|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 4, 2017 10:34:57 GMT
Can concessions cover smaller areas? If TfL took over all non-TL metro services from London Bridge, put a shared driver's set of rooms at Bermondsey, a depot at Norwood or similar. In theory would it be efficient to give each service to a different concession who all work their TfL owned trains out of the same place? It could be done, but there would be extra overheads - each concession would need its own management, back room staff etc, and extra staff and rolling stock to cover for contingencies. To take an extreme example, a typical contingency cover (size of fleet in excess of the number needed to run the service at any given time) is perhaps 5% - i.e for every 20 trains in service, one more is off the road for maintenance. The Class 139 fleet operating the Stourbridge Shuttle has a 100% contingency cover. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Oct 4, 2017 15:50:51 GMT
How would the division of the South Eastern be natural, when the SER and LCDR joined forces before WWI, and the service patterns and rolling stock provision have been based on a largely common fleet since at least electrification (yes, I acknowledge that the use of 376s is specific to the former SER suburban routes)?. The SECR joint management arrangement may have started in the 19th Century, but there has been little rationalisation - Rochester-Chatham and Ramsgate-Margate, and the closure of the LCDR's Greenwich Park and Gravesend lines being the principal examples. The service patterns are still largely separate - as I said, most large towns in Kent and SE London still have services on both routes, often from separate stations (as at Bromley, Catford, Canterbury, and the Petts Wood/Chislehurst area). The Nunhead spur and the Chiselhurst curves allow some interworking but it is very limited - for example the Victoria locals get no further down the SE main line than Orpington, and the Victoria services through Lewisham are very much in the minority. (The Chislehurst curves' main raison d'etre was to allow boat trains to combine the faster Tonbridge route with the better facilities available at Victoria, whilst the Nunhead spur's original purpose was to divert cross-London freight trains haeding for the Widened Lines away from the Borough Market Junction bottleneck) A small exception is the North Kent group - Dartford was never served by the LCDR, but now has a limited service over the Nunhead spur. There's a more interesting conundrum, which is why the Major government chose to implement "privatisation" using a franchising (with territorial monopoly) model rather than a model allowing genuine head to head competition in the way that proponents of privatisation fondly imagined could be made effective. According to some historians, the franchising model was only seen as a stopgap until the free marketeers got going, with "Open Access" eventually being the norm and franchising only remaining for the uneconomic but socially necessary rump. (This model is common for buses outside London, where local councils only subsidise a handful of uneconomic services) What HMG failed to realise was that the bidders for the franchises would insist, as part of their bids, that Open Access licences would only be granted on their patch if they did not abstract revenue from the incumbent franchisee (hence the ludicrous stopping patterns which ultimately scuppered W&SR), and that the franchisees would grab any spare paths going anyway (look at the way East Coast (DOR) took up the spare paths out of Kings Cross to maintain its market share against Grand Central on that route rather than to provide services to a wider range of destinations where it already had a monopoly) I'm familiar with the SECR network, having lived in Bromley and Orpington for several years, commuting into London at the time. I would agree with you that the service pattern hasn't been rationalised much, but that is against a rolling stock provision that has been significantly rationalised. In respect of the franchising model, I agree that it was intended that franchising should fade away, and the initial franchises were protected by "Moderation of Competition" clauses. It's worth note that WSMR's ability to compete was constrained by DfT insisting that Virgin West Coast object to proposed stops - I've seen it suggested on pain of being pursued for breach of the franchise. DfT's approach to franchising since has been virulently anti-Open Access, which has governed (amongst others) the ECML franchisees' attempts to flood the ECML and limit the scope for Open Access rivals. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 4, 2017 16:14:58 GMT
