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!

"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

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

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

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

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!

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

..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

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

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