UNDERGROUND NEWS

•g

First series Issue number 175

THE TIMETABLE for period beginning 50 J u l y 1976

F r i d a y 13 AU|!?ust S l i d e show arranged by R J Greenaway a t Hamraersiaith Town H a l l . 19.00 f o r 19.15.

Saturday 21 August Morning v i s i t to E a r l s Court S i g n a l School and Regulating Room. • P a r t y now complete; s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a n t s w i l l be r e c e i v i n g r e l e -vant d e t a i l s s h o r t l y .

Saturday 4 September V i s i t to the I s l e of Wight to see and do a l l s o r t s of i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s . For more d e t a i l s , please send S/iE to Other V i s i t s Organi-s e r , 39 Durnsford Road, London N i l 2Er.

F r i d a y 10 September Gordon Haf t e r w i l l t a l k about 1973 tube stock a t Hammersmith Town H a l l . 19.00 f o r 19.15.

Saturday 11 September S o c i e t y stand a t the London Omnibus T r a c t i o n S o c i e t y ' s Transport S p e c t a c u l a r . C e n t r a l H a l l , Westminster from 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.

Saturday I8 September R e s t r i c t e d morning v i s i t to Morden depot. Please send 1st C l a s s SAE to 113 Wandle Road, Morden, Surrey SM4 6iLD.

Friday/Saturday 24/5 September

V i s i t to L i v e r p o o l . See D1'J174 f o r f u l l e r i n s t r u c t i o n s .

F r i d a y 8 October The P r e s i d e n t ' s Address w i l l be given by John R Day at Hammersmith

(l^IHE) Town H a l l on a sub j e c t to be annoimced l a t e r . 19.00 f o r 19.15

Published 12 times a year by the London Underground Railway Society Correspondence should be addressed toThe Editor, Underground News 33 West Avenue Hendon, London NW4 2LL Opinions expressed are those of contributors and not necessanly endorsed by the Society. © The contents are copyright -

TIL^J'ISFER OF HIGHBURY BPu'JTCH TO BIlITIgH P A I L The t r a n s f e r of London Transport's Highbury branch of the Northern Line to B r i t i s h R a i l was e f f e c t e d under the terms of the 6th schedule of the Trans-port Act, 1962. T h i s was on a s i m i l a r b a s i s to that employed i n the t r a n s f e r of the Upmi.nster l i n e from B r i t i s h R a i l to London Transport i n I969 and the f i n a n c i a l arrangements followed the same p a t t e r n i n both cases.

A s i n g l e payment was made of £2.1million ( a t October 1975 p r i c e s ) to B r i t i s h R a i l i n respect of accrued l i a b i l i t y f o r ronpwals and deferred main-tenance. Of t h i s , £ O c 7 5 ' i i l l i o n was covered oy a Government g r a j i t , the r e -maining £l,4million beiiig paid by the London Transport E x e c u t i v e . There was no c a p i t a l payment i n respect of a s s e t s and no adjustment f o r changes i n the t r a f f i c revenue or working expenses of e i t h e r p a r t y . The three l a r g e s t items included i n the payment were, permanent way (£0,5nillion), the depot b u i l d -ing a t Drayton Park (CO.Jmillion) and s i g n a l l i n g and telecommunications (£0.2million), a l l net of grant.

The estimated e f f e c t on London Transport's revenue account of the t r a n s -ference to B r i t i s h R a i l w i l l be a net saving of about £0.2million per annum. T h i s f i g u r e r e l a t e s to the savings i n expenses and the l o s s of r e c e i p t s and i s c a l c u l a t e d on the b a s i s of p r e - t r a n s f e r London Transport operations on the branch. I t does not take account of any i n c r e a s e s i n t r a f f i c l e v e l s on the Underground system, g e n e r a l l y s i n c e these would have taken place i n any case as a r e s u l t of the e l e c t r i f i c a t i o n scheme and are u n l i k e l y to be s i g -n i f i c a n t i n net terms.

