Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=984

"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that MTR Laing and Go-Via have
been selected to submit a 'best and final offer' for the contract to run
London Overground services on the integrated North and East London
Railways, under the management of TfL."

Interesting choice - nice to see MTR are in the running. National
Express and Nedrailways are out.

This creates an interesting potential situation if Go-Via win this *and*
the West Midlands franchise as effectively the current Silverlink
operation (plus some bits) will have transferred from Nat Ex to Go-Via.

I rather hope MTR Laing get it as the MTR (in Hong Kong) is phenomenal
in terms of its reliability, lack of incidents and good asset
management. Laing are not without some credit as Chiltern seem to be
considered to be one of the better franchises. If MTR can deliver the
same sort of HK reliability on the Overground network then that will be
some achievement and might put Network Rail under a bit of pressure!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=984

"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that MTR Laing and Go-Via have
been selected to submit a 'best and final offer' for the contract to run
London Overground services on the integrated North and East London
Railways, under the management of TfL."

Interesting choice - nice to see MTR are in the running. National
Express and Nedrailways are out.

This creates an interesting potential situation if Go-Via win this *and*
the West Midlands franchise as effectively the current Silverlink
operation (plus some bits) will have transferred from Nat Ex to Go-Via.

I rather hope MTR Laing get it as the MTR (in Hong Kong) is phenomenal
in terms of its reliability, lack of incidents and good asset
management. Laing are not without some credit as Chiltern seem to be
considered to be one of the better franchises. If MTR can deliver the
same sort of HK reliability on the Overground network then that will be
some achievement and might put Network Rail under a bit of pressure!

Go-Via are already running the services on the stretch that the extended ELL
will operate over - and the rather limited hourly service up the WLL to
Watford Junction... Could see some interesting through running if it was
eventually or ever allowed!

Agree its good to see MTR still in the mix, I think some of there earlier
involvement has been in the wrong type of franchise, ie longer distance,
when its metro type operations where their experience is.

Paul

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=984

"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that MTR Laing and Go-Via have
been selected to submit a 'best and final offer' for the contract to run
London Overground services on the integrated North and East London
Railways, under the management of TfL."


Why can't TfL just run it themselves? Why does it have to be sub
contracted out?

Pity there wasn't a bit more vision and willpower with the ELL. For a
start the obvious continuation to Finsbury Park then take the line up
the old northern heights branch via highgate high level to terminate at
east finchley and interchange with the northern line.

Meanwhile , back in the real world...

B2003

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

Boltar wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=984

"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that MTR Laing and Go-Via have
been selected to submit a 'best and final offer' for the contract to run
London Overground services on the integrated North and East London
Railways, under the management of TfL."


Why can't TfL just run it themselves? Why does it have to be sub
contracted out?

Why should they run it themselves? Doing so would be unlikely to bring
many benefits. The concession approach is similar to the running of the
DLR, which has a phenomenal track record, and it allows a performance
incentive and penalty regime to be installed so that the concessionnaire
is continually motivated in the right direction. You'd be unlikely to
get that sort of drive if TfL ran it themselves. Meanwhile, TfL can
concentrate on other essential deliverables such as full integration
with other transport networks.

Pity there wasn't a bit more vision and willpower with the ELL. For a
start the obvious continuation to Finsbury Park then take the line up
the old northern heights branch via highgate high level to terminate at
east finchley and interchange with the northern line.

There's no point asking for many billions to build a mammoth project and
scaring off the Treasury when you are much more likely to get a smaller
amount to build a smaller project, show what good value for money it is
and so coax the cheque-writers in to give you more.

If, in the 1980s, someone had asked for £1.5bn to build a 40km light
railway network throughout the derelict docklands of East London, they
would have been laughed out of the Treasury - but by 2012, that will be
the investment in and scale of the DLR.

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

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Boltar wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=984

"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that MTR Laing and Go-Via
have been selected to submit a 'best and final offer' for the contract
to run London Overground services on the integrated North and East
London Railways, under the management of TfL."

Why can't TfL just run it themselves? Why does it have to be sub
contracted out?

Why should they run it themselves? Doing so would be unlikely to bring many
benefits. The concession approach is similar to the running of the DLR, which
has a phenomenal track record, and it allows a performance incentive and
penalty regime to be installed so that the concessionnaire is continually
motivated in the right direction. You'd be unlikely to get that sort of drive
if TfL ran it themselves.

Because, as we well know, everyone who works for TfL is an incompetent,
unprofessional, disinterested jobsworth who has no interest in actually
providing a decent service to the public.

Oh, no, hang on a minute ...

