Blimey: TfL to take over most of London's rail network, says government

Waterloo, London's busiest station: many of the services here could end up in TfL hands. Image: Getty.

So, last week, the Centre for London think tank published a report called "Turning South London Orange", which argued that Transport for London (TfL) should take over all suburban rail services in the south of the capital.

This morning, the mayor of London Boris Johnson and the British government's transport secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, released a joint statement, saying, basically: Okay.

Wow, that happened fast.


Actually the statement goes rather further than that, mentioning services into six different rail terminals. They're only proposals at this stage - "views are being sought". Even if it does happen, TfL will only take control of different routes once the various franchise come up for renewal, so the change will take five years or more to take effect.

But this is nonetheless a remarkable statement of intent that the capital's rail network should be run by the capital's transport authorities. It's a big deal.

Here, in no particular order, are some thoughts.

Which lines are we talking about here?

London has 14 main line rail terminals. TfL took over the suburban services into Euston when the London Overground was created in 2007; it swallowed those into Liverpool Street last year, as part of the preparations for Crossrail, and most of the ones into Paddington will follow when that line opens in 2019.

That leaves 11 terminals unaccounted for. Today's statement mentions six more:

  • London Bridge, Cannon Street, Charing Cross, Victoria, and Waterloo, which between them account for most of the south London rail network;
  • And Moorgate, which accounts for a couple of lines through north London into Hertfordshire.

The statement doesn't provide a map of all this (boo). But here's one someone (NERA Consulting) prepared earlier – specifically, in 2011 – which gives you a sense of what we’re talking about here.

Click to expand. Image: NERA Consulting.

If you've been counting terminals, you'll have noticed there are five left unaccounted for. Inner suburban services into two of them - Marylebone and Fenchurch Street – have effectively been in TfL's hands for years, in the form of the Metropolitan and District lines.

But the other three are a bit harder to explain. The suburban services into St Pancras and Blackfriars stations are served by Thameslink, which is sort of an unloved mini-Crossrail. Those into King's Cross will get added to the network once the works to expand it complete in 2018. (That programme, incidentally, was originally known as Thameslink 2000. Megalols.)


Today's announcement contains no suggestion that TfL will take over Thameslink. Hmmmm.

Also unmentioned is the tiny branch line from Paddington to Greenford. No word on what'll happen there either.

We need more colours

And so to the thing everyone really wants to know: how will this look on the map?

Contra the Centre for London report, it probably won't mean a sea of orange: it's already getting difficult to distinguish one London Overground line from another, so the lines will surely have different colours on the map.

But there is a problem that the human eye can only distinguish a limited number of colours without getting confused. You can tell, at a glance, which is the Piccadilly and which the Victoria line. You probably couldn’t do that with three more shades of blue on the map.

There a number of ways around this. The current London rail map uses a sort of candy cane pattern...

...but that's a bit ugly. Its predecessor used hollow tram lines to show mainline services...

Another option would be to use fainter, pastel colours for the overground lines, as in this amateur map by our old mate, the designer Jug Cerovic.

Click to expand. Image: Jug Cerovic.

This is not going to be an issue for a while, but rest assured that we're going to be thinking about it. A lot.

What would this mean for the humble commuter?

London Overground has done a very good job of improving services on the north London orbital routes which it's run since 2007. The routes it took over last year have yet to see any significant change, however.

So what does today's announcement actually mean for the rest of the network? The spiel promises for the following:

  • more frequent services, more reliable trains, better interchanges and increased capacity;
  • a London Suburban Metro service with the potential for more than 80 per cent of stations to have a train every 15 minutes, up from 67 per cent today, as well as the potential for more regular services via Clapham Junction, South East London and Kent;
  • a better travel environment, and improvements to accessibility and staffing;
  • delivering a seamless and integrated service with joined up travel information.

Some of that is going to require some serious investment: to clean up stations, change signalling, re-arrange track geometry so that you can run more trains without them banging into each other at inopportune moments.

But some of it will just require a different attitude to running a railway. And that, arguably, will be the key difference.

The possible timetable for change, laid out in today’s “prospectus”. Image: TfL/Department for Transport.

When a private rail franchise controls a route, its ultimate goal is to make money for its shareholders: running trains is the means, not the end.

By contrast, when TfL controls a route, its ultimate mission is to run lots of trains to help the city run smoothly. That's true even when TfL's role is contract management, and the actual trains are run by a private firm, as happens with the London Overground.

Some London train franchises have a history of cancelling train services at the drop of a hat, just because it's easier and cheaper than letting them run late. Maybe we're being utopian, but it's hard to imagine a TfL-run network doing the same. Even without investment, this would be a big change.

But why bother now?

The press release makes a lot of noises about London's growing population, the need for more homes and business premises and so on – all of which means we'll need more railway capacity down the line.

But why is this happening now? Variations on this idea have been floating around for years, and Boris Johnson is under four months from the end of his eight year tenure as mayor. Why propose such a big change, so late in the day?

