"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Is there a reason why this is not just billed as part of the Underground,
especially since it will soon have some deep tube bits? If the
Underground can include the Chesham branch, why not the North London
Line? Do staff at Gospel Oak station get paid less than staff at Chesham,
in which case keeping the Overground separate from the Underground is a
divide-and-conquer wheeze against the rail workers?



What is now called the "Overground" is actually part of "British Rail".
The government put those lines out to tender and "Overground" won it.
Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it works under
National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/conditions not LU.

And to make matters more complicated although (as I understand it) the
franchise is let to Tfl it's actually run for them by London Overground Rail
Operations Ltd (LOROL) which is owned half by Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway
and DB Regio.

Graham Harrison wrote on 16
September 2009 16:59:33 ...
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
Is there a reason why this is not just billed as part of the Underground,
especially since it will soon have some deep tube bits? If the
Underground can include the Chesham branch, why not the North London
Line? Do staff at Gospel Oak station get paid less than staff at Chesham,
in which case keeping the Overground separate from the Underground is a
divide-and-conquer wheeze against the rail workers?


What is now called the "Overground" is actually part of "British Rail".
The government put those lines out to tender and "Overground" won it.

No, the government decided to delegate management responsibility for
these lines to TfL.

Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it works under
National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/conditions not LU.

It is part of TfL in the same way that the DLR is part of TfL. The
signalling rules are irrelevant; there are parts of LU that operate
under Network Rail signalling. Yes, the conditions of carriage are
those for National Rail - so what?

And to make matters more complicated although (as I understand it) the
franchise is let to Tfl it's actually run for them by London Overground Rail
Operations Ltd (LOROL) which is owned half by Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway
and DB Regio.

It's not a franchise. The London Rail Concession is an agreement
between DfT and TfL under which TfL is responsible for managing services
on the London Overground lines. TfL have contracted LOROL to operate
the trains and stations.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
om...
Graham Harrison wrote on 16
September 2009 16:59:33 ...
"Graham Harrison" wrote in
message ...
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
Is there a reason why this is not just billed as part of the
Underground, especially since it will soon have some deep tube bits? If
the Underground can include the Chesham branch, why not the North
London Line? Do staff at Gospel Oak station get paid less than staff at
Chesham, in which case keeping the Overground separate from the
Underground is a divide-and-conquer wheeze against the rail workers?


What is now called the "Overground" is actually part of "British Rail".
The government put those lines out to tender and "Overground" won it.

No, the government decided to delegate management responsibility for these
lines to TfL.

Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it works under
National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/conditions not LU.

It is part of TfL in the same way that the DLR is part of TfL. The
signalling rules are irrelevant; there are parts of LU that operate under
Network Rail signalling. Yes, the conditions of carriage are those for
National Rail - so what?

And to make matters more complicated although (as I understand it) the
franchise is let to Tfl it's actually run for them by London Overground
Rail Operations Ltd (LOROL) which is owned half by Hong Kong Mass Transit
Railway and DB Regio.

It's not a franchise. The London Rail Concession is an agreement between
DfT and TfL under which TfL is responsible for managing services on the
London Overground lines. TfL have contracted LOROL to operate the trains
and stations.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

OK, let see if I've got this right

The Dft and Tfl have an agreement that allows Tfl to operate what is known
as the "Overground". Tfl have then let a contract to LOROL to actually run
the services. I'm intrigued - what's the difference between a franchise
and the Dft/Tfl agreement?

As for the issue of Network Rail conditions of carriage it makes a
difference (to me - ymmv).

On Sep 16, 6:39*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

"Richard J." wrote:

Graham Harrison wrote on 16
September 2009 16:59:33:

"Graham Harrison" wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote:

Is there a reason why this is not just billed as part of the
Underground, especially since it will soon have some deep tube bits? If
the Underground can include the Chesham branch, why not the North
London Line? Do staff at Gospel Oak station get paid less than staff at
Chesham, in which case keeping the Overground separate from the
Underground is a divide-and-conquer wheeze against the rail workers?

What is now called the "Overground" is actually part of "British Rail".
The government put those lines out to tender and "Overground" won it.

No, the government decided to delegate management responsibility for these
lines to TfL.

Correct.


Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it works under
National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/conditions not LU.

It is part of TfL in the same way that the DLR is part of TfL. *The
signalling rules are irrelevant; there are parts of LU that operate under
Network Rail signalling. *Yes, the conditions of carriage are those for
National Rail - so what?