The advantages afforded by the t r a n s f e r are a more frequent s e r v i c e than p r e v i o u s l y provided v;ith f a s t e r journey times i n brand new r o l l i n g stock. I n a d d i t i o n there w i l l be the f a c i l i t y of cross-platform interchange w i t h the V i c t o r i a Line a t Highbury and through bookings w i t h the whole of the Underground system.

I t i s of note t h a t t h i s t r a n s f e r was approved i n p r i n c i p l e i n March 1957, by the then B r i t i s h Transport Commission, that commitment being i n h e r i t e d by the London Transport Board i n I965 and u l t i m a t e l y by i t s successor, the present London Transport E x e c u t i v e , i n 1970. A t o t a l of eighteen years from conception to enactment.

THROUGH TICI-aTING TO Hl^ATHRUV CEI^iTRilL Following a request from, the London Transport Passengers' Committee, sup-ported by the Heathrow A i r p o r t C o n s u l t a t i v e Committee, the Greater London Council has asked London Transport to introduce a scheme of through t i c k e t -in g to Heathrow C e n t r a l as a matter of urgency.

At present, passengers t r a v e l l i n g to Heathrow A i r p o r t are required to buy an Underground t i c k e t to Hounslow V/est, then to board a bus (route A l ) , purchasing a second t i c k e t from the d r i v e r i n the process. Since the P i c c -a d i l l y L i ne extension to Heathrow A i r p o r t i s due to open i n l a t e 1977, the London Transport Passengers' Committee see no reason not to implement a system of through bookings i n advance of the tube extension u s i n g a simple t r a n s f e r from t r a i n to bus at Hounslow West s t a t i o n . T h i s would a l l e v i a t e the n e c e s s i t y of buying two t i c k e t s f o r the one journey,

London Transport i n i t s submission b e l i e v e s t h a t the advantages to pass-engers of such a system would be v e r y small w i t h no discernable operating b e n e f i t s . An important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s to check e f f e c t i v e l y the v a l i d i t y of t i c k e t s to prevent fraudulent t r a v e l . London Transport consider i t unreason-able to expect the d r i v e r / o p e r a t o r on the A l bus route to c o l l e c t excess f a r e s , and the p h y s i c a l layout of the s t a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e s a weakness

224

against f r a u d , which the E x e c u t i v e does not wish to extend. The only s o l u -t i o n t h a t i t would seen to favour would be to i s s u e a separate t i c k e t f o r bus t r a v e l a t the sane t i n e as the passenger buys h i s Underground t i c k e t ,

A combined r a i l - r o a d t i c k e t ( a cheap day-return) was i s s u e d from a number of s t a t i o n s from 1955» but i t was withdrawn i n 1969 because v e r y few were so l d - about f i f t y per day. As the e x i s t i n g bus route A l i s pub-l i c i s e d q u i t e e x t e n s i v e l y , and i n the l i g h t of past experience, the executive f e e l s t hat i t would be unwise and an expensive e x e r c i s e to a l t e r the e x i s t i n g arrangements f o r such a short t i n e as twelve months,

T m i S P O R T COimTTEE - V E S T GEI?>L'.IJ UFAORT

Members and O f f i c e r s of the GLC Transport Committee v i s i t e d West Germajiy between 11 and 15 A p r i l 1976 i n order to study the urban tr a n s p o r t s y s -tems of Hajnburg and Munich. P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n was paid to the way i n which the v a r i o u s types of s e r v i c e are integ-rated to form a coherent whole, and to the q u a n t i t y and type of automation leading to s t a f f savings.

I t was found that the nom^l procedure i n l a r g e German c i t i e s i s to c o n t r o l a l l the p u b l i c transport through a p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a s s o c i a t i o n . A l l the t r a n s p o r t operators w i t h i n the r e l e v a n t a rea belong to the assoc-i a t i o n which f i x e s f a r e l e v e l s and s t r u c t u r e s , and co-ordinates timetab-l e s f o r a l l the s e r v i c e s .

