Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:
On May 31, 1:33*pm, Mr Thant wrote: On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate operation. But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8 car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least. The question is surely whether the service has to be completely separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare allocations. I would imagine that it might be better to create a new LOROL operator for South London similar to LOROL in the North, maybe renamed to LOROL 2 with the services operated under contract to TfL on a strictly no revenue-risk basis. These could be branded Overground similarly to the North London services. Then these could be differentiated from the Southern, SWT and Southeastern services and meet the minimum requirement for metro-frequency in the suburbs which Overground will eventually meet on all routes. However, unfortunately there would still be the problem of other Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink services which would call at very few London Stations, but would still have to accept oyster. Thus rebranding and restructuring Suburban services in South London in a similar manor to Overground in the North while being beneficial in other aspects, would not solve the problem of revenue allocation because there would still be other operators not directly controlled under TfL. So they are going to have to come to an agreement with the 4 south London TOCs which do not currently accept Oyster yet. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NR-only season tickets in London (was: Would it be lawful for non-London train and bus operators to share revenue?) | London Transport | |||
How much revenue is lost through passengers with no tickets on bendibuses | London Transport | |||
Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs | London Transport | |||
Largest Bus Allocation | London Transport | |||
Revenue protection | London Transport |