The "Two Crossrail questions" thread set me thinking. Paddington is
currently FGW territory. Liverpool St is "One Land". So when (yes when)
Crossrail gets built how do the franchises align?

Possibilities:

1) "Paddington (currently FGW) franchise" + "Liverpool St (currently One)
franchise + a 3rd franchise for Crossrail bringing competition at both ends
between the enw Crossrail franchise and the incumbents. (3 franchises)
2) One big franchise covering Paddington + Liverpool St + Crossrail (1
franchise)
3) One of the Paddington or Liverpool St incumbents gets to run Crossrail
bringing competion to the area they don't currently serve.(2 franchises)
4) The incumbents remain in place and run Crossrail as a joint venture.(2
franchises + JV).

Personally, I reckon FGW could do with some competition so I favour 1 or 4.

On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
The "Two Crossrail questions" thread set me thinking. Paddington is
currently FGW territory. Liverpool St is "One Land". So when (yes when)
Crossrail gets built how do the franchises align?

Possibilities:

1) "Paddington (currently FGW) franchise" + "Liverpool St (currently One)
franchise + a 3rd franchise for Crossrail bringing competition at both ends
between the enw Crossrail franchise and the incumbents. (3 franchises)
2) One big franchise covering Paddington + Liverpool St + Crossrail (1
franchise)
3) One of the Paddington or Liverpool St incumbents gets to run Crossrail
bringing competion to the area they don't currently serve.(2 franchises)
4) The incumbents remain in place and run Crossrail as a joint venture.(2
franchises + JV).

Personally, I reckon FGW could do with some competition so I favour 1 or 4.

Another option - as a result of Ken/Boris exercising his Mayoral
powers over railways outside London - TfL assume responsiblity for
Crossrail and lets the franchise as part of London Overground/
Underground ensuring that maximum connectivity with the existing TfL
network - after all Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed
as an equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.

On 2 Aug, 18:37, Bob wrote:
On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, "Graham Harrison"



wrote:
The "Two Crossrail questions" thread set me thinking. Paddington is
currently FGW territory. Liverpool St is "One Land". So when (yes when)
Crossrail gets built how do the franchises align?

Possibilities:

1) "Paddington (currently FGW) franchise" + "Liverpool St (currently One)
franchise + a 3rd franchise for Crossrail bringing competition at both ends
between the enw Crossrail franchise and the incumbents. (3 franchises)
2) One big franchise covering Paddington + Liverpool St + Crossrail (1
franchise)
3) One of the Paddington or Liverpool St incumbents gets to run Crossrail
bringing competion to the area they don't currently serve.(2 franchises)
4) The incumbents remain in place and run Crossrail as a joint venture.(2
franchises + JV).

Personally, I reckon FGW could do with some competition so I favour 1 or 4.

Another option - as a result of Ken/Boris exercising his Mayoral
powers over railways outside London - TfL assume responsiblity for
Crossrail and lets the franchise as part of London Overground/
Underground ensuring that maximum connectivity with the existing TfL
network - after all Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed
as an equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.

This is certainly my favourite option! I think they should be given
control of the entire London suburban rail network and run it as part
of the Overground as franchises expire..

On Aug 2, 6:58 pm, Neal wrote:


This is certainly my favourite option! I think they should be given
control of the entire London suburban rail network and run it as part
of the Overground as franchises expire..

It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them? Fine by me if London ratepayers pick up the tab, but I somehow
suspect that that's not the intention.

To put it another way, if Ken or Boris should run those trains, why
shouldn't they run all the trains that serve London? I somehow think
that the people of Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, etc, might have
something to say about their trains to London being run by the MoL.
Even if you exclude those trains, the London commuter-belt goes out a
long way these days: Bournemouth, Bristol, Northampton, Grantham,
Cambridge, Norwich, Southend.

On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne wrote:
It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them? Fine by me if London ratepayers pick up the tab, but I somehow
suspect that that's not the intention.

Indeed, but then neither are Amersham, Epping or Watford.

