[A long post - so skip to the last paragraph to get to the gist...]

Southern's franchise expires in September 2009, and there has been a
degree of speculation with regards to what might happen after that -
and this is justified speculation, for it is known that TfL and Mayor
Ken have been lobbying the DfT and indeed the Prime Minister for
control of the inner suburban (or 'South London Metro') routes, so
they can run them as part of the London Overground network.

Mr Thant's excellent London Connections blog has been following this
issue, and the relevant posts can be read on this page:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/search?q=southern+takeover

In addition, he links to two relevant newspaper stories, one from
November last year in The Times...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2903879.ece

....and a more recent story from March in the Guardian...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...on08.transport


There would appear to be some debate over exactly what form TfL's
involvement would take, ranging from a full takeover of the South
London Metro routes to some other kind of settlement whereby TfL would
somehow be involved or have significant influence over the new
franchisee.

I and many others would warmly welcome TfL's involvement, in whatever
form it comes, in running the rail network south of the Thames. Since
TfL took over the former Silverlink Metro routes as London Overground
back in November things have improved substantially already - stations
are now staffed when they are open, many have had new ticket gates
installed, stations are being cleaned-up and renovated, trains are far
cleaner, tickets checks now actually happen and fare box revenue has
gone up significantly. There's much more to come as well, including
higher frequency services and new trains. In short, the rail service
is now run by an organisation that actually cares about it, under
arrangements that mean they can care about it.

Granted, Southern might not be in anything quite as decrepit as the
state that Silverlink Metro was, but it still sports a plethora of
grotty unwelcoming stations, doesn't commit to staffing its stations
for the whole time they're open, does very little in terms of checking
tickets for those not heading to a central London terminus etc etc. In
other words it could be, and indeed should be, so much better. Indeed
many recent Southern station improvements have been funded or part-
funded by TfL's rail improvement programme, as has some on-train CCTV,
so it's not as though Southern would have delivered these goods
without TfL's assistance. If TfL were actually in charge, they could
do so much more by running it along the lines of the London Overground
network north of the river.


The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris
Johnson is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would
government ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that
allows TfL to takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play
in the running of - the South London Metro routes, which would
effectively hand him an early victory, one which was basically the
result of Ken Livingstone's long-term game plan, or would they just
pull the plug on it all?

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris
Johnson is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would
government ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that
allows TfL to takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play
in the running of - the South London Metro routes, which would
effectively hand him an early victory, one which was basically the
result of Ken Livingstone's long-term game plan, or would they just
pull the plug on it all?

If they did, Johnson (and Cameron, in all probability) would
absolutely slaughter them in the press for blatant party political
point-scoring.

I hope they wouldn't, but they are politicians.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:

The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris Johnson
is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would government
ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that allows TfL to
takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play in the running of
- the South London Metro routes, which would effectively hand him an
early victory, one which was basically the result of Ken Livingstone's
long-term game plan, or would they just pull the plug on it all?

I think it would be utterly unthinkable for them to derail the project out
of political spite. As Mr Farrar points out, they'd be shooting themselves
in the feet in PR terms, and it would probably be illegal, not to mention
very difficult to put over on the various rail industry quangos [1] who
are already lined up behind it.

But ...

All that depends on there already being enough momentum established to
carry the project through. If there is, ministers can't stop it without
the foot-shooting. But if this is all still in the early stage, which i
think it is, there's any amount of foot-dragging that the government can
do to stall it. Stuff that isn't obviously negative, like demanding that
TfL produce a more detailed safety/environmental/business/operational case
than they have so far, or take on more of the cost or risk (more than
they'd be willing to), or suddenly reconsidering Southern's bid, etc.
Standard political wiles that ministers could do in their sleep.

And anyway, a much better strategy is to let it go through, then scheme to
make sure it goes horribly wrong, leaving Boris looking incompetent.

tom

[1] There's a word you haven't heard in a while!

--
How did i get here?

On 25 Apr, 18:54, James Farrar wrote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T

wrote:
The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris
Johnson is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would
government ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that
allows TfL to takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play
in the running of - the South London Metro routes, which would
effectively hand him an early victory, one which was basically the
result of Ken Livingstone's long-term game plan, or would they just
pull the plug on it all?

If they did, Johnson (and Cameron, in all probability) would
absolutely slaughter them in the press for blatant party political
point-scoring.

I hope they wouldn't, but they are politicians.


First off, I have no inside information. But if I painted this whole
scheme as a done deal, then I'm sorry, because that's certainly not
the message I intended to convey - I don't think it is a done deal at
all yet (unlike the DfT funding ELLX phase 2) , and I get the
impression that progressing this scheme from theory into reality is
dependent upon the DfT and ministers continuing to give it a
sympathetic hearing, bearing in mind there are substantial forces of
opposition to it within both the railway industry and indeed with the
DfT itself.

