wrote:

Exactly Paul


I was amazed that Silverlink staff/stations are being absorbed into LU
whereas presumably East London Line station/train staff are being
firmed up for privitisation!!!!


I'm sure I'd read or heard somewhere that the Mayor's idea was that the
existing ELL station staff would stay working for LU, and ELL stations
such as Surrey Quays would continue to be managed by LU. I guess that
operationally this might actually be a bit daft as there are only four
ELL-only stations (Surrey Quays, Rotherhithe, Wapping, Shadwell).

It makes sense that the extended ELL be run as part of the London
Overground concession (i.e. the operator that TfL will pick to run the
North London Railway) as at least some (if not most) of the extended
East London Line services will continue - once the Dalston curve has
been reconnected - oto teh North London Line.

Anyway it seems likely that staff working for the London Overground
operator will enjoy similar pay and benefits to LU staff, as the Mayor
will stipulate this as part of the concession agreement with the chosen
operator.

In part I guess the threats from the unions to strike over the ELL
'privatisation' are just a way of ensuring that any of their members
who are transferred to the London Overground operator don't get
degraded pay and benefits.

The change is happening and it makes sense. The unions campaign against
the 'privatisation' of the ELL also makes sense as they're just working
to ensure their members continues to get the same deal the have at the
moment (though of course there's a bit of ideology about public sector
good private sector bad thrown in as well - but the Mayor shares such
notions, which is why he'll stipulate the employee conditions of the
new operator).

Mizter T wrote:

The Stratford arrangement was thus not planned! Quite why Stratford was
desinged with so few LU ticket windows remains a mystery...

Aren't there ticket windows over on the Jubilee Line side? Wasn't Stratford
meant to have a second entrance near there? The passenger bridge over the
Jubilee line platforms doesn't make any sense otherwise.

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

The Stratford arrangement was thus not planned! Quite why Stratford was
desinged with so few LU ticket windows remains a mystery...

Aren't there ticket windows over on the Jubilee Line side? Wasn't Stratford
meant to have a second entrance near there? The passenger bridge over the
Jubilee line platforms doesn't make any sense otherwise.

A second entrance on that side of the station replete with a new ticket
office is part of the plan (it'll lead out to Gibbens Road), but
there's no (open) ticket windows there now.

On 6 Dec 2006 07:26:57 -0800, "Mizter T" wrote:

wrote:

Exactly Paul


I was amazed that Silverlink staff/stations are being absorbed into LU
whereas presumably East London Line station/train staff are being
firmed up for privitisation!!!!


I'm sure I'd read or heard somewhere that the Mayor's idea was that the
existing ELL station staff would stay working for LU, and ELL stations
such as Surrey Quays would continue to be managed by LU. I guess that
operationally this might actually be a bit daft as there are only four
ELL-only stations (Surrey Quays, Rotherhithe, Wapping, Shadwell).

Err I think we need to be careful here. You could just as reasonably
argue that Shoreditch High St should be LU because it replaces
Shoreditch. As S High St, Hoxton, Haggerston and Dalston Junction are
all being constructed to LU design standards and thus LU's operational
philosophy why not say they are operated by LU ELL staff?

I'm not saying what is right or wrong - just that there is room for
debate.

It makes sense that the extended ELL be run as part of the London
Overground concession (i.e. the operator that TfL will pick to run the
North London Railway) as at least some (if not most) of the extended
East London Line services will continue - once the Dalston curve has
been reconnected - oto teh North London Line.

Does it? You could argue that a whole range of scenarios are valid
depending on what you are trying to achieve.

Anyway it seems likely that staff working for the London Overground
operator will enjoy similar pay and benefits to LU staff, as the Mayor
will stipulate this as part of the concession agreement with the chosen
operator.

Similar will not be good enough - the word is "identical". I would
expect the biggest issue will be pensions - the TfL scheme is considered
to be very good. I am unsure whether it could cope with liabilities with
respect to people in the operating concessionaire's business. There is
already the complexity of employees tupe-ed out of LRT / TfL to PFI
contractors, bus companies and the Infracos.

In part I guess the threats from the unions to strike over the ELL
'privatisation' are just a way of ensuring that any of their members
who are transferred to the London Overground operator don't get
degraded pay and benefits.

