|
Post by snoggle on Dec 6, 2016 10:23:45 GMT
Looks like TfL won't be getting its hands on the inner suburban services of South Eastern. In amongst Chris Grayling's announcements today about privatising the East Rail link from Oxford to Cambridge and "closer working" in the new South Eastern and East Midlands franchises is this phrase. "I intend to press ahead with a recommendation put to the department 5 years ago by Sir Roy McNulty, when he reported to Philip Hammond on how to make the railways run better and more cost-effectively. I will do this initially at an operational level. In order for all those involved to be incentivised to deliver the best possible service for the passenger, I expect the new franchises – starting with South Eastern and East Midlands - to have integrated operating teams between train services and infrastructure. I will also be inviting Transport for London (TfL) to be more closely involved in developing the next South Eastern franchise, through seconding a TfL representative to the franchise specification team." So 1 representative from TfL. No mention of the joint prospectus. No mention of devolved services or operation. So the Mayor has failed and Grayling is being his usual incompetent self. If South Eastern devolution is dead then we can reasonably predict, if Grayling remains, that there will be no devolution of Southern or SWT inner suburban services either.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Dec 6, 2016 10:34:26 GMT
Looks like TfL won't be getting its hands on the inner suburban services of South Eastern. In amongst Chris Grayling's announcements today about privatising the East Rail link from Oxford to Cambridge and "closer working" in the new South Eastern and East Midlands franchises is this phrase. "I intend to press ahead with a recommendation put to the department 5 years ago by Sir Roy McNulty, when he reported to Philip Hammond on how to make the railways run better and more cost-effectively. I will do this initially at an operational level. In order for all those involved to be incentivised to deliver the best possible service for the passenger, I expect the new franchises – starting with South Eastern and East Midlands - to have integrated operating teams between train services and infrastructure. I will also be inviting Transport for London (TfL) to be more closely involved in developing the next South Eastern franchise, through seconding a TfL representative to the franchise specification team." So 1 representative from TfL. No mention of the joint prospectus. No mention of devolved services or operation. So the Mayor has failed and Grayling is being his usual incompetent self. If South Eastern devolution is dead then we can reasonably predict, if Grayling remains, that there will be no devolution of Southern or SWT inner suburban services either. You now have a Tory government and a Labour Mayor. When they are opposing parties ... cooperation between the 2 is never as good as when both are from the same party. Is it in the DfTs interest to make the London Mayor look good, or one that fails to deliver on his promises?
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 6, 2016 11:00:01 GMT
If South Eastern devolution is dead then we can reasonably predict, if Grayling remains, that there will be no devolution of Southern or SWT inner suburban services either. Well let's be honest here, it was kind of a long shot anyway. There's no way the companies would willingly give up their sources of income like that...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 6, 2016 11:42:47 GMT
If South Eastern devolution is dead then we can reasonably predict, if Grayling remains, that there will be no devolution of Southern or SWT inner suburban services either. Well let's be honest here, it was kind of a long shot anyway. There's no way the companies would willingly give up their sources of income like that... Nothing to do with the companies to be honest. They are contractors. They do what they are told. It was always a political decision and the political landscape has changed. I suspect that if Patrick McLoughlin was still at the DfT we'd have seen it go ahead. Grayling and Khan were adversaries on Justice matters in the Commons so there's no love lost there plus Grayling is in "do something" mode as a new SoS at the DfT. Unfortunately Mr Grayling has a very poor track record - look at how much Gove reversed at MoJ when he took over and also look at the Prisons crisis we now have. All point back to Mr Grayling. I am deeply sceptical about this revised "co-operation" concept he's dreamt up. If we are not careful then we'll have a right old mess as to who is responsible for repairing what in the future and that can lead to all sorts of issues.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 6, 2016 12:16:02 GMT
I'm not sure what would be gained by TfL taking them over anyway, I think many people just like the idea of a non profit making organization running things.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Dec 6, 2016 12:20:51 GMT
I'm not sure what would be gained by TfL taking them over anyway, I think many people just like the idea of a non profit making organization running things. How is TfL more not for profit than DfT? How is Arriva or MTR any less profit driven than any other TOC?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 6, 2016 12:29:15 GMT