In the 1930s this was solved by making the responsible body be a
committee, with various representation from London, Essex,
Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Kent, Buckinghamshire and Surrey.

--
Abi

On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne wrote:
It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them?

Maidenhead is about the same distance out as Chesham, and Shenfield's
barely outside at all. It's the publicly stated aim of TfL to have
more control over the inner-suburban network, and later this year they
gain powers to negotiate changes to services on it.

Since Crossrail is DfT/TfL led, I think it being TfL run is a safe
bet, though it'll also be advertised as a National Rail service. A lot
like the extended East London Line.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne wrote:
To put it another way, if Ken or Boris should run those trains, why
shouldn't they run all the trains that serve London? I somehow think
that the people of Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, etc, might have
something to say about their trains to London being run by the MoL.

I don't really mind who runs my trains as long as they're clueful. If
a rail-friendly body like the Scottish Executive (or, indeed, TfL)
would like to annex Oxfordshire and take it out of the hands of the
muppets at the DfT, that's just fine with me.

Richard

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:11:55 -0700, W14_Fishbourne
wrote:

On Aug 2, 6:58 pm, Neal wrote:


This is certainly my favourite option! I think they should be given
control of the entire London suburban rail network and run it as part
of the Overground as franchises expire..

It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them? Fine by me if London ratepayers pick up the tab, but I somehow
suspect that that's not the intention.

To put it another way, if Ken or Boris should run those trains, why
shouldn't they run all the trains that serve London? I somehow think
that the people of Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, etc, might have
something to say about their trains to London being run by the MoL.
Even if you exclude those trains, the London commuter-belt goes out a
long way these days: Bournemouth, Bristol, Northampton, Grantham,
Cambridge, Norwich, Southend.

In New York, the Connecticut commuter trains are run jointly by the
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. They pay for the line in accordance with the proportion of trackage
in each state.

No reason why TfL shouldn't run Crossrail with Essex along the same lines.
--
Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
| http://www.christianphansen.com
| http://chrishansenhome.livejournal.com

Another option - as a result of Ken/Boris exercising his Mayoral
powers over railways outside London - TfL assume responsiblity for
Crossrail and lets the franchise as part of London Overground/
Underground ensuring that maximum connectivity with the existing TfL
network - after all Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed
as an equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted text -

Building on my earlier suggestion - the Scottish (because they always
are) Chancellor will no doubt appreciate that TfL control is a great
way of making Boris responsible for getting the banks and property
companies who will benefit from increased land values to stump up the
cash for Crossrail - especially if at the same time making London
shoulder the cost for any Jubilee line extension type cost overruns -
(roughly in the same way the SNP have threatened Edinburgh Council
with over run costs on the Edinburgh trams, or Border Councils with
costs on the Waverley line.) By the way for those who don't feel they
are part of London the Government is to allow the Mayor and TfL to
increase or decrease service levels on trains outside the London
boundary. No doubt some contributor can draw the boundaries of this
influence - on Thameslink/FCC IIRC I think this will extend to Saint
Albans.

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed
as an equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted
text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will be
sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood,
is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central London
tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

By the way for those who don't feel they
are part of London the Government is to allow the Mayor and TfL to
increase or decrease service levels on trains outside the London
boundary. No doubt some contributor can draw the boundaries of this
influence - on Thameslink/FCC IIRC I think this will extend to Saint
Albans.

No need to guess, the boundaries of TfL's influence were published on the
DfT website, 'line by line', a couple of weeks ago; including the services
to St Albans as you mentioned.

They don't allow TfL to increase or decrease services unilaterally, though,
but as follows:

"The changes I have announced today will allow TfL to propose and pay for
improvements on some key commuter services that start or end just outside
the GLA boundary. At the same time the new arrangements make sure the
interests of passengers from just outside London are protected by their own
elected representatives."

http://tinyurl.com/2fen9r

I was looking at another forum last week where someone reckoned Ken had been
given the listed network as part of London Rail - amazing how people can
read too much into these announcements...

Paul S