The easiest thing to say is that it's both part of TfL and of
'National Rail' (the latter in itself being a somewhat amorphous
concept).


And to make matters more complicated although (as I understand it) the
franchise is let to Tfl it's actually run for them by London Overground
Rail Operations Ltd (LOROL) which is owned half by Hong Kong Mass Transit
Railway and DB Regio.

It's not a franchise. *The London Rail Concession is an agreement between
DfT and TfL under which TfL is responsible for managing services on the
London Overground lines. *TfL have contracted LOROL to operate the trains
and stations.

OK, let see if I've got this right

The Dft and Tfl have an agreement that allows Tfl to operate what is known
as the "Overground". * Tfl have then let a contract to LOROL to actually run
the services. * I'm intrigued - what's the difference between a franchise
and the Dft/Tfl agreement?

Lots and lots. TfL take the revenue risk, for a start. And TfL specify
the level of service - not sure if there's a concordat with the DfT on
the bare minimum, but given the demand that's almost irrelevant. (I
suppose there must be some sort of understanding, as the DC line is
part of LO and covers territory outside of Greater London.)

Both London Overground and Merseyrail (the electric lines) are
"concessions" as opposed to franchises, and the DfT has delegated
responsibility away in both cases - for LO, to TfL, and for
Merseyrail, to Merseytravel (the PTA - well actually it's an ITA now -
Intergrated Transport Authority). Merseyrail is however a somewhat
different type of arrangement - for example, the operator (a Serco-
NedRailways joint venture) takes the revenue risk.


As for the issue of Network Rail conditions of carriage it makes a
difference (to me - ymmv).

*Network* Rail conditions of carriage - what are they?

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

Both London Overground and Merseyrail (the electric lines) are
"concessions" as opposed to franchises, and the DfT has delegated
responsibility away in both cases - for LO, to TfL, and for
Merseyrail, to Merseytravel (the PTA - well actually it's an ITA now -
Intergrated Transport Authority). Merseyrail is however a somewhat
different type of arrangement - for example, the operator (a Serco-
NedRailways joint venture) takes the revenue risk.

Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack, unlike London Overground where
Notwork Rail still do it?

It's Integrated, not Intergrated, BTW.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 18 Sep, 13:48, wrote:
In article
,

(Mizter T) wrote:
Both London Overground and Merseyrail (the electric lines) are
"concessions" as opposed to franchises, and the DfT has delegated
responsibility away in both cases - for LO, to TfL, and for
Merseyrail, to Merseytravel (the PTA - well actually it's an ITA now -
Intergrated Transport Authority). Merseyrail is however a somewhat
different type of arrangement - for example, the operator (a Serco-
NedRailways joint venture) takes the revenue risk.

Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack, unlike London Overground where
Notwork Rail still do it?

It's Integrated, not Intergrated, BTW.

If there isn't such a word, there should be.

Then LU lines could be integrated with each other and intergrated with
Overground.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, MIG wrote:

On 18 Sep, 13:48, wrote:
In article
,

(Mizter T) wrote:
Both London Overground and Merseyrail (the electric lines) are
"concessions" as opposed to franchises, and the DfT has delegated
responsibility away in both cases - for LO, to TfL, and for
Merseyrail, to Merseytravel (the PTA - well actually it's an ITA now -
Intergrated Transport Authority). Merseyrail is however a somewhat
different type of arrangement - for example, the operator (a Serco-
NedRailways joint venture) takes the revenue risk.

Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack, unlike London Overground where
Notwork Rail still do it?

It's Integrated, not Intergrated, BTW.

If there isn't such a word, there should be.

Then LU lines could be integrated with each other and intergrated with
Overground.

When the ELL was removed from the Underground, was it disinter-grated?

tom

--
The literature is filled with bizarre occurrances for which we have
no explanation

wrote in message
...
In article

Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack,

There have been a number of proposals for Merseyrail to maintain their own
track, because it can be segregated from the wider network (unlike the
'Overground') but so far nothing has changed, as NR fundamentally disagree.

Paul

Paul Scott wrote:
wrote in message
...
In article

Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack,

There have been a number of proposals for Merseyrail to maintain their own
track, because it can be segregated from the wider network (unlike the
'Overground') but so far nothing has changed, as NR fundamentally disagree.

Paul


Doesn't Nederlandse Spoorwegen run Merseyrail?