Can concessions cover smaller areas? If TfL took over all non-TL metro services from London Bridge, put a shared driver's set of rooms at Bermondsey, a depot at Norwood or similar. In theory would it be efficient to give each service to a different concession who all work their TfL owned trains out of the same place? In theory you can structure things how you like but you have to live with the consequences in terms of costs and the risks around performance. Let's be honest, providing urban railways effectively, even with an asset lite TOC structure, requires some level of scale in order to get optimal efficiency of your employees etc. It is telling that TfL did not separately procure the West Anglia services but merely varied the original concession contract with Arriva / MTR. I suspect that if TfL were to gain the Great Northern locals out of Moorgate that they would add those services to the existing Overground contract. However if they were ever to get the inner area bits of South Eastern, Southern or SWR I think they would be separately contracted from the rest. If, say, they got Southern inners first I could well see other South London routes (e.g. South Eastern) being added to the extant Southern concession contract as there would be some level of commonality with the existing contract south of the Thames. All entirely hypothetical and speculative of course but I think TfL prefer to have simpler contract management interfaces if they can achieve them. All of the above is subject to TfL being satisfied that they can get value for money from a negotiated variation to an existing contract rather than going through a new procurement process. I certainly couldn't see TfL going down the "micro franchising" route of tendering services by route / line. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 4, 2017 19:58:47 GMT
Can concessions cover smaller areas? If TfL took over all non-TL metro services from London Bridge, put a shared driver's set of rooms at Bermondsey, a depot at Norwood or similar. In theory would it be efficient to give each service to a different concession who all work their TfL owned trains out of the same place? In theory you can structure things how you like but you have to live with the consequences in terms of costs and the risks around performance. Let's be honest, providing urban railways effectively, even with an asset lite TOC structure, requires some level of scale in order to get optimal efficiency of your employees etc. It is telling that TfL did not separately procure the West Anglia services but merely varied the original concession contract with Arriva / MTR. I suspect that if TfL were to gain the Great Northern locals out of Moorgate that they would add those services to the existing Overground contract. However if they were ever to get the inner area bits of South Eastern, Southern or SWR I think they would be separately contracted from the rest. If, say, they got Southern inners first I could well see other South London routes (e.g. South Eastern) being added to the extant Southern concession contract as there would be some level of commonality with the existing contract south of the Thames. All entirely hypothetical and speculative of course but I think TfL prefer to have simpler contract management interfaces if they can achieve them. All of the above is subject to TfL being satisfied that they can get value for money from a negotiated variation to an existing contract rather than going through a new procurement process. I certainly couldn't see TfL going down the "micro franchising" route of tendering services by route / line. This is most interesting. Regardless of views on renationalisation etc., is there actually a case for TfL taking over all commuter routes running into London? If ever there was a special case, isn't it London? Naturally, it isn't that simple to do, of course, but if there were one over-arching body in charge, then variations/additions to the timetable etc. would be more possible than having smaller franchises would permit at present. And, again regardless of views, one management might just be able to work with the unions in trying to provide optimum passenger service, instead of the present antagonism on some services. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 4, 2017 20:25:04 GMT