I'm not sure what would be gained by TfL taking them over anyway, I think many people just like the idea of a non profit making organization running things. How is TfL more not for profit than DfT? How is Arriva or MTR any less profit driven than any other TOC? Don't TfL reinvest any profit?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 6, 2016 12:38:29 GMT
I'm not sure what would be gained by TfL taking them over anyway, I think many people just like the idea of a non profit making organization running things. I don't think that's anything to do with it. These are the reasons why people wanted a TfL takeover. 1. Increased service volumes off peak and evenings. 2. Likelihood of longer trains after new trains delivered. 3. Staffed stations at all times. 4. Stations would be refurbished. 5. Simplified fares and removal of zone 1 "add on" fare if travelling into Zone 1 and using Tube. 6. A more integrated approach to public transport service levels and redevelopment. Huge redevelopments in SE London but no plans exist to increase services on SE to cope. TfL has clear role in supporting spatial development. TOCs do not and Network Rail is not really set up to respond properly. 7. The likelihood of more investment in the medium term to unblock junction and terminal capacity and increase signalling throughput. 8. Democratic control and oversight of TfL would apply to devolved rail services. There is no evidence that the DfT is interested in delivering *all* of the above. It might do bits and bobs but people in SE London have long been very fed up with South Eastern's services. A TfL takeover offered some prospect of improvement on services that have long played "second fiddle" to outer area routes but the opportunity has gone for as long as Grayling is in charge.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Dec 6, 2016 12:39:56 GMT
How is TfL more not for profit than DfT? How is Arriva or MTR any less profit driven than any other TOC? Don't TfL reinvest any profit? Struggling to work out where you are coming from here, are you saying the DfT do not invest in the railway. Other option is you are saying that neither of the 2 TfL Rail operators are taking any kind of profit ... which is plainly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 6, 2016 12:45:54 GMT
I'm not sure what would be gained by TfL taking them over anyway, I think many people just like the idea of a non profit making organization running things. I don't think that's anything to do with it. These are the reasons why people wanted a TfL takeover. 1. Increased service volumes off peak and evenings. 2. Likelihood of longer trains after new trains delivered. 3. Staffed stations at all times. 4. Stations would be refurbished. 5. Simplified fares and removal of zone 1 "add on" fare if travelling into Zone 1 and using Tube. 6. A more integrated approach to public transport service levels and redevelopment. Huge redevelopments in SE London but no plans exist to increase services on SE to cope. TfL has clear role in supporting spatial development. TOCs do not and Network Rail is not really set up to respond properly. 7. The likelihood of more investment in the medium term to unblock junction and terminal capacity and increase signalling throughput. 8. Democratic control and oversight of TfL would apply to devolved rail services. There is no evidence that the DfT is interested in delivering *all* of the above. It might do bits and bobs but people in SE London have long been very fed up with South Eastern's services. A TfL takeover offered some prospect of improvement on services that have long played "second fiddle" to outer area routes but the opportunity has gone for as long as Grayling is in charge. Sounds very good but I'm not sure where the money is coming from?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 6, 2016 12:48:47 GMT
Don't TfL reinvest any profit? Struggling to work out where you are coming from here, are you saying the DfT do not invest in the railway. Other option is you are saying that neither of the 2 TfL Rail operators are taking any kind of profit ... which is plainly wrong. TfL are seen as the good guys, not in it for the money but purely to provide a public service, unlike Southeastern.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Dec 6, 2016 13:07:32 GMT
Struggling to work out where you are coming from here, are you saying the DfT do not invest in the railway. Other option is you are saying that neither of the 2 TfL Rail operators are taking any kind of profit ... which is plainly wrong. TfL are seen as the good guys, not in it for the money but purely to provide a public service, unlike Southeastern. Maybe for now, but TfL has a financial black hole to fill, compounded by the fair freeze. They would not have the money to do what they have done elsewhere, and can only see the reputation of TfL going down in the short to medium term.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 6, 2016 13:24:49 GMT
TfL are seen as the good guys, not in it for the money but purely to provide a public service, unlike Southeastern. Maybe for now, but TfL has a financial black hole to fill, compounded by the fair freeze. They would not have the money to do what they have done elsewhere, and can only see the reputation of TfL going down in the short to medium term. I very much agree but I think many people see TfL as the knights in shining armour who will rescue them from the misery of Southeastern.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 6, 2016 13:31:51 GMT