I think it stretches a bit further than that. This is about power and
control as well in respect of pay negotiations and what "levers" can be
pulled in respect of industrial action. I can see why the RMT would
wish to see a bigger LU membership. However they are just as adept at
applying the screws on the management of whatever set up is adopted -
witness signallers strikes on Network Rail, TOC disputes and pressure on
the DLR franchisee Serco. This is both a strategic and detail issue for
all the parties involved. I think the Mayor has been convinced that an
operating concession can work (witness DLR and the fact there has been
no change to the operating concept there or the willingness of TfL to
procure extensions via design, build, maintain contracts). Therefore he
is happy to see a new operation be established without the baggage of
decades worth of LU culture - some of which is good, some of which is
dreadful. The other point here is that TfL and the Mayor are being
entrusted with a range of new developments by the government that might
be test beds for future development of transport policy nationally or
for London.

The change is happening and it makes sense. The unions campaign against
the 'privatisation' of the ELL also makes sense as they're just working
to ensure their members continues to get the same deal the have at the
moment (though of course there's a bit of ideology about public sector
good private sector bad thrown in as well - but the Mayor shares such
notions, which is why he'll stipulate the employee conditions of the
new operator).

I think the Mayor has mixed views - see previous paragraph.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:52:53 +0000, asdf
wrote:

On 5 Dec 2006 12:37:30 -0800, wrote:

The stations to come under London Underground control a

Queen's Park to Harrow & Wealdstone on the Bakerloo line, excluding
Willesden Junction

Interesting that Harrow & Wealdstone is transferring to LU, even
though its main service is (arguably) Silverlink County. I'd have
expected it to be like Barking, Upminster, Wimbledon, Richmond, Ealing
Broadway, Lewisham, etc, and remain with a TOC (whichever one gets the
West Midlands franchise).

I can see it being awkward if it doesn't retain a National Rail ticket
office, and therefore becomes unable to sell the full range of NR
tickets (e.g. it could have a direct service to Milton Keynes or
Birmingham but not be able to sell overnight returns to those places).

And presumably none of the Bakerloo stations would any longer be able
to sell the cheaper season tickets to London Terminals. You'd have to
buy a single to Euston, then queue up and buy your season there,
reclaiming the cost of the single.

Meanwhile, Willesden Junction, which will only be served by London
Underground/Overground, remains with a TOC...

The power of London Travelwatch should not be underestimated in these
matters. They (or their predecessor) lobbied very vigorously over
Stratford and forced the retention of the NR window even though sales to
destinations that the LU system could not handle were miniscule.
Government accepted their views and the NR window had to be provided.

To answer Mizter T's question about the size of Stratford ticket office
I was involved in the design of that. The office is not designed to the
correct LU spec as we were told there was no space to built it properly.
Therefore it was a horrible and disastrous compromise. The need to
surrender a window for NR purposes was not envisaged either nor was the
operational concept around the interchange gateline. The whole place is
a mess (IMO) and I warned that it would not work properly - my views
were overruled. We are now faced with having to create additional
capacity in an (IMO again) unsatisfactory manner and that is before we
face the nightmares associated with the Olympics and the Stratford City
development.

London Travelwatch have exerted similar pressure with respect the NLL
closure south of Stratford and again these conditions have been accepted
by DfT. I am not a betting man but I would fully expect a strong and
well argued position from them in respect of ticketing matters on the
entire NLR Concession as well as at locations that transfer to LU
operating responsibility. I think it will be a very interesting debate -
especially with the development of Oyster inside the zones, changes to
fare structures and the DfT franchise requirements with respect to
ticketing technology on the West Midlands Franchise.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Paul Corfield wrote:

I think the Mayor has been convinced that an operating concession can
work (witness DLR and the fact there has been no change to the operating
concept there or the willingness of TfL to procure extensions via
design, build, maintain contracts). Therefore he is happy to see a new
operation be established without the baggage of decades worth of LU
culture - some of which is good, some of which is dreadful.

Intriguing; i'd sort of assumed the NLR would be run directly by London
Rail, or some other division of TfL. Cheers for the interesting insight,
Paul!

tom

--
Work alone does not suffice: the efforts must be intelligent. -- Charles
B. Rogers

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:13:41 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Paul Corfield wrote:

I think the Mayor has been convinced that an operating concession can
work (witness DLR and the fact there has been no change to the operating
concept there or the willingness of TfL to procure extensions via
design, build, maintain contracts). Therefore he is happy to see a new
operation be established without the baggage of decades worth of LU
culture - some of which is good, some of which is dreadful.

Intriguing; i'd sort of assumed the NLR would be run directly by London
Rail, or some other division of TfL. Cheers for the interesting insight,
Paul!

The contract will be administered by London Rail in much the same way as
the core DLR management administer the contracts with Serco (main DLR
service provision), the Lewisham concessionaire (infrastructure south of
Crossharbour) and the LCA concessionaire (infrastructure east of Canning
Town). Not sure whether the Woolwich link will be a separate concession
in its own right or a variation to the LCA contract as it is with the
same consortium members.