This is most interesting. Regardless of views on renationalisation etc., is there actually a case for TfL taking over all commuter routes running into London? If ever there was a special case, isn't it London? Naturally, it isn't that simple to do, of course, but if there were one over-arching body in charge, then variations/additions to the timetable etc. would be more possible than having smaller franchises would permit at present. And, again regardless of views, one management might just be able to work with the unions in trying to provide optimum passenger service, instead of the present antagonism on some services. To be strictly accurate TfL hasn't taken over operation. It has taken over the role of service specifier, procurer, funder and contract manager from the DfT. I dare say the unions would love TfL to directly operate all these services but that would require primary legislation which isn't going to be forthcoming any time soon. I have not seen TfL or any Mayor / Mayoral candidate wanting direct operational control. They have all wanted the power to specify the services / investment and to pay for it in return for getting their hands on the revenue. Furthermore TfL have not argued to take over every rail service that has stations with Greater London. It's ruled out taking on Thameslink, C2C and Chiltern and hasn't made any noises about any longer distance services that stop within Greater London. My view is that there is merit for TfL taking on the service specification and funding role for services wholly or largely in Greater London. I wouldn't want to mess with Thameslink, C2C or Chiltern. The latter two effectively charge TfL fares within Gtr London and C2C's services are pretty frequent. There are no simple or cheap answers about raising stopping service frequencies on Chiltern. Thameslink is operationally complex and is moving towards a more frequent service on some parts of its network. However there are weaknesses on fares which could do with being resolved. Similar fares issues apply to South Eastern, Southern and SWR (Zone 1 add on fare and separate PAYG tariffs). Shifting all rail services on to TfL's tariff or a slightly revised TfL tariff that smooths out the differences between LU / DLR and TOC fares would be a step forward. South of the river there are significant investment needs to raise quality, frequency and capacity. Some of that could be tremendously expensive but if the long term demand trajectory is upwards then they will have to be done at some point. I am sceptical that DfT is sufficiently engaged with commuter services to even see the need never mind do anything. TfL are likely to be far more focussed on this and willing to spend to secure long term improvement. They are also far more likely to offer attractive off peak services than existing TOCs. They are also more minded to market a network overall than individual TOCs are. Some enthusiasts on other forums seem to have a hate complex about TfL taking on services but I've never fathomed quite why they are so angry about it. Personally I don't see the problem with a TfL takeover *provided* they have the money to deliver substantive and ongoing improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 4, 2017 20:43:17 GMT
South of the river there are significant investment needs to raise quality, frequency and capacity. Some of that could be tremendously expensive but if the long term demand trajectory is upwards then they will have to be done at some point. I am sceptical that DfT is sufficiently engaged with commuter services to even see the need never mind do anything. TfL are likely to be far more focussed on this and willing to spend to secure long term improvement. They are also far more likely to offer attractive off peak services than existing TOCs. They are also more minded to market a network overall than individual TOCs are. Some enthusiasts on other forums seem to have a hate complex about TfL taking on services but I've never fathomed quite why they are so angry about it. Personally I don't see the problem with a TfL takeover *provided* they have the money to deliver substantive and ongoing improvement. Yes, it is south of the river that might especially lend itself to this. Working with what we've got now rather than what we might desire politically, TfL are actually unlikely to be swept away in any forthcoming legislation either, so continuity of service provision would be more likely. I won't compare them directly to Network Southeast, but TfL seem to have the same corporate mindset about trying to run a cohesive network and not just keep an inherited maze running. I agree that proviso, too, but where the money comes from..............? Still, having travelled up from Canterbury West in 2013 with mrs tbf on a Javelin, instead of, when I commuted from Kent between 1978-92, being 'spoilt' for choice between the Victoria services (ex-LCDR) & Charing Cross (ex SER), I believe another world is possible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2017 11:11:19 GMT
SER and LCDR could eventually separate, there's very little overlap of services between the two lines, especially in the metro area, only one metro train from the SER has a regular service into Victoria, which is the Bexleyheath Lin to Dartford service, I'm not including the Victoria to Orpington service as most of that service is on LCDR tracks and from 2018 there will only be two trains per hour to Orpington via Penge East, the other two will be terminating at Bromley South.