The Hamburg a s s o c i a t i o n ( H W ) comprises nine operators of whom the two most important are the HHii ( a p u b l i c company which runs the buses, trams, S-bahn, U-bahn and boats) and the German F e d e r a l Railway (which runs the suburban r a i l s e r v i c e s ) . The p a r a l l e l o r g a n i s a t i o n i n Munich ( M W) comprises three operators, the two main ones being the F e d e r a l R a i l -way and the c i t y department, which runs buses, t r a n s and U-bahn.

Both these organisations have small s t a f f complements ( H W has 89 and M W has 88 permanent employees) and are f r e e of p o l i t i c a l and governmental c o n t r o l s , except i n the broadest sense. As f a r as finance i s concerned, about 6 5 ^ of the H W running costs are net by f a r e revenues, the r e s t coming from S t a t e g r a n t s . The corresponding f i g u r e f o r the M W i s 42^« Both a u t h o r i t i e s b e l i e v e t h a t they w i l l more n e a r l y approach the break-even point t h i s year.

B e n e f i t s to the passenger from in t e g r a t e d urban tr a n s p o r t systems were seen to be t h r e e f o l d . F i r s t l y , d i f f e r e n t s e r v i c e s are routed such t h a t they complement r a t h e r than du p l i c a t e each other. The bus and tram s e r v i c e s form mainly feeders to the c i t y centre r a i l w a y s , both U-bahn and S-bahn. Both c i t i e s a l s o provide ex t e n s i v e park-and-ride f a c i l i t i e s , parking spaces being f r e e to passengers. I n Hamburg trams are being phased out and l a r g e l y replaced i n the c i t y centre by a new S-bahn extension, s i m i l a r to the ' C r o s s r a i l ' concept proposed f o r London's main t e r m i n i . Munich, however, i s r e t a i n i n g trams and b u i l d i n g a f u r t h e r U-bahn l i n e . Munich trams are l a r g e two-car v e h i c l e s which run on routes l a r g e l y separated from other t r a f f i c .

Secondly, the separate s e r v i c e s are timetabled to ensure ease of conn-e c t i o n s , s i m p l i c i t y of operation and adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r adjustments i f d i s r u p t i o n occurs. These p r o v i s i o n s take the form of management personnel at important l o c a t i o n s , r a d i o communications between a l l buses and trams and t h e i r c o n t r o l centres and a c e n t r a l i s e d c o n t r o l system w i t h a pool of spare v e h i c l e s and crews a v a i l a b l e to f i l l gaps i n s e r v i c e s caused by break-down, t r a f f i c congestion, e t c .

T h i r d l y , the f a r e system i s g r e a t l y s i m p l i f i e d . Only one t i c k e t i s needed} t h i s permits t r a v e l on and f r e e interchange between bus, tram,

2 2 5

tr-hahn and S-bahn (and boat i n Hanbvjg) w i t h i n ths apprcpr:'.£te f a r e zone. E x t r a charges are jjjayable f o r journeys i n t o anothor zone. Two b a s i c zoning patterns are used; a v e r y s n a i l nunber (2-6) of concentric zones f o r s i n g l e t i c k e t s , and s u b d i v i s i o n s of these i n t o r i n g s and even s e c t i o n s ( t o t a l l i n g 4 I - I I 8 ) f o r season t i c k e t s . S i n g l e t i c k e t s are d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y expensive and most re ^ j u l a r t r a v e l l e r s use season t i c k e t s . I n Munich, however, s i n g l e t i c k e t s may be bought i n blocks of s i x or twelve a t some 2']'fo discount, comparing favourably w i t h season t i c k e t r a t e s .

A recent experiment i n Munich has been the replacement of suburban bus s e r v i c e s a f t e r the evening peak v/ith ' r o u t e - t a x i s • . These are normal t a x i s i n which a passenger may tender a p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t t i c k e t and the d r i v e r w i l l then f o l l o w the appropriate bus route to the desired stop. The aim of the experiment i s to maintain e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e l e v e l s a t reduced c o s t . No attempt has been made to change s e r v i c e q u a l i t y by route d e v i a t i o n , e t c .