Pity there wasn't a bit more vision and willpower with the ELL.

If, in the 1980s, someone had asked for £1.5bn to build a 40km light
railway network throughout the derelict docklands of East London, they
would have been laughed out of the Treasury - but by 2012, that will be
the investment in and scale of the DLR.

Three cheers for the DLR! And one day, possibly, three car trains!

tom

--
Once you notice that something doesn't seem to have all the necessary
parts to enable its functions, it is going to mildly bug you until you
figure it out. -- John Rowland

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:50:31 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Boltar wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=984

"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that MTR Laing and Go-Via
have been selected to submit a 'best and final offer' for the contract
to run London Overground services on the integrated North and East
London Railways, under the management of TfL."

Why can't TfL just run it themselves? Why does it have to be sub
contracted out?

Why should they run it themselves? Doing so would be unlikely to bring many
benefits. The concession approach is similar to the running of the DLR, which
has a phenomenal track record, and it allows a performance incentive and
penalty regime to be installed so that the concessionnaire is continually
motivated in the right direction. You'd be unlikely to get that sort of drive
if TfL ran it themselves.

I think I can guess what the response to this will be.

Because, as we well know, everyone who works for TfL is an incompetent,
unprofessional, disinterested jobsworth who has no interest in actually
providing a decent service to the public.

waves

Oh, no, hang on a minute ...

What did I just do?

Pity there wasn't a bit more vision and willpower with the ELL.

If, in the 1980s, someone had asked for £1.5bn to build a 40km light
railway network throughout the derelict docklands of East London, they
would have been laughed out of the Treasury - but by 2012, that will be
the investment in and scale of the DLR.

Three cheers for the DLR! And one day, possibly, three car trains!

I used it the other evening from Bank and was a bit surprised how busy
it was with people heading away from Bank. I expected it to be busier
coming into Bank but I suppose with too large centres of economic
activity it makes sense that there will be heavy flows each way. Even
later at 21.30 trains to Lewisham were standing room only.

The service was fine but the trains seemed to be jerkier and to sway
more on the tracks than I recall.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

Dave Arquati wrote:
Why should they run it themselves? Doing so would be unlikely to bring
many benefits. The concession approach is similar to the running of the

Apart from the fact that they wouldn't require having to make a profit
out of the service , unlike any company that does run it. Unless they
have all been struck by the christmas spirit and will do it all for no
comeback.

DLR, which has a phenomenal track record, and it allows a performance
incentive and penalty regime to be installed so that the concessionnaire
is continually motivated in the right direction. You'd be unlikely to

I suspect its rather easy to run a completely isolated computer
controller light railway which pretty much runs itself. Quite another
to run a semi-metro system that will run on network rail lines and be
subject to all the usual cockups and delays.

If, in the 1980s, someone had asked for £1.5bn to build a 40km light
railway network throughout the derelict docklands of East London, they
would have been laughed out of the Treasury - but by 2012, that will be
the investment in and scale of the DLR.

I think that says it all really. If they'd built more originally it
would have probably cost somewhat less in real terms. And don't forget
the DLR could probably no longer cope with the daily traffic to canary
wharf. If the JLE hadn't been built it would probably be falling to
bits under the strain right now. The DLR was only ever a half hearted
cut price token gesture from the Thatcher government who wanted to be
seen to be doing something but pay bugger all for it. If they had been
really serious about regenerating Docklands as opposed to just hoping
for the best they'd have built a tube line there from the start.

B2003

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

..Boltar" wrote in message
ps.com...

Dave Arquati wrote:
If, in the 1980s, someone had asked for £1.5bn to build a 40km light
railway network throughout the derelict docklands of East London, they
would have been laughed out of the Treasury - but by 2012, that will be
the investment in and scale of the DLR.

I think that says it all really. If they'd built more originally it
would have probably cost somewhat less in real terms.

But even in countries that are pro rail such schemes are
developed piecemeal, it's the way that finance works.


tim

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

Boltar wrote:
Why should they run it themselves? Doing so would be unlikely to bring
many benefits. The concession approach is similar to the running of the

Apart from the fact that they wouldn't require having to make a profit
out of the service , unlike any company that does run it. Unless they
have all been struck by the christmas spirit and will do it all for no
comeback.

The whole point about tendering is that demonstrably, in real life, the
efficiency savings delivered by private contractors compared to
state-owned organisations are greater than the margins that the
contractors command.

This is why bins are emptied by Veola and prisoners escorted by Serco.
It's also why government organisations generally buy biros from Bic and
computers from Dell rather than having a special government biro and PC
factory.