TfL have definitely changed their tune on Thameslink, there was a time until very recently when TfL wanted to take over Thameslink.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 5, 2017 20:44:44 GMT
Can concessions cover smaller areas? If TfL took over all non-TL metro services from London Bridge, put a shared driver's set of rooms at Bermondsey, a depot at Norwood or similar. In theory would it be efficient to give each service to a different concession who all work their TfL owned trains out of the same place? It could be done, but there would be extra overheads - each concession would need its own management, back room staff etc, and extra staff and rolling stock to cover for contingencies. To take an extreme example, a typical contingency cover (size of fleet in excess of the number needed to run the service at any given time) is perhaps 5% - i.e for every 20 trains in service, one more is off the road for maintenance. The Class 139 fleet operating the Stourbridge Shuttle has a 100% contingency cover. At the time of the privatisation fever's greatest heat (c1994), the Treasury was all in favour of small franchises to allow for ease of market entry. The then BR CEO (John Welsby) set me the challenge of responding to the Treasury's wish to split SWT into about a dozen pieces. For all the reasons you state as well as the initial cost of splitting unified organisations, we estimated the additional cost be about 10-20% extra - assuming that such issues as shared depots and engineering support could be amicably resolved. The Treasury - fortunately - bilked at the idea. These days, with the benefit of hindsight, we can also see that small franchises will not support the cost of bidding (typically around £10m a pop), which do not vary proportionately with the size of the franchise - ie it costs as much to bid for MML as it does for ECML. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Oct 5, 2017 21:07:07 GMT
It could be done, but there would be extra overheads - each concession would need its own management, back room staff etc, and extra staff and rolling stock to cover for contingencies. To take an extreme example, a typical contingency cover (size of fleet in excess of the number needed to run the service at any given time) is perhaps 5% - i.e for every 20 trains in service, one more is off the road for maintenance. The Class 139 fleet operating the Stourbridge Shuttle has a 100% contingency cover. At the time of the privatisation fever's greatest heat (c1994), the Treasury was all in favour of small franchises to allow for ease of market entry. The then BR CEO (John Welsby) set me the challenge of responding to the Treasury's wish to split SWT into about a dozen pieces. For all the reasons you state as well as the initial cost of splitting unified organisations, we estimated the additional cost be about 10-20% extra - assuming that such issues as shared depots and engineering support could be amicably resolved. The Treasury - fortunately - bilked at the idea. These days, with the benefit of hindsight, we can also see that small franchises will not support the cost of bidding (typically around £10m a pop), which do not vary proportionately with the size of the franchise - ie it costs as much to bid for MML as it does for ECML. That, though, will also correlate to the approach to franchise letting that is taken by the Government. Other, lighter weight contracting processes, may generate lower costs and therefore better returns for government and franchisee. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 5:50:17 GMT
It could be done, but there would be extra overheads - each concession would need its own management, back room staff etc, and extra staff and rolling stock to cover for contingencies. To take an extreme example, a typical contingency cover (size of fleet in excess of the number needed to run the service at any given time) is perhaps 5% - i.e for every 20 trains in service, one more is off the road for maintenance. The Class 139 fleet operating the Stourbridge Shuttle has a 100% contingency cover. At the time of the privatisation fever's greatest heat (c1994), the Treasury was all in favour of small franchises to allow for ease of market entry. The then BR CEO (John Welsby) set me the challenge of responding to the Treasury's wish to split SWT into about a dozen pieces. For all the reasons you state as well as the initial cost of splitting unified organisations, we estimated the additional cost be about 10-20% extra - assuming that such issues as shared depots and engineering support could be amicably resolved. The Treasury - fortunately - bilked at the idea. These days, with the benefit of hindsight, we can also see that small franchises will not support the cost of bidding (typically around £10m a pop), which do not vary proportionately with the size of the franchise - ie it costs as much to bid for MML as it does for ECML. Interesting about SWT, I guess one way it could have been divided is by: The Windsor/Reading/Weybridge lines, the SW Suburban's via Wimbledon/Surbiton and the SW Intercity mainline, however I'm glad it stayed as one, the SWR as well as the LBSCR were built as one railway with few duplications in their respective towns SECR on the other hand has this issue, even in the suburban areas, Bromley, Catford & Sydenham spring to mind, although with the latter, Lower Sydenham is quiet a few miles away from Sydenham Hill. One question does Slade Green depot host any trains on the Chatham side? I know they must intersect at the Gillingham depot. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 6, 2017 7:02:15 GMT
