock was never the most highly regarded stock in the first place, though its continued reasonable performance does reflect some credit on it, and in those who maintain it.

Much as personally I would love the 72 stock to go on forever, I think there may come a point where it becomes simply unviable.

It will be interesting to see if it outlives the 92 stock though!

[jimbo]

At a time of financial tightening, can a case really be made for replacing the Central line trains within nine years, when they have still to be fitted with new motors and many other upgrades? The programme will take three or four years to complete. Surely these must be allowed to settle in to see if they achieve the improvement that is promised, before it is decided as wasted money and new trains are ordered. There is no plan for new signalling, which will be thirty years old by then! Could perhaps two dozen new trains be ordered to interwork and improve current frequencies?

[aslefshrugged]

Oct 16, 2020 0:11:00 GMT jimbo said:

At a time of financial tightening, can a case really be made for replacing the Central line trains within nine years, when they have still to be fitted with new motors and many other upgrades? The programme will take three or four years to complete. Surely these must be allowed to settle in to see if they achieve the improvement that is promised, before it is decided as wasted money and new trains are ordered. There is no plan for new signalling, which will be thirty years old by then! Could perhaps two dozen new trains be ordered to interwork and improve current frequencies?

Apart from the thought of ordering new trains to a 30 year old design frequency is restricted by the "fixed block" signalling system which is only just coping with the current 34 tph. Also I doubt if there would be room for another two dozen trains at Hainault and Ruislip

A good point about the Central Line overhaul program, I think this might be another reason why the Bakerloo stands a better chance of getting new trains under the CSR

[vincenture]

If the new Central line trains (NTfL) are shorter due to it being 7 carriages maybe there is a little more room?

[brigham]

Are these scarcely-credible train frequencies somehow sacred?

Perhaps a few fewer trains per hour, with relaxed timings end-to-end, would place less strain on the stock, and allow the existing signalling to continue in use?

Some folk learn to make economies when money is tight. Not so TfL, seemingly.

[vincenture]

Oct 16, 2020 7:35:13 GMT brigham said:

Are these scarcely-credible train frequencies somehow sacred?

Perhaps a few fewer trains per hour, with relaxed timings end-to-end, would place less strain on the stock, and allow the existing signalling to continue in use?

Some folk learn to make economies when money is tight. Not so TfL, seemingly.

Perhaps making off-peak waiting times one minute longer will help? It won't hurt to add an extra minute for things to balance better and to preserve stock equipment? Overseas this has been done before, and off-peak speeds are also set slower between each stop so maybe that helps? We don't need to do it for long sections but for like stations between Shepherd's Bush and Liverpool Street slower speeds may be able to help preserve stock better during off-peak times since ppl aren't in a rush. They just have to adjust a little more time instead

[notverydeep]

Oct 16, 2020 7:39:37 GMT vincenture said:

Oct 16, 2020 7:35:13 GMT brigham said:

Are these scarcely-credible train frequencies somehow sacred?

Perhaps a few fewer trains per hour, with relaxed timings end-to-end, would place less strain on the stock, and allow the existing signalling to continue in use?

Some folk learn to make economies when money is tight. Not so TfL, seemingly.

Perhaps making off-peak waiting times one minute longer will help? It won't hurt to add an extra minute for things to balance better and to preserve stock equipment? Overseas this has been done before, and off-peak speeds are also set slower between each stop so maybe that helps? We don't need to do it for long sections but for like stations between Shepherd's Bush and Liverpool Street slower speeds may be able to help preserve stock better during off-peak times since ppl aren't in a rush. They just have to adjust a little more time instead

The problem with making journey times longer by extending either waiting time or on train time (and by implication trains more crowded) is that this makes travel less attractive and people travel less as a result. This particularly applies to off peak journeys as these are more 'descretionary' - that is to say people are more able to find alternative routes or alternative activities. For example, someone who make 10 off peak journeys per year might only make 8 as this option becomes less attractive. Across a large population of potential travellers this will amount to a significant loss of revenue, which may end up being a greater loss than the apparent cost saving. Many overseas operators are able to make their service less attractive, simply becuase they can be sure their government will pick up the tab...

Oct 15, 2020 23:17:33 GMT North End said:

There does need to be a realisation that the 72 stock is already quite likely to see 60 years in service, and there comes a point where old vehicles become troublesome no matter how much is spent on them. I run an old car which would be completely financially unviable if decisions were based on pure economics - reality is as it ages it has become increasingly troublesome even with reduced usage. The 72 stock was never the most highly regarded stock in the first place, though its continued reasonable performance does reflect some credit on it, and in those who maintain it.