Automation i s h i g h l y advanced on a l l s e r v i c e s ; U-bahn t r a i n s are a l l one-man operated and t i c k e t s are bought from machines or i n advance from s a l e s o f f i c e s . F u r t h e r manpower savings are made by having no t i c k e t i n s -pections a t e i t h e r e n t r y or e x i t p o i n t s . I n s p e c t o r s i n p l a i n c l o t h e s make random checks on board v e h i c l e s and may impose summary f i n e s f o r revenue offences I t h i s appea,rs to be h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e i n these c i t i e s . S t a t i o n c leaning i s subcontracted w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t most s t a t i o n s have only one f u l l - t i n e employee on the premises. S t a f f c o s t s are hence much lower than i n London.

I n conclusion, the Transport Committee f e e l s t hat the v i s i t was e n l i -ghtening and worthv;hile i n view of the recent c o n s u l t a t i o n document on Transport P o l i c y .

A F C POLICY The present declared p o l i c y of London Transport on Automatic Fa.re C o l l e c -t i o n (iiFC) comprises an expenditure of about £11 000 000 on i n s t a l l i n g automatic t i c k e t gates a t inwards b a r r i e r s a t s t a t i o n s w i t h a view to c u r -t a i l i n g the amo\int of fraudulent t r a v e l l i n g on the system. These automatic b a r r i e r s would be supplemented w i t h manually operated t r i p o d b a r r i e r s op-erated by the t i c k e t c o l l e c t o r , g i v i n g him ( t h e o r e t i c a l l y ) more c o n t r o l over people passing him. The GLC r e q u i r e s LT to i n s t a l l gates a t s t a t i o n s only where i t could be expected t h a t there would be a subsequent reduction i n fraud and where there would be l e a s t r i s k t h a t increased r e c e i p t s would not cover the costs i n v o l v e d .

The gates are of the type designed f o r LT's System C iiFC Programme, though fox^ the t i n e being, the coding and checking i s of a temporary and s i m p l i f l G d nature, LT i s pursuing w i t h B r i t i s h Raj.lways the p o s s i b i l i t y of in'sroduolog a compatible encodatJ.e t i c k e t wixh a view to c u t t i n g down on more LT s t a f f and to i n c r e a s e usage of the automatic b a r r i e r s .

The gates ( o r b a r r i e r s ) being introduced under t h i s , the System C, programme, are tending to be i n s t a l l e d a t suburban r a t h e r than C e n t r a l Area s t a t i o n s . There i s a number of reasons f o r t h i s , not l e a s t t h a t there are more of them. Other reasons include that often lower c a p i t a l costs are involved and a l s o many C e n t r a l Area s t a t i o n s were equipped^ f o r iiFC before the System C programme, f o r example, f o r the V i c t o r i a L i n e .

At present, two items f a l l below the i d e a l System C standard. F i r s t l y , many s t a t i o n s are not y e t equipped w i t h manually-operated t r i p o d b a r r i e r s , enabling p o t e n t i a l defrauders to pass through an open b a r r i e r without a c o r r e c t t i c k e t , and secondly the coding i s of a somewhat inadequate nature,

226

enabling the PHDs (and others) to enter the system without a c o r r e c t t i c k e t . •ij::-?- London Transport's l a t e s t p o l i c y ( a s reported to the GLC f o r 30 Jvne 1976) is.to-'consolidate the e x i s t i n g system by completing the present pro-gramme of gate i n s t a l l a t i o n , completing the i n s t a l l a t i o n of manually oper-ated t r i p o d b a r r i e r s and ' improving' the coding arra.nger.ients of encodable t i c k e t s . T h i s l a s t item i s l i k e l y to be expensive and a l s o x-educe the r e -l i a b i l i t y of ( c o r r e c t ) t i c k e t acceptance and i s p o s s i b l y , f o r the moment, a f a l s e 'economy'. Furthermore, the manually operated b a r r i e r s are only as good as the people who operate them and unless t h i s f a c t o r can be improved upon then the needless delays i n c u r r e d by passengers forced to use them could prove more of a x'roblem than t h a t which the gates are designed to • prevent.