Interesting about SWT, I guess one way it could have been divided is by: The Windsor/Reading/Weybridge lines, the SW Suburban's via Wimbledon/Surbiton and the SW Intercity mainline,. The Kingston loop prevents the Windsor lines being able to be cleanly separated. As for the main suburban/inter city split, where do you make the split? Surbiton? Guildford? Basingstoke? Lower Sydenham is quiet a few miles away from Sydenham Hill. Indeed, but on the same lines, Beckenham Junction and New Beckenham are about half a mile apart and, in the same area, Kent House/Clock House are even closer |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 17:01:08 GMT
Interesting about SWT, I guess one way it could have been divided is by: The Windsor/Reading/Weybridge lines, the SW Suburban's via Wimbledon/Surbiton and the SW Intercity mainline,. The Kingston loop prevents the Windsor lines being able to be cleanly separated. As for the main suburban/inter city split, where do you make the split? Surbiton? Guildford? Basingstoke? Lower Sydenham is quiet a few miles away from Sydenham Hill. Indeed, but on the same lines, Beckenham Junction and New Beckenham are about half a mile apart and, in the same area, Kent House/Clock House are even closer This may have already been answered so apologies, but seeing as how there are so many duplicates in the SE area it begs the question as to why they weren't split into two companies in 1994? Also back in the days of Connex they had a monopoly on all three Sydenham stations and both New Cross stations! High Speed One can most definitely split away from South Eastern now. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 7, 2017 13:55:24 GMT
35b - indeed; one issue that has never been properly addressed in the rail sector, although it's familiar in London Buses, is the question of the "thickness" of the franchise. In an extremely thin version, all that changes is the most senior management and the financing; thicker versions bring in more tiers of staff and eventually entirely new assets. Treasury decisions don't seem to align thickness with risk allocation. Even so, the bulk of the costs (probably 70-80%) are lawyers' and bankers' fees (boo) rather than real railway work such as writing a timetable or looking at staff rosters.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 7, 2017 14:09:02 GMT
At the time of the privatisation fever's greatest heat (c1994), the Treasury was all in favour of small franchises to allow for ease of market entry. The then BR CEO (John Welsby) set me the challenge of responding to the Treasury's wish to split SWT into about a dozen pieces. For all the reasons you state as well as the initial cost of splitting unified organisations, we estimated the additional cost be about 10-20% extra - assuming that such issues as shared depots and engineering support could be amicably resolved. The Treasury - fortunately - bilked at the idea. These days, with the benefit of hindsight, we can also see that small franchises will not support the cost of bidding (typically around £10m a pop), which do not vary proportionately with the size of the franchise - ie it costs as much to bid for MML as it does for ECML. Interesting about SWT, I guess one way it could have been divided is by: The Windsor/Reading/Weybridge lines, the SW Suburban's via Wimbledon/Surbiton and the SW Intercity mainline, however I'm glad it stayed as one, the SWR as well as the LBSCR were built as one railway with few duplications in their respective towns SECR on the other hand has this issue, even in the suburban areas, Bromley, Catford & Sydenham spring to mind, although with the latter, Lower Sydenham is quiet a few miles away from Sydenham Hill. One question does Slade Green depot host any trains on the Chatham side? I know they must intersect at the Gillingham depot. As I recall, the Treasury's proposal was something like Solent/Exeter/Portsmouth/ Alton/Reading+Windsor/ Woking+Guildford semifasts/Inners N/Inners/ S Hants locals/Guildford via Ascot/IoW/W&C. More generally, it most certainly was the Treasury's belief that the franchises would wither away after the first round and that the market was full of entrepreneurs just waiting to take to the tracks and replace the franchised servcies. I discovered this to my personal cost as, haing been BR's Director of Strageic Planning, it was thought by BR that Roger salmon, the first franchising director, would also need something similar. My interview with Salmon lasted all of the time it took him to say that his "only" task was to let the existing round of franchises after which he expected OPRAF to disappear except as a monitoring organisation; planning was not something he (or even the industry) needed: the market would sort it out. . |
|