Much as personally I would love the 72 stock to go on forever, I think there may come a point where it becomes simply unviable.

It will be interesting to see if it outlives the 92 stock though!

It is interesting to see that a fair number of 1990s cruise ships are being sent for scrap with the collapse of cruise traffic this year, whereas older ships are in some cases being sold on. I wonder if that industry is finding the same as rail - that 1990s builds are full of early and thus obsolete, difficult to obtain and / or expensive to replicate computer components, whereas earlier builds have only mechanical components that can be made in a foundry or basic electrical components which are more straightforward to custom make. 1970s gear seems much more likely to be a 'ship of thesus' (also known as Grandfather's Axe or 'Trigger's Broom')...

[aslefshrugged]

Oct 16, 2020 7:23:58 GMT vincenture said:

If the new Central line trains (NTfL) are shorter due to it being 7 carriages maybe there is a little more room?

I've not heard how many cars the Central Line version of the NTfL are going to have but the length of the train is irrelevant, in order to run more trains they would have to shorten the gaps between block marker boards/signals which would require an awful lot of engineering work, so probably too expensive.

[aslefshrugged]

Oct 16, 2020 7:39:37 GMT vincenture said:

Oct 16, 2020 7:35:13 GMT brigham said:

Are these scarcely-credible train frequencies somehow sacred?

Perhaps a few fewer trains per hour, with relaxed timings end-to-end, would place less strain on the stock, and allow the existing signalling to continue in use?

Some folk learn to make economies when money is tight. Not so TfL, seemingly.

Perhaps making off-peak waiting times one minute longer will help? It won't hurt to add an extra minute for things to balance better and to preserve stock equipment? Overseas this has been done before, and off-peak speeds are also set slower between each stop so maybe that helps? We don't need to do it for long sections but for like stations between Shepherd's Bush and Liverpool Street slower speeds may be able to help preserve stock better during off-peak times since ppl aren't in a rush. They just have to adjust a little more time instead

I'm not sure the Central Line's ancient ATP could handle different speeds for the peak and off peak.

[t697]

Oct 16, 2020 10:58:28 GMT aslefshrugged said:

Oct 16, 2020 7:23:58 GMT vincenture said:

If the new Central line trains (NTfL) are shorter due to it being 7 carriages maybe there is a little more room?

I've not heard how many cars the Central Line version of the NTfL are going to have but the length of the train is irrelevant, in order to run more trains they would have to shorten the gaps between block marker boards/signals which would require an awful lot of engineering work, so probably too expensive.

If all trains on a line are shorter and the signalling is modified accordingly, you can run more trains per hour than with longer trains. But probably not carry more passengers that way.

With recent plans for a replacement Central line fleet based on the new Piccadilly style train with its shorter shells and articulation, it's confusing to define a train by the number of 'cars' by comparison with the present ones.  Better to compare the overall train length and passenger capacity.  I understand the concept can deliver a train longer than the ones for the Picc, presumably about right size to be equivalent to an 8 car 92TS.

[vincenture]

Yes it is definitely longer than the existing Piccadilly line trains. Ya I agree with measuring based on overall length

[jimbo]

Oct 16, 2020 7:13:05 GMT aslefshrugged said:

Oct 16, 2020 0:11:00 GMT jimbo said:

At a time of financial tightening, can a case really be made for replacing the Central line trains within nine years, when they have still to be fitted with new motors and many other upgrades? The programme will take three or four years to complete. Surely these must be allowed to settle in to see if they achieve the improvement that is promised, before it is decided as wasted money and new trains are ordered. There is no plan for new signalling, which will be thirty years old by then! Could perhaps two dozen new trains be ordered to interwork and improve current frequencies?

Apart from the thought of ordering new trains to a 30 year old design frequency is restricted by the "fixed block" signalling system which is only just coping with the current 34 tph. Also I doubt if there would be room for another two dozen trains at Hainault and Ruislip

A good point about the Central Line overhaul program, I think this might be another reason why the Bakerloo stands a better chance of getting new trains under the CSR

I believe the current Central line peak service only operates for maybe 30 minutes in the peak direction since there are insufficient trains for more. This Upgrade promises around 100 new trains by the end of the decade so three hour peaks in both directions can operate. Also there will be no peak short-workings, so all trains will be Ruislip/Ealing - Epping/Hainault in future. This clears tunnel platforms in the evenings rather than people waiting for a through train. The Hainault-Woodford shuttle would be unchanged. It seems extravagant at financially tight times to replace 37 year old trains with average 7 year old motors and other improvements. I thought to only top the fleet up with sufficient new trains for the service improvements. I guess these would be of the current Piccadilly order style but lengthened to fit Central line platforms. I know a mixed fleet has not been used by LU in recent years, since the C and D stocks to Wimbledon, and is not ideal for staff training needs. But they could be maintained with the Picc trains by the Ruislip connection, and will not need daily attention. The current signalling would not permit more frequent services than current maximum, but could support longer peaks with more trains.