So f a r as B r i t i s h Railways are concerned, i t has not y e t proved poss-i b l e to concur on one system which each concern i s able to agree they can use. For example, the s i z e of the t i c k e t and the code-packing density are d i f f e r e n t f o r both systems. I n both cases, and at enormous expense, contrac-t o r s have been a c t i n g f o r each operator on a c o n s u l t a t i v e b a s i s .

The costs of the i n i t i a l 'System C i n s t a l l a t i o n s were hoped to be j u s t i f i e d by a minimum '^^/o s t a t i o n r e c e i p t i n c r e a s e and an i n c r e a s e of 8^ was c o n s e r v a t i v e l y hoped f o r . P r e l i m i n a r y r e s u l t s r e a l i z e d an increase of v e r y much l e s s than t h i s however. I t i s agreed t h a t i t amply covers costs but by no means comes up to o r i g i n a l expectations. A l s o , an i n t e r e s t i n g p o int, r e s u l t s v a r y v e r y widely between d i f f e r e n t types of s t a t i o n .

PRELltiliiiiRY 'SYSTEM C RESULTS C a p i t a l Cost Annual Cost Annual Gain Annual Savings

Amos Grove £ 1 3 0 0 0 £ 5 500 £ 5 000 2.2fo - £ 5 0 0 Bounds Green £ 1 6 0 0 0 £ 1 500 £ 1 0 0 0 0 £ 8 500

Brent £ 2 8 0 0 0 £ 2 0 0 0 £ 4 000 4.5/0 £ 2 0 0 0 Burnt Oak £ 2 4 500 £ 2 000 £ 8 500 4.6/. £ 6 500

Canons Park £ 2 3 000 • £ 2 000 £ 4 000 £ 2 000 Cockfosters : £ 2 4 500 £ 2 000 £ 9 000 C.lfo £ 7 0 0 0

C o l i n d a l e £ 1 9 000 £ 5 500 £ 1 2 500 £ 7 0 0 0 D o l l i s K i l l £ 1 9 500 £ 1 500 £ 8 500 £ 7 0 0 0

Edgware £ 5 9 0 0 0 £ 7 000 £ 9 500 5.3>i' £ 2 500 Hendon C e n t r a l £ 2 1 0 0 0 £ 6 0 0 0 £ 8 500 5.9"/° £ 2 500

Hyde Park Corner £ 2 0 000 £ 6 000 £ 1 6 000 8,19^i £ 1 0 0 0 0 . . K i l b u r n £ 2 8 000 £ 2 500 £ 1 0 000 5.7/° • £ 7 500

Leytonstone £ 5 1 500 £ 2 000 £ 7 000 £ 5 000 Manor House £ 2 8 0 0 0 £ 6 500 £ 1 2 000 4.5?^ £ 5 500

S tanmore £ 2 5 000 £ 6 000 £ 1 3 000 6,7fo £ 7 000 West Hanpstead £ 2 0 000 £ 1 500 £ 9 000 5.0^i £ 7 500

Willesden Green £ 2 0 000 £ 2 000 £ 6 000 2,4?J £ 4 000 I t i s to be i n f e r r e d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f seem to be r e q u i r e d a t s t a -

t i o n s c u r r e n t l y being equipped w i t h 'System C - a commodity shorter than money, p o s s i b l y . Presumably where the a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f are not forthcoming dela.ys to passengers occur or e l s e t i c k e t - c h e c k i n g standards are f u r t h e r reduced.