PPP is a different story, with a skewd allocation of risk and an
inefficient capital structure, but this isn't relevant to the London
Rail operational contract (interestingly, from what I've read about the
deal it seems that TfL is buying the new rolling stock directly from
Bombardier rather than it being owned by a ROSCO. This is definitely a
Good Thing.)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

Boltar wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Why should they run it themselves? Doing so would be unlikely to bring
many benefits. The concession approach is similar to the running of the

Apart from the fact that they wouldn't require having to make a profit
out of the service , unlike any company that does run it. Unless they
have all been struck by the christmas spirit and will do it all for no
comeback.

The whole point of a penalty/incentive regime is that the need to make a
profit forces the concessionaire to deliver high performance - because
if they don't, they will lose money and eventually have to give way to a
more efficient company.

The difficulty running the service publicly is precisely the one you
just pointed out for a private company. Will the public sector employees
deliver a high performance service just because they have a warm, fuzzy
feeling about working for the public? Some of them may, but certainly
not all. On the other hand, the concessionaire will have to run a
high-performance service because if they don't, they will be penalised.

DLR, which has a phenomenal track record, and it allows a performance
incentive and penalty regime to be installed so that the concessionnaire
is continually motivated in the right direction. You'd be unlikely to

I suspect its rather easy to run a completely isolated computer
controller light railway which pretty much runs itself. Quite another
to run a semi-metro system that will run on network rail lines and be
subject to all the usual cockups and delays.

Accepted, but DLR services do operate seamlessly across infrastructure
owned by three different organisations (one public and two private), and
maintained by three different private organisations. Overground services
will operate on infrastructure owned and maintained by a single
(semi-public) company.

If, in the 1980s, someone had asked for £1.5bn to build a 40km light
railway network throughout the derelict docklands of East London, they
would have been laughed out of the Treasury - but by 2012, that will be
the investment in and scale of the DLR.

I think that says it all really. If they'd built more originally it
would have probably cost somewhat less in real terms. And don't forget
the DLR could probably no longer cope with the daily traffic to canary
wharf. If the JLE hadn't been built it would probably be falling to
bits under the strain right now. The DLR was only ever a half hearted
cut price token gesture from the Thatcher government who wanted to be
seen to be doing something but pay bugger all for it. If they had been
really serious about regenerating Docklands as opposed to just hoping
for the best they'd have built a tube line there from the start.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Given the situation in the area in the
early 80s, it would have been irresponsible to gamble many hundreds of
millions of pounds of public money at once on a new Tube line and hope
that it brought development.

As it was, the much smaller (£77m) initial investment in the DLR *did*
bring Canary Wharf - a smaller risk for a big reward.

The JLE got built because the DLR brought the traffic for it. In fact,
the JLE did *not* have a favourable cost-benefit ratio when it was given
the green light - it was something like 0.92. That's with Canary Wharf
already well-progressed. Imagine what the situation would have looked
like in 1985.

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

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

tim..... wrote:
But even in countries that are pro rail such schemes are
developed piecemeal, it's the way that finance works.

Not always. Look at the TGV system in france. It was a large scale
project from the start, not some penny pinching piecemeal attempt of
building a few miles of fast track to start off with then leaving it
for a decade and have endless "reviews" from quangos which is what any
British government would have probably done.

B2003

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Boltar wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=984


"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that MTR Laing and Go-Via
have been selected to submit a 'best and final offer' for the
contract to run London Overground services on the integrated North
and East London Railways, under the management of TfL."

Why can't TfL just run it themselves? Why does it have to be sub
contracted out?

Why should they run it themselves? Doing so would be unlikely to bring
many benefits. The concession approach is similar to the running of
the DLR, which has a phenomenal track record, and it allows a
performance incentive and penalty regime to be installed so that the
concessionnaire is continually motivated in the right direction. You'd
be unlikely to get that sort of drive if TfL ran it themselves.

Because, as we well know, everyone who works for TfL is an incompetent,
unprofessional, disinterested jobsworth who has no interest in actually
providing a decent service to the public.

Oh, no, hang on a minute ...

Hmm, you abused my point a bit there :-)

I should clarify - TfL could operate an adequate service on London
Overground. They could even operate a high-quality one if they tried
hard enough (shock horror). However, the incentivised concessionaire
will *have* to deliver a high-quality service if it wants to survive.

The adage comes to mind about the rabbit escaping from the fox, because
the rabbit is running for his life whereas the fox is only running for
his dinner.

Pity there wasn't a bit more vision and willpower with the ELL.

If, in the 1980s, someone had asked for £1.5bn to build a 40km light
railway network throughout the derelict docklands of East London, they
would have been laughed out of the Treasury - but by 2012, that will
be the investment in and scale of the DLR.