[stapler]

Assuming many many more people work from home posy virus (if there ever is a post-virus) - and we are already seeing home office extension planning applications (aka Zoom studios), won't capacity increases become superfluous, and thus for the 92TS, won't the temptation for TFL be to buy some more sticking plaster*, and keep them in service?

* literally, in the case of the 92s....

[goldenarrow]

Home working blanket superseding commuting is a red herring.

In reality only 35% of jobs are workable from home. Whilst that does represent a sizeable chunk of commuter traffic, employers may still find it beneficial to have staff onsite for all manner of reasons.

What I think this is leading to is a more flexible approach to working arrangements across the board with employees being offered a more comprehensive mix of home and out-of-home working which will undoubtedly change the somewhat linear commuter flows we’ve become accustomed to. But people will still travel and London won’t bounce back if everybody just gets into a car.

I guess one bittersweet positive from all this is that it has proved that the wide scale adoption of flexible working arrangements has always been possible in certain sectors for those that have always needed it, just a shame it has taken a global pandemic to prove the point.

[philthetube]

Oct 15, 2020 9:54:35 GMT aslefshrugged said:

Delivery of new trains for the Jubilee Line is scheduled for 2024-29 (page 21) while splitting the Northern Line and transfer of 1996s is scheduled for 2024-28 (page 33). New trains for the Bakerloo Line are scheduled for delivery "late 2020s" (page 19).

Sending 1996s to the Northern Line is pretty simple as they're similar to the 1995s so the drivers won't require much stock training (if any). Sending 1996s to the Bakerloo would mean every driver retraining on the stock and by the time they'd finished that it would be time to start retraining for the new "Piccadilly/Bakerloo/Central/W&C" trains.

Plus all the additional kit that would have to be installed on stations for in-cab CCTV, refitting trip cocks, etc. that's a lot of expenditure for trains that would only be there for a limited time

When training on 95 stock I was told that they are 70% different under the floor, although very similar above.  Whether this makes any difference to drivers I dont know, as they would not be electrically coupled during push outs etc there should not be an issue there.

I don't think refitting trip cocks is a big issue, it is done occasionally for stock moves currently.

Would it be necessary to worry about on train cctv. you could just end up with two blank screens on the train and continue using the current mirrors, monitors.  That is not to say they cctv is not desirable.

[aslefshrugged]

Oct 16, 2020 18:34:23 GMT jimbo said:

Oct 16, 2020 7:13:05 GMT aslefshrugged said:

Also there will be no peak short-workings, so all trains will be Ruislip-Epping or Ealing-Hainault in future.

All trains won't be Ruislip-Epping or Ealing-Hainault, if there were then West Ruislip and Loughton drivers would never work Hainault or Ealing Broadway branches while Hainault drivers would never work Epping or West Ruislip branches.  In the event of a service suspension on a branch loads of drivers would be able to refuse to work as they weren't licenced for the route which is why the timetables have Hainault-West Ruislip and Epping-Ealing Broadway trains to mix things up so that everyone gets to cover all the routes.

[revupminster]

When Parsons Green had a crew depot 100 drivers, 120 guards they used to operate Circle Line (when it was a circle) trains on a Sunday to maintain route knowledge.
Upminster years ago had no night crews. The earliest book on was 0500 and latest finish at 2400 because a lot of the crews came in on the first train from Southend.
Barking and Acton Town had the night crews.

[jimbo]

The Driverless Trains on London Underground Network Business Case - August 2020 page 16 says: The business case for the Jubilee line is based on timescales for fleet replacement with existing PEDs renewal. This suggests that the plan was for new PEDs to match the new trains. However, this is a plan for 20 year life for current trains, whereas the TfL submission of September for this thread is looking at 2024-29 upgrade rather than 2040.

[stapler]

Oct 20, 2020 22:32:41 GMT aslefshrugged said:

Oct 16, 2020 18:34:23 GMT jimbo said:

Also there will be no peak short-workings, so all trains will be Ruislip-Epping or Ealing-Hainault in future.