The f i n a n c i a l ' r e s u l t s ' tabulated above a r e , i n c i d e n t a l l y , v ery suspect. NO i n d i c a t i o n i s given ( w i t h them i n t h e i r source) as to how they were a r r -i v e d a t , or t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance w i t h respect to each other or anything i n p a r t i c u l a r . They are of use only i n ^ pure comparison e x e r c i s e . As an

227

example of items taken i n t o account i n an attempt to a r r i v e a t the t a b u l -ated i n c r e a s e i n r e c e i p t s , the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a were considered,

a) Upwards adjustments i . f o r f a r e s i n f l a t i o n above the general r a t e i i . c o r r e c t i o n f o r fraudulent opportunities a r i s i n g out of a

5p minimum f a r e (considered to be ' r a t h e r low') as opposed to lOp

i i i . f o r i n t r o d u c t i o n of b e t t e r gate checking l o g i c (No explan-a t i o n forthcoming; one wonders how, i f or when the enormous c a p i t a l cost w i l l outweigh any f r a u d due to the present 'bad l o g i c ' )

b) Downwards adjustments i . f o r the l o s s of excess f a r e s p r e v i o u s l y paid i n elsewhRre. i i . f o r l o s s of i n i t i a l s t a f f enthusiasm i i i . f o r increased passenger adeptness as frauds which s t i l l

remain p o s s i b l e ( o r have now been l a i d open). There are so many v a r i a b l e s that the i n c r e a s e i n r e c e i p t s seems not only u n r e l i a b l e , but completely a r b i t r a r y .

HEATHROW AIRPOItT / CENTRi.L? The London Transport Passengers' Committee, supported by the Heathrow A i r -port C o n s u l t a t i v e Committee, i s to make repr e s e n t a t i o n s to London Transport and the Greater London Council to change the proposed name Heathrow C e n t r a l to Heathrow A i r p o r t , w i t h p o s s i b l y ' c e n t r a l ' added i n small l e t t e r i n g . Members of the LTPC voted by a m a j o r i t y of two on a r e s o l u t i o n to include the word 'Airport' i n the s t a t i o n name.

London Transport, when considering the names of the s t a t i o n s on the P i c c a d i l l y L i n e extension,proposed the name 'Heathrow C e n t r a l ' because of a f u r t h e r p o s s i b l e extehsion to P e r r y Oaks, i n which case there might have been a 'Heathrow West' s t a t i o n . I f t h i s new extension were b u i l t there would then be three s t a t i o n s w i t h i n the A i r p o r t perimeter. However, only the c e n t r a l s t a t i o n would normally be used by passengers to and from the t e r m i n a l b u i l d i n g s .

1975 P i c c a d i l l y L ine r o l l i n g stock already entering s e r v i c e has the d e s t i n a t i o n 'Heathrow' ( w i t h an a i r c r a f t symbol i n white on a blue back-ground) on the d e s t i n a t i o n b l i n d s .

I n view of the exiiected opening date, l a t e 1977» and the considerable amount of a l t e r e d p u b l i c i t y already erected by LT, g i v i n g the name as 'Heathrow C e n t r a l ' , the LTPC's a c t i o n seems a l i t t l e l a t e .

PI^-EML^IVE TICKET ARR/JNGMCirTS London Transport's p u b l i c i t y coverage i s g e n e r a l l y v e r y good, however, i n the l i g h t of recent f a r e s i n c r e a s e s , one n o t i c e a b l e anomaly has appeared, namely the l a c k of p u b l i c i t y f o r pre-emptive t i c k e t arrangements.

The arrangement whereby q u a r t e r l y and annual season t i c k e t s are i n c r -eased p r o p o r t i o n a l l y p r i o r to a general f a r e s r e v i s i o n was f i r s t i n t r o -duced i n 1 9 7 2 . While B r i t i s h Railways have implemented the arrangements to the f u l l , they have only applied i n respect of Undergroxand season t i c -k e t s from the 5-atest f a r e s i n c r e a s e . The main reason f o r implementing the f u l l arrangements now i s due to the C e n t r a l Government i n s i s t e n c e to make pu b l i c t r a n s p o r t more s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g , and t h i s means e x t r a c t i n g every l a s t drop of revenue. The E x e c u t i v e t h e r e f o r e introduced what i t considered

228

a f a i r arrangement, whereby a pa.ssenger buying a t i c k e t f o r a period g r e a t e r than one month, j u s t p r i o r to the i n c r e a s e , would pay a r a t e r e f l e c t i n g the the old r a t e up to the r e v i s i o n date and the higher r a t e f o r the rem.aining period.

