17000 pages in all according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4289139.stm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/062/2005062.htm

http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk

--
Michael Parry
'The Truth Shall Make Ye Fret'
(Terry Pratchett, The Truth)

"Michael Parry" wrote in message
...

17000 pages in all according to the BBC

That's why I gave up reading that stuff... Enjoy, Dave!

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
"Michael Parry" wrote in message
...

17000 pages in all according to the BBC


That's why I gave up reading that stuff... Enjoy, Dave!

17000 pages...

****!

I actually had a brief look today at the bill itself when I should have
been doing other things, and was interested to note that although the
Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being
franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill (Section
34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way
(theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services.

Oh, and they can revoke the Heathrow Express Order too.

Of course, not being in any way law-minded, I've probably missed
something important.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
I actually had a brief look today at the bill itself when I should
have
been doing other things, and was interested to note that although the

Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being
franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill
(Section
34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way
(theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services.

Oh, and they can revoke the Heathrow Express Order too.

Of course, not being in any way law-minded, I've probably missed
something important.

Just semantics really. I've not read the Railways Act 1993 but if it
prohibits public-sector bodies from being franchisees this may not
necessarily prevent them from being appointed as an operator in some
other way - outside the franchising process. There may also be
provisions in the Transport Act 2000, which established the Strategic
Rail Authority. Although SET is (temporarily) a public-sector operator
it is not a franchisee. It is directly owned by the SRA (the
franchisor) but there has been no franchise, as such, since Connex
South-East surrendered it.

The privatisation process had built in safeguards to allow the
government to continue services where the franchisee had failed, as in
this case. But in 1993 the government did not want to allow councils,
just for example, to bid for franchises in competition with the private
sector - otherwise Ken would be doing it now!

umpston wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

I actually had a brief look today at the bill itself when I should

have

been doing other things, and was interested to note that although the


Railways Act 1993 prohibits public-sector operators from being
franchisees (how did SET get around that?), the Crossrail Bill

(Section

34) states that that does not apply in this case, paving the way
(theoretically) for a public-sector operator run Crossrail services.

Oh, and they can revoke the Heathrow Express Order too.

Of course, not being in any way law-minded, I've probably missed
something important.


Just semantics really. I've not read the Railways Act 1993 but if it
prohibits public-sector bodies from being franchisees this may not
necessarily prevent them from being appointed as an operator in some
other way - outside the franchising process. There may also be
provisions in the Transport Act 2000, which established the Strategic
Rail Authority. Although SET is (temporarily) a public-sector operator
it is not a franchisee. It is directly owned by the SRA (the
franchisor) but there has been no franchise, as such, since Connex
South-East surrendered it.

The privatisation process had built in safeguards to allow the
government to continue services where the franchisee had failed, as in
this case. But in 1993 the government did not want to allow councils,
just for example, to bid for franchises in competition with the private
sector - otherwise Ken would be doing it now!

Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value service,
then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted competition, I call
that competition!

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In message , Dave Arquati
writes

Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value
service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted
competition, I call that competition!

The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders
to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or
liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public
and carries on as usual.

--
Paul Terry

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:06:38 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Dave Arquati
writes

Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value
service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted
competition, I call that competition!

It may be competition but can it shown to be fair? If a bid was allowed
then in the bid evaluation process you would need to weight the public
sector bid to reflect the lack of risk transfer (see points made by Mr
Terry below). This is what happens with PFI contract evaluation and I
say that with a decent amount of experience of the process.

The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders
to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or
liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public
and carries on as usual.

I would agree that is certainly the theoretical position concerning
where the risk sits. However there is ample experience from the National
Rail industry that the public purse usually has to make some
contribution as well when private companies suffer "a problem".
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Dave Arquati
writes

Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value
service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted
competition, I call that competition!


The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders
to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or
liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public
and carries on as usual.

Doesn't that happen with the private TOCs anyway?

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Dave Arquati
writes

Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value
service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted
competition, I call that competition!

The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders
to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or
liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public
and carries on as usual.

There are these people called 'voters'.

Point taken, though - there probably isn't enough accountability in the
public sector to make this work. Although, as has been pointed out, it's
not clear that there is in the private sector, either ...

tom

--
He's taking towel fandom to a whole other bad level. -- applez, of coalescent

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:06:38 +0000, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Dave Arquati
writes

Shame. If public bodies believe they can provide a better value
service, then why shouldn't they bid... the government wanted
competition, I call that competition!

The trouble is, if it all goes horribly wrong, there are no shareholders
to demand resignations, no risk of bankruptcy, administration or
liquidation - the public body just extracts more money from the public
and carries on as usual.

And how is this different from a 'private' operator who finds their
shareholders are not happy and then manages to extract more money out of
the government. ?
As well, most of the staff on the ground know the service has to run no
matter what state the 'company' is and and rest easy knowing they will
have a job even when the company goes under and walks out, as the trains
have to still run.