All trains won't be Ruislip-Epping or Ealing-Hainault, if there were then West Ruislip and Loughton drivers would never work Hainault or Ealing Broadway branches while Hainault drivers would never work Epping or West Ruislip branches.  In the event of a service suspension on a branch loads of drivers would be able to refuse to work as they weren't licenced for the route which is why the timetables have Hainault-West Ruislip and Epping-Ealing Broadway trains to mix things up so that everyone gets to cover all the routes.

This would surely mean empty trains bouncing through the fields beyond Debden to no advantage? Mind you, Epping is to be so soaked with housing under EFDC's plans for saturation housing along Epping High St, maybe they wouldn't be so empty. Let alone the mini-Croydon TFL want to see on the station car park!

[Dstock7080]

From Transport Commissioner:

Sunday, November 1, 2020 7:54:20 AM
We have reached agreement for around £1.8bn of funding to support us in delivering our essential services for London over the next six months. This is great news, and is the result of an extraordinary amount of effort behind the scenes - thank you to everyone who has contributed to this important work.

Reaching this agreement with the Government allows us to help London through this next phase of the pandemic. It enables us to move forward and get on with the vital work of serving London’s people and businesses; supporting the city’s economy and providing an excellent, safe and reliable service to our customers every day.

While this agreement secures our immediate future, there is still work to do with the government to explore options in a number of areas identified as part of this agreement, and to work towards longer-term sustainable funding.

There will also be work for us all to do to ensure that we achieve the savings incorporated in our revised budget in July and achieve an additional £160m of savings that we have committed to in the agreement with the government.. This will be in the form of additional income or savings through a mixture of lower capital and operating expenditure supported by stronger financial control measures.

We must now redouble our efforts for future years to find the necessary savings and develop a sustainable long-term plan for our continuing delivery of the transport services that the Capital needs.

I know that this has been an uncertain time and I am very pleased that we now have some security for our future. 

We all have a part to play in achieving longer-term stability - from those of you on the frontline providing a service for Londoners that is safe, clean, reliable and efficient, to the people whose work enables that to happen, our engineering and project colleagues, those who lead our teams and devise our strategy. 

Our future success will be built on the work that we all do now.

And that work continues to be so critical to London and keeping everyone safe in these extraordinary times. You’ll also have seen that yesterday the Prime Minister shared news of further restrictions to help us fight the pandemic.

We are already working to understand exactly what these new measures will mean to both our operational teams and office-based colleagues. We will, of course, let you know if there are changes we need to make in the way we are currently working.

Thank you for your trust, your patience, your commitment and your hard work. Together, we will keep London moving now and in the future. 
 
Andy Byford
Commissioner

From Mayor’s office:

Mayor sees off plan to extend C-Charge as deal reached on TfL funding
01 November 2020
Six-month deal means £1.8 billion of Government grant and borrowing made available on current projections to Transport for London (TfL) to keep services running until March 2021
Mayor rejects government plans for huge extension of the Congestion Charge zone, scrapping free travel for older and younger Londoners and increasing TfL fares by more than previously agreed
Transport for London to make £160m of savings this financial year, and City Hall will need to raise additional income to protect concessions for older and younger Londoners for future years - if the Mayor wants to continue these
Mayor says deal is ‘not ideal’ but adds that he fought hard against the Government’s determination to punish London
The Mayor of London has today reached an eleventh-hour agreement with the Government on a funding deal to keep tube, bus and other TfL services in the capital running until March 2021.

Sadiq Khan said the deal was "not ideal” but added: "We fought hard against this Government which is so determined to punish our city for doing the right thing to tackle Covid-19. The only reason TfL needs government support is because it’s fares income has almost dried up since March.”

The Mayor has succeeded in killing off the very worst Government proposals, which were confirmed in writing by the Transport Secretary during the negotiations. The Mayor had rejected the extension of the £15 daily Congestion Charge to the North and South circular roads as ministers had wanted – in a proposal which would have hit four million more Londoners hard. The Government has now backed down from this condition.

The Government also wanted to scrap free travel for under-18s and over-60s. These proposals have also been successfully defeated. The Government also wanted TfL fares to rise by more than the previously agreed RPI+1 per cent This has also been successfully fought off.

The deal makes around £1.8 billion of Government grant and borrowing available on current projections to TfL in the second half of this financial year. Transport for London will itself make up through cost savings the £160million gap the deal leaves from the nearly £2 billion the organisation projects it will need to run the tube, bus & other TfL services for the remainder of this financial year.