I don't think that's anything to do with it. These are the reasons why people wanted a TfL takeover. 1. Increased service volumes off peak and evenings. 2. Likelihood of longer trains after new trains delivered. 3. Staffed stations at all times. 4. Stations would be refurbished. 5. Simplified fares and removal of zone 1 "add on" fare if travelling into Zone 1 and using Tube. 6. A more integrated approach to public transport service levels and redevelopment. Huge redevelopments in SE London but no plans exist to increase services on SE to cope. TfL has clear role in supporting spatial development. TOCs do not and Network Rail is not really set up to respond properly. 7. The likelihood of more investment in the medium term to unblock junction and terminal capacity and increase signalling throughput. 8. Democratic control and oversight of TfL would apply to devolved rail services. There is no evidence that the DfT is interested in delivering *all* of the above. It might do bits and bobs but people in SE London have long been very fed up with South Eastern's services. A TfL takeover offered some prospect of improvement on services that have long played "second fiddle" to outer area routes but the opportunity has gone for as long as Grayling is in charge. Sounds very good but I'm not sure where the money is coming from? Bit of confusion here, SouthEastern provides what DfT specified in the franchise. They weren't required to provide the items in the list so why would they as franchises are subject to cap and collar (penalty regime where excess profits or losses are shared with DfT) It appears that the SE franchise in 2018 is the first one proposed (SW is already at final bid selection so too advanced), clearly some planning needs to happen before tenders are issued. It would still be possible for TfL to run the near London local trains if the tracks on that section remain as now. In fact it would be messy to have one company linked to an operator if Thameslink or Overground also share the track. SW franchise is aledgedly to have an option to transfer London workings sometime 2019-2022 (although the boundary and possible zone7 are contentious issues. Epsom, Esher, Ashford etc in or out) DfT could specify TfL items if it wanted, but presumably TfL won't top up unless it gets train operation. It also doesn't solve the problem of lack of line capacity or intensity of use which causes maintenance problems.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 6, 2016 15:26:02 GMT
Sounds very good but I'm not sure where the money is coming from? Bit of confusion here, SouthEastern provides what DfT specified in the franchise. They weren't required to provide the items in the list so why would they as franchises are subject to cap and collar (penalty regime where excess profits or losses are shared with DfT) It appears that the SE franchise in 2018 is the first one proposed (SW is already at final bid selection so too advanced), clearly some planning needs to happen before tenders are issued. It would still be possible for TfL to run the near London local trains if the tracks on that section remain as now. In fact it would be messy to have one company linked to an operator if Thameslink or Overground also share the track. SW franchise is aledgedly to have an option to transfer London workings sometime 2019-2022 (although the boundary and possible zone7 are contentious issues. Epsom, Esher, Ashford etc in or out) DfT could specify TfL items if it wanted, but presumably TfL won't top up unless it gets train operation. It also doesn't solve the problem of lack of line capacity or intensity of use which causes maintenance problems. No confusion on my part. It's perfectly clear to me that franchises place more emphasis on longer distance, and higher earning, services than on inner area ones which are seen as a "pain in the posterior" as they have a high, peak driven, cost base and little opportunity for clever pricing games. Therefore the only way to "manage" those services if you have to rake in a surplus to pay to the DfT is to do the bare minimum as permitted under the franchise terms and to offer no "fripperies" like full staffing, smartly presented stations and trains or to run more service volume if you can use the same trains on longer distance, more profitable services. I didn't think "cap and collar" applied any more - I thought DfT had specified a different mechanism with regard to GDP linked growth assumptions and the allocation of risk in franchise contracts. To answer the earlier question about "money" then it's clear where some of the money would come from. TfL would inherit the ticket revenue plus a share of the grant that DfT effectively pays for some of the services. It's clear from the other TfL run services that TfL's marketing and publicity (e.g. services on the tube map), service offer (e.g. staffing) and fares pulls in a lot of extra users. They bring in more revenue that helps cover some of the extra costs. TfL would have to find cash from within its overall funding sources to pay for investment and new trains (depending on how they were funded - bought vs leased). I would agree that "big ticket" items like resignalling or major junction works would not be solely for TfL to fund because NR and other TOCs would likely benefit from such improvements.
|
|