Why do we have to have an "operator" like on the DLR that will inevitably
suck away some of the money to its shareholders? Are TfL not capable of
operating a fairly simple system like crossrail itself when it manages
perfectly ok operating the much larger underground? (Yes I know technically
LU is a seperate organisation but in reality its just a division of TfL).

--
Spud

On Monday, July 21, 2014 10:31:00 AM UTC+1, wrote:
Why do we have to have an "operator" like on the DLR that will inevitably

suck away some of the money to its shareholders? Are TfL not capable of

operating a fairly simple system like crossrail itself when it manages

perfectly ok operating the much larger underground? (Yes I know technically

LU is a seperate organisation but in reality its just a division of TfL).



--

Spud

I would guess that it has as much to do with the government's fear of state owned industry as with anything else. Although that fact that it is OK for German and Dutch state railways to run services over here does indicate a lack of consistency.

I would guess that it has as much to do with the government's fear of
state owned industry as with anything else. Although that fact that
it is OK for German and Dutch state railways to run services over
here does indicate a lack of consistency.

I suggest it is competitive tendering which underlies the approach and,
while the merits of that are of course debatable, it applies eqaully to
German and Dutch bidders who are state owned as it does to others.
(There is the issue of State aid which might give them competitive
advanatage but we must hope our friendly EU Commission polices that.)
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:16:37 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:31:00 GMT, d wrote:

Why do we have to have an "operator" like on the DLR that will inevitably
suck away some of the money to its shareholders? Are TfL not capable of
operating a fairly simple system like crossrail itself when it manages
perfectly ok operating the much larger underground? (Yes I know technically
LU is a seperate organisation but in reality its just a division of TfL).

snip good stuff

Did you just say "TfL runs the Underground perfectly OK"? if so then
where is real Spud / Boltar? We clearly have an imposter. ;-)

That last one is a really good point. If TfL did run it, Spultar would
be the first one to attack every detail of what it did, lamenting its
gross incompetence in all respects.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:14:07 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

I would guess that it has as much to do with the government's fear of
state owned industry as with anything else. Although that fact that
it is OK for German and Dutch state railways to run services over
here does indicate a lack of consistency.

I suggest it is competitive tendering which underlies the approach and,
while the merits of that are of course debatable, it applies eqaully to
German and Dutch bidders who are state owned as it does to others.
(There is the issue of State aid which might give them competitive
advanatage but we must hope our friendly EU Commission polices that.)

The winner, MTR, is of course 76.5% owned by the Hong Kong government.

On 21/07/2014 11:26, Piatkow wrote:

On Monday, July 21, 2014 10:31:00 AM UTC+1, wrote:

Why do we have to have an "operator" like on the DLR that will inevitably
suck away some of the money to its shareholders? Are TfL not capable of
operating a fairly simple system like crossrail itself when it manages
perfectly ok operating the much larger underground? (Yes I know technically
LU is a seperate organisation but in reality its just a division of TfL).

I would guess that it has as much to do with the government's fear of state owned industry as with anything else. Although that fact that it is OK for German and Dutch state railways to run services over here does indicate a lack of consistency.

Effectively, a foreign government operates here as a private company.

It is not "the government" and in particular, it cannot tax the British
in order to subsidise its operations.

Of course, it *might* be tempted to tax its own people, wherever they
are, in order to subsidise its UK operation, but that isn't something
which we have to worry about.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:53:47 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 21/07/2014 11:26, Piatkow wrote:

On Monday, July 21, 2014 10:31:00 AM UTC+1, wrote:

Why do we have to have an "operator" like on the DLR that will inevitably
suck away some of the money to its shareholders? Are TfL not capable of
operating a fairly simple system like crossrail itself when it manages
perfectly ok operating the much larger underground? (Yes I know technically
LU is a seperate organisation but in reality its just a division of TfL).

I would guess that it has as much to do with the government's fear of state owned industry as with anything else. Although that fact that it is OK for German and Dutch state railways to run services over here does indicate a lack of consistency.

Effectively, a foreign government operates here as a private company.

It is not "the government" and in particular, it cannot tax the British
in order to subsidise its operations.

Of course, it *might* be tempted to tax its own people, wherever they
are, in order to subsidise its UK operation, but that isn't something
which we have to worry about.

The key thing is that it's completely independent of the DfT, so
mistakes won't be covered up or excused in the way that they sometimes
are in purely public sector organisations. And because the
limited-life franchises are awarded competitively, public sector-style
waste and inefficiency is much less likely.

The winner, MTR, is of course 76.5% owned by the Hong Kong government.

I *think* State aid by HK to MTR would be contrary to WTO agreements but
the remainder of my life is so short I fear such things shall forever
remain arcana to me ;(
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

I expect the Dft and Treasury would rather commit corporate harikiri
than allow TfL to create a full in house operation.

And see Crossrail renamed as the "Bob Crow Memorial Line"?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

"Robin" wrote:
The winner, MTR, is of course 76.5% owned by the Hong Kong government.

I *think* State aid by HK to MTR would be contrary to WTO agreements but
the remainder of my life is so short I fear such things shall forever
remain arcana to me ;(

I don't think MTR would deliberately set out to need a subsidy from the HK
government, but if it ends up losing money on Crossrail, then the HK
government would be effectively covering three quarters of it. But MTR does
seem to be a competent metro operator that could be expected to do a good
job, as it has in LOROL. Personally, I'm all for being able to benefit from
international competition, including from foreign rail and metro operators.