As part of the deal, London will also have to raise extra money in future years. Decisions about how this additional funding will be raised are yet to be made by the Mayor, but some of the options that he and the government have agreed to be looked at include a modest increase in council tax, pending the appropriate consultation, as well as keeping in place the temporary changes to the central London Congestion Charge that were introduced in June 2020, subject to consultation.

Despite providing the private rail operating companies with 18 months of funding with no conditions attached, the Government has refused to give TfL more than a six-month deal and even this has come with conditions. This means another financial agreement will have to be negotiated just before next year’s mayoral election, a far from ideal time to negotiate a fair long-term deal for London.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan said: “These negotiations with Government have been an appalling and totally unnecessary distraction at a time when every ounce of attention should have been focused on trying to slow the spread of Covid-19 and protecting jobs.

“The pandemic has had the same impact on the finances of the privatised rail companies as it has had on TfL and the Government immediately bailed them out for 18 months with no strings attached. There is simply no reason why the same easy solution could not have been applied to London, which would have allowed us all to focus on the issues that matter most to Londoners, which are tackling the virus and protecting jobs.

“I am pleased that we have succeeded in killing off the very worst Government proposals.”

[revupminster]

Khan was on BBC news channel saying the government wanted to take away free travel for the over 60's. He did not add or clarify that statement. A politicians answer to create mischief.

[class411]

Nov 1, 2020 14:12:52 GMT revupminster said:

Khan was on BBC news channel saying the government wanted to take away free travel for the over 60's. He did not add or clarify that statement. A politicians answer to create mischief.

Many other people have already said that. 'Think tanks' have been on at the government to reduce pensioner's benefits for years.

I suspect that you just don't like Sadiq Khan and are trying to score a political point yourself.

[sawb]

Nov 1, 2020 8:42:01 GMT Dstock7080 said:

From Transport Commissioner:

Sunday, November 1, 2020 7:54:20 AM
We have reached agreement for around £1.8bn of funding to support us in delivering our essential services for London over the next six months. This is great news, and is the result of an extraordinary amount of effort behind the scenes - thank you to everyone who has contributed to this important work.

Reaching this agreement with the Government allows us to help London through this next phase of the pandemic. It enables us to move forward and get on with the vital work of serving London’s people and businesses; supporting the city’s economy and providing an excellent, safe and reliable service to our customers every day.

While this agreement secures our immediate future, there is still work to do with the government to explore options in a number of areas identified as part of this agreement, and to work towards longer-term sustainable funding.

There will also be work for us all to do to ensure that we achieve the savings incorporated in our revised budget in July and achieve an additional £160m of savings that we have committed to in the agreement with the government.. This will be in the form of additional income or savings through a mixture of lower capital and operating expenditure supported by stronger financial control measures.

We must now redouble our efforts for future years to find the necessary savings and develop a sustainable long-term plan for our continuing delivery of the transport services that the Capital needs.

I know that this has been an uncertain time and I am very pleased that we now have some security for our future. 

We all have a part to play in achieving longer-term stability - from those of you on the frontline providing a service for Londoners that is safe, clean, reliable and efficient, to the people whose work enables that to happen, our engineering and project colleagues, those who lead our teams and devise our strategy. 

Our future success will be built on the work that we all do now.

And that work continues to be so critical to London and keeping everyone safe in these extraordinary times. You’ll also have seen that yesterday the Prime Minister shared news of further restrictions to help us fight the pandemic.

We are already working to understand exactly what these new measures will mean to both our operational teams and office-based colleagues. We will, of course, let you know if there are changes we need to make in the way we are currently working.

Thank you for your trust, your patience, your commitment and your hard work. Together, we will keep London moving now and in the future. 
 
Andy Byford
Commissioner

From Mayor’s office:

Mayor sees off plan to extend C-Charge as deal reached on TfL funding
01 November 2020
Six-month deal means £1.8 billion of Government grant and borrowing made available on current projections to Transport for London (TfL) to keep services running until March 2021
Mayor rejects government plans for huge extension of the Congestion Charge zone, scrapping free travel for older and younger Londoners and increasing TfL fares by more than previously agreed
Transport for London to make £160m of savings this financial year, and City Hall will need to raise additional income to protect concessions for older and younger Londoners for future years - if the Mayor wants to continue these
Mayor says deal is ‘not ideal’ but adds that he fought hard against the Government’s determination to punish London
The Mayor of London has today reached an eleventh-hour agreement with the Government on a funding deal to keep tube, bus and other TfL services in the capital running until March 2021.