Apparently the NLR arrangement is a concession rather than a franchise
because TfL takes the revenue risk for the NLR network it takes over
next year. I think it is going to be a very interesting operation
because it will create another comparator to the DLR form of operation,
LU and TOCs. If performance and ridership really do improve I think
there will be some interesting messages emanating from TfL towers. If
infrastructure performance is poor or costs too high then expect the
hallowed words of "vertical integration" to start being bandied about
(as with Merseyrail).

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:13:41 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Paul Corfield wrote:

I think the Mayor has been convinced that an operating concession can
work (witness DLR and the fact there has been no change to the operating
concept there or the willingness of TfL to procure extensions via
design, build, maintain contracts). Therefore he is happy to see a new
operation be established without the baggage of decades worth of LU
culture - some of which is good, some of which is dreadful.
Intriguing; i'd sort of assumed the NLR would be run directly by London
Rail, or some other division of TfL. Cheers for the interesting insight,
Paul!

The contract will be administered by London Rail in much the same way as
the core DLR management administer the contracts with Serco (main DLR
service provision), the Lewisham concessionaire (infrastructure south of
Crossharbour) and the LCA concessionaire (infrastructure east of Canning
Town). Not sure whether the Woolwich link will be a separate concession
in its own right or a variation to the LCA contract as it is with the
same consortium members.

Apparently the NLR arrangement is a concession rather than a franchise
because TfL takes the revenue risk for the NLR network it takes over
next year. I think it is going to be a very interesting operation
because it will create another comparator to the DLR form of operation,
LU and TOCs. If performance and ridership really do improve I think
there will be some interesting messages emanating from TfL towers. If
infrastructure performance is poor or costs too high then expect the
hallowed words of "vertical integration" to start being bandied about
(as with Merseyrail).

I'd potentially expect some interesting messages from DfT towers too.

However, in the problem scenario, vertical integration would be much
more difficult to secure than for Merseyrail, with so much freight using
the NLR.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:13:41 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Paul Corfield wrote:

I think the Mayor has been convinced that an operating concession can
work (witness DLR and the fact there has been no change to the
operating concept there or the willingness of TfL to procure
extensions via design, build, maintain contracts). Therefore he is
happy to see a new operation be established without the baggage of
decades worth of LU culture - some of which is good, some of which is
dreadful.

Intriguing; i'd sort of assumed the NLR would be run directly by London
Rail, or some other division of TfL. Cheers for the interesting
insight, Paul!

The contract will be administered by London Rail in much the same way as
the core DLR management administer the contracts with Serco (main DLR
service provision), the Lewisham concessionaire (infrastructure south of
Crossharbour) and the LCA concessionaire (infrastructure east of Canning
Town).

What does 'administer the contracts' mean? Specify the service and sign on
the dotted line, or is there any day-to-day operational input?

Apparently the NLR arrangement is a concession rather than a franchise
because TfL takes the revenue risk for the NLR network it takes over
next year.

Does 'concession' basically mean 'subcontract' then?

I think it is going to be a very interesting operation because it will
create another comparator to the DLR form of operation, LU and TOCs. If
performance and ridership really do improve I think there will be some
interesting messages emanating from TfL towers.

Indeed. This is the first test of whether the DLR model is really better
than the LU or NR models, or whether the DLR's success is just down to
being rather new - since the NLR is not at all new.

If infrastructure performance is poor or costs too high then expect the
hallowed words of "vertical integration" to start being bandied about
(as with Merseyrail).

Is this a codename for 'nationalisation'? Or 'Londonisation' in our case!

tom

--
On Question Time last night, Tony Benn was saying that the way to solve
the low turnout at elections was to make voting compulsory. I think the
solution is for someone to start a political party that doesn't contain
wall-to-wall *******s. -- John Rowland

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:46:19 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:13:41 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Paul Corfield wrote:

I think the Mayor has been convinced that an operating concession can
work (witness DLR and the fact there has been no change to the
operating concept there or the willingness of TfL to procure
extensions via design, build, maintain contracts). Therefore he is
happy to see a new operation be established without the baggage of
decades worth of LU culture - some of which is good, some of which is
dreadful.

Intriguing; i'd sort of assumed the NLR would be run directly by London
Rail, or some other division of TfL. Cheers for the interesting
insight, Paul!

The contract will be administered by London Rail in much the same way as
the core DLR management administer the contracts with Serco (main DLR
service provision), the Lewisham concessionaire (infrastructure south of
Crossharbour) and the LCA concessionaire (infrastructure east of Canning
Town).