The obvious reason is politics. Reaction to the news has been almost universally positive, even fom people you'd expect ot be opposed on ideological grounds. Sam Bowman, for example, the executive director of the free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute, just tweeted this:

Which is a mark of how popular this move will be across the political spectrum. While we're quoting tweets, Conservative party's candidate to be Johnson's successor sent this:

The message here is the Conservatives can be trusted to back Londoners against any big businesses that might be making their lives hell. It's almost as if there's an election coming up.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric and has thought about this way too much.

You can follow him on Twitter here, and like us on Facebook here.

 
 
 
 

Here’s how we plant 2 billion more trees in the UK

A tree in Northallerton, North Yorkshire. Image: Getty.

The UK’s official climate advisor, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), recently published a report outlining how to reduce the 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions that come from land use by two thirds by 2050. Alongside recommending cutting meat and dairy consumption by 20 per cent, the report calls for the annual creation of up to 50,000 hectares of broadleaf and conifer woodland for the next three decades. This would increase forest cover from 13 per cent to at least 17 per cent – a level not seen in Britain since before the Norman invasion.

Reforestation at that rate would mean creating roughly the area of the city of Leeds every year for the next three decades. At typical stocking densities of 1,500 stems per hectare, the ambition is to establish some 2.25 billion additional trees. Given that the UK, as with most of Europe, is in the grip of ash dieback, a disease likely to prove fatal for many millions of native ash trees, the scale of the challenge is massive.

On a crowded and intensively farmed island like Britain, unlocking a million and a half hectares of land will be no mean feat. But it’s not impossible – and is an unprecedented opportunity not only to tackle the climate crisis but also the biodiversity crisis that is every bit as detrimental to our wellbeing.

Trees and farms

One million and a half hectares is just 6 per cent of the mainland UK’s land area. To give some sense of perspective on this, 696,000 hectares of “temporary grassland” were registered in 2019. So if land supply is not the problem, what is? Often it’s cultural inertia. Farmers are firmly rooted to the land and perhaps understandably reluctant to stop producing food and instead become foresters. But the choice need not be so binary.

The intensification of agriculture has caused catastrophic declines in many species throughout the UK by reducing vast wooded areas and thousands of miles of hedgerows to small pockets of vegetation, isolating populations and making them more vulnerable to extinction.

Integrating trees with the farmed landscape delivers multiple benefits for farms and the environment. Reforestation doesn’t have to mean a return to the ecologically and culturally inappropriate single-species blocks of non-native conifers, which were planted en masse in the 1970s and 1980s. Incentivised under tax breaks to secure a domestic timber supply, many of the resulting plantations were located in places difficult or in some cases impossible to actually harvest.

Productive farmland needn’t be converted to woodland. Instead, that 4 per cent of land could be found by scattering trees more widely. After all, more trees on farmland is good for business. They prevent soil erosion and the run-off of pollutants, provide shade and shelter for livestock, a useful source of renewable fuel and year-round forage for pollinating insects.

The first tranche of tree planting could involve new hedgerows full of large trees, preferably with wide headlands of permanently untilled soils, providing further wildlife refuge.


Natural regeneration

Where appropriate, new woody habitats can be created simply by stopping how the land is currently used, such as by removing livestock. This process can be helped by scattering seeds in areas where seed sources are low. But patience is a virtue. If people can learn to tolerate less clipped and manicured landscapes, nature can run its own course.

A focus on deliberate tree planting also raises uncomfortable truths. Most trees are planted with an accompanying stake to keep them upright and a plastic shelter that protects the sapling from grazing damage. All too often, these shelters aren’t retrieved. Left to the elements, they break down into ever smaller pieces, and can be swept into rivers and eventually the ocean, where they threaten marine wildlife. Two billion tree shelters is a lot of plastic.

The main reason for using tree shelters at all is because the deer population in the UK is so high that in many places, it is all but impossible to establish new trees. This also has serious implications for existing woodland, which is prevented from naturally regenerating. In time, these trees will age and die, threatening the loss of the woodland itself. Climate change, pests and pathogens and the lack of a coordinated, centrally supported approach to deer management means the outlook for the UK’s existing treescape is uncertain at best.

An ecologically joined-up solution would be to reintroduce the natural predators of deer, such as lynx, wolves, and bears. Whether rewilding should get that far in the UK is still the subject of debate. Before that, perhaps the focus should be on providing the necessary habitat, rich in native trees.

A positive response would be to implement the balanced recommendations, made almost a decade ago in a government review, of creating more new habitat, improving what’s already there, and finding ways to link it together. Bigger, better, and more connected habitats.

But the UK is losing trees at increasing rates and not just through diseases. The recent removal of Victorian-era street trees in Sheffield and many other towns and cities is another issue to contend with. As the climate warms, increasing urban temperatures will mean cities need shade from street trees more than ever.

Trees aren’t the environmental panacea that the politicians might have people believe – even if they do make for great photo opportunities – but we do need more of them. Efforts to expand tree cover are underway across the world and the UK will benefit from contributing its share. Hitting the right balance – some commercial forestry, lots of new native woodland and millions of scattered trees – will be key to maximising the benefits they bring.

Nick Atkinson, Senior Lecturer in Ecology & Conservation, Nottingham Trent University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.