Three cheers for the DLR! And one day, possibly, three car trains!

tom



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

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:49:03 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

The whole point of a penalty/incentive regime is that the need to make a
profit forces the concessionaire to deliver high performance - because
if they don't, they will lose money and eventually have to give way to a
more efficient company.

The difficulty running the service publicly is precisely the one you
just pointed out for a private company. Will the public sector employees
deliver a high performance service just because they have a warm, fuzzy
feeling about working for the public? Some of them may, but certainly
not all. On the other hand, the concessionaire will have to run a
high-performance service because if they don't, they will be penalised.

There have been plenty of cases of companies deciding it's more
profitable to make substantial cutbacks and pay the penalties for poor
performance than it is to perform well. Whilst it's true that when the
contract expires the company may have to give way to a better
performing one, you're underestimating the preference for short term
profit over long term viability - particulary with train operating
companies, which own very few assets and make very little investment
(e.g. all their trains are owned by someone else and leased, and a
full complement of staff is often TUPE'd in ready-made) and can be
brought into and out of existence with relative ease.

I don't buy the maxim that private companies always run things better
than the public sector. There are plenty of counterexamples
(Railtrack, Connex, Multiplex, etc). At the end of the day there are
good and bad private companies, and good and bad public entities. TfL
has always struck me as a good one (though perhaps I'm mistaken ;),
and I'd be more confident if they were running the Overground rather
than potentially a bunch of cowboys.

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:48:13 +0000, asdf
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:49:03 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

The whole point of a penalty/incentive regime is that the need to make a
profit forces the concessionaire to deliver high performance - because
if they don't, they will lose money and eventually have to give way to a
more efficient company.

The difficulty running the service publicly is precisely the one you
just pointed out for a private company. Will the public sector employees
deliver a high performance service just because they have a warm, fuzzy
feeling about working for the public? Some of them may, but certainly
not all. On the other hand, the concessionaire will have to run a
high-performance service because if they don't, they will be penalised.

There have been plenty of cases of companies deciding it's more
profitable to make substantial cutbacks and pay the penalties for poor
performance than it is to perform well. Whilst it's true that when the
contract expires the company may have to give way to a better
performing one, you're underestimating the preference for short term
profit over long term viability - particulary with train operating
companies, which own very few assets and make very little investment
(e.g. all their trains are owned by someone else and leased, and a
full complement of staff is often TUPE'd in ready-made) and can be
brought into and out of existence with relative ease.

I would tend to agree with these comments. There is no such thing as the
perfect contract and inevitably circumstances will arise that will test
the arrangements in ways neither party could envisage. While the
general thrust of a contractual arrangement may very well deliver good
results these may not be sustained over time but you only find out when
it is too late (unless you have some very effective measurement and
surveillance processes in place). It is all too easy for incentives to
be wrongly pitched so that sub optimal decisions end up being taken
which either result in appalling short term performance and
renegotiation or apparent good short term performance but with an asset
base or workforce that is good for nothing long term. The only entity
that really suffers is the customer and not the supplier.

The other importance aspect is the age of the infrastructure. DLR and
Tramlink are both relatively new and have modern systems in place to
track asset condition and performance. LU and Network Rail have a
backlog of decades of degradation, lack of knowledge and under
investment to deal with. It makes a lot of difference in overall
performance terms and how well a contract works - "risk" is easier to
manage when knowledge is better.

I don't buy the maxim that private companies always run things better
than the public sector. There are plenty of counterexamples
(Railtrack, Connex, Multiplex, etc). At the end of the day there are
good and bad private companies, and good and bad public entities. TfL
has always struck me as a good one (though perhaps I'm mistaken ;),
and I'd be more confident if they were running the Overground rather
than potentially a bunch of cowboys.

Again I agree - there are good and bad in both sectors. With the
Overground operation there are a few factors that I would be concerned
about if I was involved in trying to run the new arrangements.

a) disputes between the concessionaire and TfL over rolling stock
performance / reliability.
b) the role of Network Rail who are supplying the track and
signals.
c) the cultural inheritance of taking over what are in almost all
cases "cinderella" parts of the network and the need to meld a new
operational culture and deal with the pay and pensions issues
effectively.
d) the impact of the political importance of the Overground network
needing to "work" almost from day one. This will undoubtedly be
exploited by a number of parties and could cause all sorts of issues.

I'm really keen for the whole project to work but I can see it being a
bit of a bumpy ride.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Boltar wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=984

"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that MTR Laing and Go-Via have
been selected to submit a 'best and final offer' for the contract to run
London Overground services on the integrated North and East London
Railways, under the management of TfL."