What does 'administer the contracts' mean? Specify the service and sign on
the dotted line, or is there any day-to-day operational input?

I would imagine that the concessionaire will have to make the trains
available for service, provide drivers for them, open the stations, sell
tickets during specified times, have staff on platforms, make sure the
stations are clean, publicity is up to date etc etc etc. There are loads
and loads of aspects of the service that will be specified.

The contract team will collect data, check it, do audits and
inspections, record delays and incidents and determine responsibility
(i.e. did the train breakdown or did Network Rail's signals fail). This
will all be part of a set of defined contract measures which will be
linked to how much the concessionaire is paid for delivering the
service. Every 4 weeks I would guess there will be a payment process
which will determine how much the concessionaire will be paid for the
service. I would also imagine that the contract will offer the
opportunity to earn bonus payments if the service quality is very high
and above a pre-determined level.

LU does this with the Infracos (it's my job for part of the LU network),
the DfT do it in respect of the TOC franchises and there is an
allocation process between all the TOCs and Network Rail to determine
responsibility for delays on the network.

These sorts of contracts are very common in all sorts of industries
where a private company provides a service back to the customer.

Apparently the NLR arrangement is a concession rather than a franchise
because TfL takes the revenue risk for the NLR network it takes over
next year.

Does 'concession' basically mean 'subcontract' then?

Not really. There will be a contract between TfL and the company running
the trains and stations on the NLR network. Under a normal TOC franchise
the TOC takes on the responsibility for the level of income (revenue)
that will be earnt. They are also able to control some of their costs.
While they forecast how much they think they will earn and how much
stuff will cost when they bid they then have to deliver it. Therefore
they are incentivised directly to make sure revenue is as high as
possible and costs as low as possible. However as we have seen with GNER
it only takes something like the bombs in London to stop people
travelling and all of a sudden they have less money coming in. Under a
franchise the TOC can specify some of the fares levels and can do clever
things with special offers, discounted fares to fill up their trains.
They are also (theoretically) incentivised to give a high quality of
service to tempt people to use the train rather than say a car. They
should also be interested in controlling fraud levels to a very low
level so they maximise their income.

Under a concession TfL control all the fares and thus the operator has
no room to do clever things with special offers etc. Also if there are
external events that reduce income unexpectedly then TfL take the risk
about income levels. The payment to the operator is pre-defined and is
not varied as a result of revenue levels - it only varies according to
how well or badly the service operates. As I said it is likely that
there will be incentives to tempt the operator to earn bigger contract
payments for delivering a high quality service. This is how the bus
contracts work - there is a base fee for running the service. If buses
are late, cancelled, break down, have wrong blinds and defective
wheelchair ramps the operator loses money. If the buses run to time,
are clean, reliable and all the "small" bits of the service are spot on
then the operators can earn bonuses. This is called the Quality
Incentive Contract regime. TfL have teams of surveyors who monitor
every bus service in London to see how well it runs.

The performance data for each route is available here

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/about/pe...ugh-report.asp

I think it is going to be a very interesting operation because it will
create another comparator to the DLR form of operation, LU and TOCs. If
performance and ridership really do improve I think there will be some
interesting messages emanating from TfL towers.

Indeed. This is the first test of whether the DLR model is really better
than the LU or NR models, or whether the DLR's success is just down to
being rather new - since the NLR is not at all new.

I think it is already evident that the DLR arrangement works very well.
Performance levels are very high and there are few obvious issues with
bits of the railway that are provided under separate contract. Parts of
the DLR are now getting oldish so challenges will start to emerge but
overall it has the benefit of modern technology, good maintenance and
asset management practices and a relatively fresh culture without
decades of poor practice and dire industrial relations to deal with.

If infrastructure performance is poor or costs too high then expect the
hallowed words of "vertical integration" to start being bandied about
(as with Merseyrail).

Is this a codename for 'nationalisation'? Or 'Londonisation' in our case!

Possibly. Network Rail have refused to transfer infrastructure control
for Merseyrail. However the PTE are trying again and they have the
benefit of a localised network and a long franchise with Serco Nedrail.
This brings forward lots of opportunities for sensible planning and
investment. It will be much harder in London as the Overground network
is not that self contained - especially in South London and as Dave A
has mentioned there is a lot of freight traffic. This will pose issues
about regulation as freight operation is all private but there are
certain rights of access to the network that are preserved. I'm sure
that part of TfL would dearly love to kick freight off the NLR network
but it can't do so.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!