Jack Wicket
Member
- Joined
- 10 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 20
Why doesn't franchising effect London Overground? I am just wondering.
Why doesn't franchising effect London Overground? I am just wondering.
It is a concession by Transport for London. In otherwords TfL will let (as they did in 2007 and again in 2016) the concession as the DfT would do with a franchise. They then pick a winner BUT the parent company (currently Arriva) would be paid a fee to operate the service but all the risks, profits and specifications go to TfL. So it is let out but the brand does not change and all decisions are made by TfL.
Yes, I am just very confused as franchising doesn't effect TfL and I think it is a bit unfair.Wikpedia has a good article on the development of London Overground. It was created in 2007 and initially took over the franchised Silverlink Metro services, expanding later to include East London Line when that was reopened after conversion from a London Underground line and then the South London services.
The concession operator contract is still competitively tendered periodically, I don’t see any evidence whatsoever that it isn’t all above board.Yes, I am just very confused as franchising doesn't effect TfL and I think it is a bit corrupt.
Because the London Assembly franchises London Overground or lets it as a concession, not the DFT. The franchising process is let by the GLA who award the contracting process to TfL who awards it as a concession.Yes, I am just very confused as franchising doesn't effect TfL and I think it is a bit corrupt.
If you’re confused it means you don’t understand it. So how you can describe something as corrupt when you’ve admitted you don’t understand it I don’t know. As otherwise noted, there’s absolutely no evidence of corruption.Yes, I am just very confused as franchising doesn't effect TfL and I think it is a bit corrupt.
Sorry, my bad.If you’re confused it means you don’t understand it. So how you can describe something as corrupt when you’ve admitted you don’t understand it I don’t know. As otherwise noted, there’s absolutely no evidence of corruption.
The LO concession model is very similar to the way TfL run the bus concessions, except that with the buses just a small number of routes are included in a group for tendering rather than everything as with LO. ( the actual buses are operated by abellio, arriva, go-ahead, first, stagecoach, Comfort Delgro, ratp and others)Sorry, my bad.
Yes, I am just very confused as franchising doesn't effect TfL and I think it is a bit unfair.
It is a model that, should "they" so choose, could be applied to other parts of/all the network. Service patterns, fares, offers, fleet, all specified, but the day-to-day operation provided by a tendering 3rd party. Integrated, "national" but not nationalised.
That's why there is a review of the whole national rail/network rail structure taking place right now. It's come a very long way from the original rather ideological structure which was based on a private infrastructure manager (Railtrack) selling train paths to train operators with a core minimum public service requirement catered for by franchises let by a separate franchising authority, and everything overseen by an independent regulator (ORR). Now, Network Rail (Railtrack's successor) is fully nationalised, there are a couple of open access operators running a handful of services but 'franchises' are let directly by government to cover pretty much 100% of the scheduled passenger service and everything is micro-specified by civil servants in the DfT, but funnelled through all these different processes leaving unclear lines of sight over who is in charge and what their priorities should be.Is there any point in it though? It seems to me that the (hopeful) benefit of letting private companies run things is that it allows those companies to innovate, so they can find better/more efficient ways to run the services, or take the initiative in providing service improvements. But if you've basically told the private company when to run what trains, what to charge, what tickets to accept, etc. the scope for the company to innovate must be virtually zero. Maybe they can play about a bit with staff rosters, but that's about it. There doesn't seem to be any significant benefit over just nationalising completely, and doing away with the need to negotiate contracts etc.
GTR is a non-revenue risk franchise. The term 'franchise' just about fitted the original contracts from the 1990s but isn't really the appropriate term for the contracts the DfT lets these days (or fails to, as the case may be....). 'Concession' really refers to the fact that under the Railways Act 1993 another authority has been granted the right to let the service. The actual arrangement that TfL enters into in respect of its concessions is....a contract!One of the fundamental differences between a franchise and a concession is the former takes revenue risk whereas the latter does not.
Is there any point in it though? It seems to me that the (hopeful) benefit of letting private companies run things is that it allows those companies to innovate, so they can find better/more efficient ways to run the services, or take the initiative in providing service improvements. But if you've basically told the private company when to run what trains, what to charge, what tickets to accept, etc. the scope for the company to innovate must be virtually zero. Maybe they can play about a bit with staff rosters, but that's about it. There doesn't seem to be any significant benefit over just nationalising completely, and doing away with the need to negotiate contracts etc.