Why can't TfL just run it themselves? Why does it have to be sub
contracted out?

Why should they run it themselves? Doing so would be unlikely to bring
many benefits. The concession approach is similar to the running of the
DLR, which has a phenomenal track record, and it allows a performance
incentive and penalty regime to be installed so that the concessionnaire
is continually motivated in the right direction. You'd be unlikely to get
that sort of drive if TfL ran it themselves.

Because, as we well know, everyone who works for TfL is an incompetent,
unprofessional, disinterested jobsworth who has no interest in actually
providing a decent service to the public.

Oh, no, hang on a minute ...

Hmm, you abused my point a bit there :-)

I should clarify - TfL could operate an adequate service on London
Overground. They could even operate a high-quality one if they tried
hard enough (shock horror). However, the incentivised concessionaire
will *have* to deliver a high-quality service if it wants to survive.

I understand the theory, but am concerned about the practice - as the old
saying goes, in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice,
they're not. Yes, the DLR and Tramlink work well in private hands, as do
some NR TOCs, but there are plenty of bits of privatised or
semi-privatised transport infrastructure that emphatically do not. I don't
feel like we really have a good handle on what it is that makes some cases
work and others not (what was so different about Chiltern and Connex?),
which makes me wary of a rush to put the NLR into private hands. I suppose
neither of us are saying that it won't work either way, just that it could
work the other way!

tom

--
THE DRUMMER FROM DEF LEPPARD'S ONLY GOT ONE ARM!

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

I understand the theory, but am concerned about the practice - as the old
saying goes, in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice,
they're not. Yes, the DLR and Tramlink work well in private hands, as do
some NR TOCs, but there are plenty of bits of privatised or
semi-privatised transport infrastructure that emphatically do not. I don't
feel like we really have a good handle on what it is that makes some cases
work and others not (what was so different about Chiltern and Connex?),
which makes me wary of a rush to put the NLR into private hands. I suppose
neither of us are saying that it won't work either way, just that it could
work the other way!


Do you not mean 'a rush to put the ELL into private hands'?
The existing parts of the NLR (the WLL and NLL) already are...

Paul S

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Boltar wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=984

"Transport for London (TfL) has announced that MTR Laing and
Go-Via have been selected to submit a 'best and final offer' for
the contract to run London Overground services on the integrated
North and East London Railways, under the management of TfL."

Why can't TfL just run it themselves? Why does it have to be sub
contracted out?

Why should they run it themselves? Doing so would be unlikely to
bring many benefits. The concession approach is similar to the
running of the DLR, which has a phenomenal track record, and it
allows a performance incentive and penalty regime to be installed so
that the concessionnaire is continually motivated in the right
direction. You'd be unlikely to get that sort of drive if TfL ran it
themselves.

Because, as we well know, everyone who works for TfL is an
incompetent, unprofessional, disinterested jobsworth who has no
interest in actually providing a decent service to the public.

Oh, no, hang on a minute ...

Hmm, you abused my point a bit there :-)

I should clarify - TfL could operate an adequate service on London
Overground. They could even operate a high-quality one if they tried
hard enough (shock horror). However, the incentivised concessionaire
will *have* to deliver a high-quality service if it wants to survive.

I understand the theory, but am concerned about the practice - as the
old saying goes, in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in
practice, they're not. Yes, the DLR and Tramlink work well in private
hands, as do some NR TOCs, but there are plenty of bits of privatised or
semi-privatised transport infrastructure that emphatically do not. I
don't feel like we really have a good handle on what it is that makes
some cases work and others not (what was so different about Chiltern and
Connex?), which makes me wary of a rush to put the NLR into private
hands. I suppose neither of us are saying that it won't work either way,
just that it could work the other way!

I'll accept those odds - we'll never be wrong then!


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

Final shortlist for Overground concession announced
 

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Paul Scott wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

I don't feel like we really have a good handle on what it is that makes
some cases work and others not (what was so different about Chiltern
and Connex?), which makes me wary of a rush to put the NLR into private
hands.

Do you not mean 'a rush to put the ELL into private hands'? The existing
parts of the NLR (the WLL and NLL) already are...

I suppose i really mean "the rush to put he NLR back into private hands
(those of a concessionaire) immediately after having wrested it into
public hands (those of TfL) from the private hands (of Silverlink) into
which it was placed after having been pried from the cold, dead public
hands of BR (which of course snatched it from the private hands of the
LMSR in 1947 ...)".

tom

--
I do not think we will have to wait for long.