It appears more to be a work-in-progress, and one that I am somewhat
sceptical about Boris Johnson - should he become Mayor - (a) properly
recognising the importance thereof and being willing to whole-
heartedly take up, argue for and progress, and (b) whether he would
actually get a sympathetic hearing from central government were he to
do so. This is one of Ken Livingstone's pet projects, and is part of
his long-term game plan to exert greater London influence over the
rail network in the capital for the benefit of Londoners. I'm far from
convinced that Boris would be able to continue this shift, not least
because I'm far from convinced that he recognises how important it is.

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:

The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris Johnson
is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would government
ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that allows TfL to
takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play in the running of
- the South London Metro routes, which would effectively hand him an
early victory, one which was basically the result of Ken Livingstone's
long-term game plan, or would they just pull the plug on it all?

I think it would be utterly unthinkable for them to derail the project out
of political spite. As Mr Farrar points out, they'd be shooting themselves
in the feet in PR terms, and it would probably be illegal, not to mention
very difficult to put over on the various rail industry quangos [1] who
are already lined up behind it.

But ...

All that depends on there already being enough momentum established to
carry the project through. If there is, ministers can't stop it without
the foot-shooting. But if this is all still in the early stage, which i
think it is, there's any amount of foot-dragging that the government can
do to stall it. Stuff that isn't obviously negative, like demanding that
TfL produce a more detailed safety/environmental/business/operational case
than they have so far, or take on more of the cost or risk (more than
they'd be willing to), or suddenly reconsidering Southern's bid, etc.
Standard political wiles that ministers could do in their sleep.


First off, see my response upthread to James Farrar where I address
some of these points.

But the critical phrase you use is momentum - one gets the distinct
impression that this isn't a done deal, and - and I'm really not just
saying this for partisan reasons - Ken Livingstone *is* the momentum
on this project. You speak earlier of rail industry quangos possibly
being lined up behind it - well, first off, there aren't really any
rail industry quangos that have a say in these matters, it is DfT
Rail's decision, and DfT is a government department led by a
ministerial team. TfL's London Rail division is meanwhile part of the
Greater London local governance apparatus, and ATOC is an industry
body, one which represents the interests of its private sector
members.

Both the Times and Guardian articles [1] I linked to in my original
post (thanks Mr Thant) are an interesting read, The Times one for a
broad brush overview of Mayor Ken's grand plan, the Guardian one for
some specifics about the possibly TfL takeover of South London Metro
routes.

The Guardian article clearly notes opposition both from the other
train operators, and also from within DfT Rail. The idea that this
plan has an inevitable momentum that will just carry it on through
just isn't justified in my view. The winds can change quickly, so it
could all just fall apart, or it could be watered down significantly -
it needs the case to be made unremittingly right up until the deal is
agreed and signed upon.

Bear in mind that this is in effect central government devolving more
power away from themselves, something that never comes naturally, and
something they have no obligation to do. Some in DfT Rail are also
apparently concerned at the idea of splitting the franchise up - I
understand that there are some potential issues here, but I don't
think it's anything that's unresolvable. I dare say that one part of
the thinking is that Southern's profitable Sussex coast services in
effect subsidise their other operations in South London. Transferring
them to TfL would mean the DfT would have to take a more active role
in cross-subsidising services, something that is an anathema to those
who have been trying to engineer a more hands-off approach in the
government's financial attitude to the railways. In addition handing
control of these routes to TfL would mean they'd spend more on them -
bear in mind that just under half of TfL's budget comes from a grant
from central government, you can see that some in government might be
worry that handing TfL control would entail something of a financial
commitment.

There are a number of counter argument to that - not least that fact
that fare box revenue has substantially increased on the London
Overground network since TfL took control due principally to them
actually conducting some revenue protection (on South London Metro
routes buying a ticket seems to be entirely optional - see this recent
uk.r post for example [2]); the fact that such revenue would continue
to go up as more people were attracted to travel by rail; the argument
that TfL would be far more efficient and effective in spending any
subsidy than a private TOC would be, and the basic acceptance that
providing decent public transport does cost money.

But I'm getting sidetracked. Ken has been driving this whole idea
forward right from when he first got into office (indeed one could
even point to his attempts in the early 80's, as leader of the GLC, to
include British Rail in the fares fair scheme - an attempt that was
blocked by central government before the whole Fares Fair scheme
collapsed as a result of a fairly political legal challenge from LB
Bromley - but it does perhaps demonstrate the provenance of his
thinking when it comes to such matters).

I just think that perhaps he's the only protagonist who can get the
planets to line up on this one, and to actually make it happen.


And anyway, a much better strategy is to let it go through, then scheme to
make sure it goes horribly wrong, leaving Boris looking incompetent.


I realise you say that half in jest, but I do genuinely doubt that
anyone in government would actually want to sabotage anything in this
manner. More likely, perhaps, is that the scheme gets watered down
beyond all recognition, and TfL ends up with a much diminished role.


-----
[1] The Times and Guardian articles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2903879.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...on08.transport

[2] uk.r post about lack of ticket inspections on South London Metro:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....f3137ba6bba441

Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of Londoners.

LOL.

On 26 Apr, 13:26, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of Londoners.

LOL.

?

On Apr 26, 1:26 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

TimB wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:26 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

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