However, judging by the la r g e number of phone c a l l s and l e t t e r s of con-p l a i n t r e c e i v e d by LT, the LTI'C and the GLC Transport Connittee, the p u b l i -c i t y coverage f a i l e d to b r i n g the pre-eraptive arrangements to the n o t i c e of a la r g e nunber of passengers.

I t would be f a i r to s t a t e t h a t ps,ssenf-ers usua,lly complain when events work against them and f a i l to give c r e d i t when i n t h e i r favour, but i n order to p a c i f y or pre-enpt any p o s s i b l e complaints on f u t u r e occasions, the p u b l i c i t y coverage should be improved.

I t i s a l s o of i n t e r e s t to note t h a t LT considers the Go-As-You-Please t i c k e t s as t o u r i s t t i c k e t s only and do not see any j u s t i f i c a t i o n to p u b l i -c i s e them f o r use by the commuting p u b l i c .

IJF 1692 London Transport posters from the post-war period (mainly) w i l l be on show on HMS B e l f a s t between 7 ii.ugust and 5I August. Some of the posters are i l l u s t r a t e d i n the London Transport/lhaidon Press book e n t i t l e d 'London Transport Posters' and assembled by LT's new Pub-l i c i t y O f f i c e r Michael Levey. The book w i l l be o f f i c i a l l y pub-l i s h e d a t the opening of the e x h i b i t i o n and w i l l be a.vailable a t TEOs and bookshops a t £ 5 . 5 0 , but copies have already been seen on s a l e (on 27 J u l y ) i n a well-known C e n t r a l London 'bookshop'.

INTF 1695 The Northern C i t y Line w i l l re-open on I6 ^Uf^TUst under BR c o n t r o l , between Drayton I'ark and Old S t r e e t . I t i s now thought t r a i n s may be able to continue i n passenger s e r v i c e to Moorgate since i t i s l i k e l y that e s c a l a t o r work there w i l l be f i n i s h e d . The f i r s t t r a i n w i l l depart Drayton Park a t 06.45 and there w i l l be a ten-minute s e i v i c e w i t i l O 7 . 4 5 , eight-minute u n t i l O9.O5 and from 16.05 to 18.45 and ten-ninute between 09.05 and 16.05 and a f t e r 18.45 u n t i l the l a s t t r a i n a t 1 9 . 5 5 . On Saturdays there w i l l be a ten-ninute s e r v i c e i n the morning and eight-minute i n the afternoon, and on Sundays, apparently, eight-ninute a l l day. When the through s e r -v i c e commences the f i r s t southbound (Up) t r a i n w i l l be the 05.OO from Hertford' North and the f i r s t northbound (Down) t r a i n w i l l be the 0 5 . 4 5 from Moorgate.

NT 1694 The d r i v e r and guard of a Bakerloo L i n e t r a i n were k i l l e d i n a c o l l i s i o n i n Weasden depot on, Wednesday 7 J u l y . Twenty-five I958 stock c a r s ( b e l i e v e d a l l EHO) were invo l v e d .

NF 1695 A report i n the D a i l y Telegraph f o r Wedjieday J)0 June i n d i c a t e s that LT have v i r t u a l l y had to stop recruitment due to f i n a n c i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s . According to the newspaper they are short of 2600 (bus) d r i v e r s , about the same as l a s t year.