Sadiq Khan said the deal was "not ideal” but added: "We fought hard against this Government which is so determined to punish our city for doing the right thing to tackle Covid-19. The only reason TfL needs government support is because it’s fares income has almost dried up since March.”

The Mayor has succeeded in killing off the very worst Government proposals, which were confirmed in writing by the Transport Secretary during the negotiations. The Mayor had rejected the extension of the £15 daily Congestion Charge to the North and South circular roads as ministers had wanted – in a proposal which would have hit four million more Londoners hard. The Government has now backed down from this condition.

The Government also wanted to scrap free travel for under-18s and over-60s. These proposals have also been successfully defeated. The Government also wanted TfL fares to rise by more than the previously agreed RPI+1 per cent This has also been successfully fought off.

The deal makes around £1.8 billion of Government grant and borrowing available on current projections to TfL in the second half of this financial year. Transport for London will itself make up through cost savings the £160million gap the deal leaves from the nearly £2 billion the organisation projects it will need to run the tube, bus & other TfL services for the remainder of this financial year.

As part of the deal, London will also have to raise extra money in future years. Decisions about how this additional funding will be raised are yet to be made by the Mayor, but some of the options that he and the government have agreed to be looked at include a modest increase in council tax, pending the appropriate consultation, as well as keeping in place the temporary changes to the central London Congestion Charge that were introduced in June 2020, subject to consultation.

Despite providing the private rail operating companies with 18 months of funding with no conditions attached, the Government has refused to give TfL more than a six-month deal and even this has come with conditions. This means another financial agreement will have to be negotiated just before next year’s mayoral election, a far from ideal time to negotiate a fair long-term deal for London.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan said: “These negotiations with Government have been an appalling and totally unnecessary distraction at a time when every ounce of attention should have been focused on trying to slow the spread of Covid-19 and protecting jobs.

“The pandemic has had the same impact on the finances of the privatised rail companies as it has had on TfL and the Government immediately bailed them out for 18 months with no strings attached. There is simply no reason why the same easy solution could not have been applied to London, which would have allowed us all to focus on the issues that matter most to Londoners, which are tackling the virus and protecting jobs.

“I am pleased that we have succeeded in killing off the very worst Government proposals.”

At the risk of opening a massive can of worms, how on earth might TfL achieve £160 million in savings?

[North End]

Nov 1, 2020 14:33:09 GMT class411 said:

Nov 1, 2020 14:12:52 GMT revupminster said:

Khan was on BBC news channel saying the government wanted to take away free travel for the over 60's. He did not add or clarify that statement. A politicians answer to create mischief.

Many other people have already said that. 'Think tanks' have been on at the government to reduce pensioner's benefits for years.

I suspect that you just don't like Sadiq Khan and are trying to score a political point yourself.

Without getting into the politics of it, there’s certainly a case for thinking about whether pensioner travel perks can be justified in the current and changing climate.

Whilst “poor pensioners” was a theme in the 1990s, nowadays it seems the opposite applies, and it’s younger people more in need of a squeeze.

[revupminster]

The point was that I thought it was Boris's 60+ pass was under threat and not the Freedom Pass.

[Chris M]

Pensioners these days cover a very wide spectrum of financial situations from struggling to pay for both heating and food in the winter all the way through to being able to afford multiple luxury holidays a year to everything in between. Most, if not all, the benefits pensioners receive are not means tested (although there are some additional means-tested benefits available to those who need them that are not age linked, the value of these has been steadily eroded and the eligibility tightened over recent years).

I shall refrain from making further comment at the moment as I can't think of a way to do so while remaining within the forum rules on political discussion.

[revupminster]

On an income tax point of view when I had a staff pass the tax man gave it a notional value (say £100) and reduced your tax code (say 10) so I wonder if 60+ holders have a tax code deduction. When I had a Freedom Pass and now just a bus pass (don't live in London) there was no reduction in tax code.

On another tax note when you use gift aid regularly for a donation my tax code was reduced one year but it has just been upped again.

[norbitonflyer]

Nov 1, 2020 16:58:59 GMT revupminster said:

On an income tax point of view when I had a staff pass the tax man gave it a notional value (say £100) and reduced your tax code (say 10) so I wonder if 60+ holders have a tax code deduction.

No we don't, because it is not a "benefit in kind" provided by an employer. Indeed we have to pay £20 for the 60+ Oyster. (However, the "Freedom Pass", which is issued to people of State Pension age, is free)