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 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?



The White Paper seemed to imply a separate franchise for Crossrail.

I wouldn't worry too much as to how Crossrail will fit into current
franchises. In the last 10 years we have moved through three different
models of franchise organisation/term. Crossrail is unlikely to be
built for at least another 10 years, maybe even 15. Who is to know
what franchises will look like that far ahead, never mind who will be
running them.

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

wrote in message
oups.com
On Aug 2, 7:46 pm, " wrote:
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



I think any discussion about Cross Rail is premature. Very.

I cant seen any such line opening before 2016/7, even if it is
approved, and if there is finance available.

It's another Thameslink millstone......

With the binary Olympics mindset* currently prevailing, it's hard to
imagine construction work on Crossrail starting before 2012. Given that
it'll probably take another five years to build, 2017 does seem like the
earliest likely opening date, assuming it's not abandoned long before
that.

* If you can put an Olympics tag on it, there are no funding or other
obstacles; if not, forget it.

"W14_Fishbourne" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?



The White Paper seemed to imply a separate franchise for Crossrail.

I wouldn't worry too much as to how Crossrail will fit into current
franchises. In the last 10 years we have moved through three different
models of franchise organisation/term. Crossrail is unlikely to be
built for at least another 10 years, maybe even 15. Who is to know
what franchises will look like that far ahead, never mind who will be
running them.

I seem to recall that in 1912 there was similar discussion about whether the
Titanic's deck-chairs should be run on a different franchise.

Regards

Jonathan

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.