IJF 1696 Videotape-recorders are to be used i n conjunction w i t h sta,tion t e l e v i s i o n cameras i n a f u r t h e r attempt to catch 'muggers' and to reduce v i o l e n c e . S t a t i o n s p a t r o l l e d w i l l be B r i x t o n , S t o c k w e l l , Clapham North, Clapham Common, Balham, Tooting Broadway and South Wimbledon. The equipment w i l l be housed i n a c e n t r a l Control Room.

NF 1697 London Transport renamed Brent s t a t i o n Brent Cross on Tuesday 20

229

J u l y , h l l but one of the r e c t a n g u l a r naneplates had been replaced by s i n i l a r oneo w i t h the new na,ne. By 21 J u l y , the remaining r e c t -angular p l a t e and the four 'three-piece' p l a t e s had been a l t e r e d . At the time of w r i t i n g few other signs (such as l i n e diagrams and d i r e c t i o n signs on lamp-posts) had been a l t e r e d . The cost of the e x e r c i s e i s not known at present,

MF 1698 'A' stock car 5218 f i t t e d w i t h t r i a l a i r - s u s p e n s i o n , entered pass-enger s e r v i c e i n the evening peak on 5 J u l y 1976. I t i s i n i t i a l l y confined to s e r v i c e on the Watford l i n e .

HF 1699 S i x t y t r a i n s of 1975 stock had been completed by mid-June of which 25^ were ready f o r s e r v i c e . One t r a i n was d e l i v e r e d r e c e n t l y w i t h i t s motors f i t t e d as a t r i a l to reduce commissioning work at R u i -s l i p .

NF 1700 Guard B i l l Nevard, aged 8 0 , has r e t i r e d from London Transport a f t e r sixty-one y e a r s s e r v i c e . He s t a r t e d work i n 1915 as a gateman on the Great Northern, P i c c a d i l l y and Brompton Railway. He so enjoyed h i s work i n l a t e r years t h a t a t age 65 he decided to stay on. He was based a t Edgware.

NF 1701 Essex County Council has agreed to contribute towards the s e r v i c e on the Epping-Ongar s h u t t l e , at present alleged to be making a l o s s of over £500 000 but ' s e r v i c e economies' w i l l be needed. LT propose to reduce the t w o - t r a i n peak s e r v i c e to one, presiamably a l l o w i n g the passing loop to be removed. LT says the maximum f r e -quency that can then be provided w h i l e r e t a i n i n g good connections at Epping, i s 55 minutes as compared w i t h the present 20-minute i n t e r v a l s , A q u e s t i o n a i r e d e t a i l i n g p o s s i b l e timetable options was handed to passengers a t s t a t i o n s north of Epping on the morning of 15 June. The options allow passengers to choose which of the more popular t r a i n s could be retained and which they would mind l e a s t being a l t e r e d .

NF 1702 The GLC i s to appoint Mr Roger Graef to the London Transport Exec-u t i v e as a part-time member a t a s a l a r y of £1000. The appointment i s f o r three y e a r s . Mr Graef i s a f o r t y year old TV f i l m producer and w r i t e r on planning and communications. He has prcxlnoed t h i c t y -f i v e documentary f i l m s f o r t e l e v i s i o n , i s a governor of the B r i t i s h F i l m I n s t i t u t e and Chairman of i t s committee on informa-t i o n and documentation. He i s a l s o a member of the DoE Development Control .Review Advisory Committee and chairman of the study group on public involvement i n planning, Mr Daly s a i d Mr Graef has a wide knowledge and has much to o f f e r London Transport,

J£nn!ER TO THE EDITOR S i r ,

(With reference to pp 216-7) the August I 9 6 5 i s s u e of London Transport Magazine, p6, e x p l a i n s how s p l i t - l e v e l arm r e s t s were introduced experim-e n t a l l y i n one car on the Bakerloo Line f o l l o w i n g a suggestion by Mr D McDermid ( a passenger). T h i s was followed by twenty-one c a r s on the North-e m L i n e . I t was then intended so to equip f i v e 7-car t r a i n s on the North-em L i n e . 14 J u l y 1976 Yours f a i t h f u l l y , Canberley, Surrey R P G Richards