On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Tom Barry wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

Wouldn't it be a complete scream if TfL owned Metronet and private Tube
Lines put in bids!?

And Network Rail? All three more-or-less creations of Gordon Brown
(given that NR was largely set up by his Treasury cronies).

Indeed. I think Mizter T's analysis that the ELL is "just a long branch
off [the LBSC main line]" is spot on, and so it would make perfect sense
for its maintenance to be done by the same body that maintains that.

tom

--
only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are
universally valid -- Pope Benedict XVI

On 4 Jun, 23:07, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Tom Barry wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

Wouldn't it be a complete scream if TfL owned Metronet and private Tube
Lines put in bids!?

And Network Rail? All three more-or-less creations of Gordon Brown
(given that NR was largely set up by his Treasury cronies).

I don't think there was anything to stop Network Rail putting in a bid
if it made commercial sense to them, apart of course from whether or
not the shadowy presence of the DfT would have approved of them so
doing.


Indeed. I think Mizter T's analysis that the ELL is "just a long branch
off [the LBSC main line]" is spot on, and so it would make perfect sense
for its maintenance to be done by the same body that maintains that.


I was really thinking about that with regards to who would do the
signalling. Even if one thinks of the ELL as a branch line, I really
don't think it necessarily follows that the job should go to Network
Rail - after all need TfL merely hand maintenance of the line to the
'incumbent' as it were?

Bear in mind that the core ELL route is going to be intensively used -
16tph, with 20tph if phase 2 to Clapham Jn gets the go ahead. TfL are
aiming to do a number of things differently in providing this high-
quality metro style service. Network Rail meanwhile might just default
to the same old working methods.The ELL for example is going to finish
later (1am) and start earlier (5am) than most Network Rail lines.

I've no doubt that Network Rail has a great degree of competence,
despite the many recent high profile problems. But perhaps it is a
good idea given the great opportunity to at least try a different
approach - indeed, the situation on the ELL will be a new approach
anyway, what with TfL being the boss and the maintenance being done by
a contractor. Everywhere else on the railways Network Rail is boss,
but if they were to do the ELL maintenance then instead they'd be in
the unusual position of being in a subservient role.

Unless of course one takes the position that the whole ELL should just
be handed over to Network Rail. But if that were to happen then I fear
one might start to see more and longer weekend closures, the service
finishing earlier and starting later, and perhaps a somewhat reduced
overall standard of maintenance (more signal failures etc) as the line
assumed a lesser priority in Network Rail's grand scheme of things.

When it comes to signalling I'm sure there are good arguments to be
made for a number of different approaches. Whatever happens one would
hope that the integration between signalling and operation is tight
(as sometimes occurs already with these joint Network Rail/TOC control
rooms) - things are inevitably going to go wrong on the LBSC mainline
from time to time, so the ELL service must be flexible and able to
adjust quickly to that, whether that means terminating/reversing more
trains at New Cross or Crystal Palace or whatever.

Tom Barry wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:


Wouldn't it be a complete scream if TfL owned Metronet and private Tube
Lines put in bids!?


And Network Rail? All three more-or-less creations of Gordon Brown
(given that NR was largely set up by his Treasury cronies).


Yes, but so what? You can just as well say that Railtrack was a
creation of the Treasury - indeed, you could consider London
Overground a creation of the Treasury, in that if they hadn't of
agreed to it then it wouldn't have happened. One could go further and
say that the rail maintenance businesses of Balfour Beatty and co are
the result of the Treasury driven privatisation of BR.

Mizter T wrote:
Tom Barry wrote:

Yes, but so what? You can just as well say that Railtrack was a
creation of the Treasury - indeed, you could consider London
Overground a creation of the Treasury, in that if they hadn't of
agreed to it then it wouldn't have happened. One could go further and
say that the rail maintenance businesses of Balfour Beatty and co are
the result of the Treasury driven privatisation of BR.

The point was the Gordon Brown connection in all three, rather than the
Treasury one. I just thought it rather ironic, considering the current
political complexion of TfL, that they may have a Hobson's choice of
three things set up by Gordon Brown to pick from to run a key project.

Tom