TfL to bid for Southeastern and Anglia franchises?

[Clip]

The branding currently used is London Overground rather than a LOROL specific branding and I would expect TfL to use this for any concession they let in London.

Yes I know. Its pretty obvious what I was saying whether i said LO or LOROL. Generally its one and the same thing and nit picking of stuff as minor as this is rather tiresome after a while you know.

 

[Zoe]

Generally its one and the same thing and nit picking of stuff as minor as this is rather tiresome after a while you know.

No, it is not one and the same at all. You said LOROL branding, LOROL is simply the name of the company that operates the services and does not use its own branding. London Overground is the brand used by TfL and it's possible another concession could be let that would use this brand but there's no guarantee it would be operated by LOROL.

 

[jon0844]

I realised the mistake. I am sure most people did but nobody thought it needed correcting, just as the odd typo doesn't need ot be highlighted if it still makes sense.







(Yes, that was deliberate!)

 

[Zoe]

I realised the mistake. I am sure most people did but nobody thought it needed correcting, just as the odd typo doesn't need ot be highlighted if it still makes sense.

It was not clear that it was a mistake, there would be some people reading that would not know the difference between LOROL and London Overground and people should not think they are the same. I think that it would actually be a good idea to have a single London Overground brand and I don't think LOROL own the rights to it so I don't see any reason why TfL could not let another concession using the same branding. The DfT could do the same nationally but there does not seem to be any interest in this.

 

[jon0844]

LO is a brand. LOROL is an operator.

LO could be extended throughout London and the South East (assuming they travel into London at some point) but anyone could operate it, to the standards set by TfL.

At least that's my understanding.

 

[OxtedL]

Whilst this discussion over what constitutes a mistake and whether anyone actually cares is entertaining, can I direct your attention to http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/transport-committee-franchise-frank-comments/ which contains a couple of interesting snippets of information, particularly if you scroll a long way down to the bit which is headed "Devolving Franchises".

 

[Clip]

I can only imagine how annoyed people would be if I kept on mentioning London Transport instead of TfL :roll:

 

[swt_passenger]

Whilst this discussion over what constitutes a mistake and whether anyone actually cares is entertaining, can I direct your attention to http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/transport-committee-franchise-frank-comments/ which contains a couple of interesting snippets of information, particularly if you scroll a long way down to the bit which is headed "Devolving Franchises".

It is still inaccurate though surely?

The quotes imply that TfL are 'interested in' the SE and GE franchises, which as written implies the whole of those franchises, which as we know is not at all possible or likely.

 

[OxtedL]

It is still inaccurate though surely?

The quotes imply that TfL are 'interested in' the SE and GE franchises, which as written implies the whole of those franchises, which as we know is not at all possible or likely.

Do you mean the original quote at the beginning of the thread? I'd forgotten all about that, I was starting to think that the thread was all about the difference between LOROL and LO when in actual fact it is unlikely to make any practical difference to anyone not explicitly involved in restructuring future transport policy through their employment at DfT, TfL or some other body who might have some impact on the issue.

Sometimes it might be significant to differentiate between LO and LOROL but not when it can only be one or the other from the context and not when it has no impact on people reading this who genuinely don't know the difference as the context overrides the need for such subtleties of accuracy.

Of course there's a difference, we just don't need reminding every 10 posts.

 

[Stats]

They think that invitations for expressions of interest for the Thameslink franchise will be next year with the new franchise starting in 2015 and that they'll be interested in that. Who wants to tell them....?

 

[Class377/5]

TfL is big enough already dont you think? I see no reason, that should they be allowed to go for this, that they shouldnt still use the LOROL branding? Why set up yet another company to work when you already have everything in place to be able to merge in with another railway?

Why splinter things off for no good reason?

Underground for underground and Overground for , what goes overground.

Why change something that's working brilliantly? I didn't say do this, I was suggesting.

They think that invitations for expressions of interest for the Thameslink franchise will be next year with the new franchise starting in 2015 and that they'll be interested in that. Who wants to tell them....?

ER expressions of interest are already in and the new Thameslink franchise starts Sept 2013. Hasn't been a 2015 finish in a while now. Current Southern franchise ends in July 2015 and is merged with Thameslink.

 

[Tiny Tim]

In any case, why would, say, Norfolk, want Boris or Ken interfering with their rail service?

Does Norfolk have a choice about who interferes with their rail service? It might as well be Boris or Ken rather than any Tom, Dick or Harry.

I don't think TfL can be invited to tender as they're a public body specifically set up to operate public transport. Obviously we wouldn't want people like that running our railways.

 

[swt_passenger]

Do you mean the original quote at the beginning of the thread?

No, I meant the quotes attributed to TfL within the London Connection article you just linked to, in the post above...

 

[OxtedL]

No, I meant the quotes attributed to TfL within the London Connection article you just linked to, in the post above...

Somewhat tragically I appear to have read what I wanted to see there...

I've watched the whole of that committee video transcript and I get the impression that there's something else going on, yes. It might well just be TfL trying to manoeuvre more control off the DfT.

John Bull (who is quite savvy about this) says in the comments:

"To be honest my gut feeling is that there’s some serious gamesmanship going on from TfL – they tried the “softly, softly” approach to get the DfT to devolve more last year with talk of Overground quality, the NERA report highlighting cost savings etc. etc.
As that doesn’t seem to be yielding much in the way of results, and with time running out, they’re now beginning to at least hint that they’re prepared to “go nuclear” if necessary and start bidding on things themselves.
Nuclear in this sense being exactly what you outline – causing the kind of paperwork/State Aid headache that neither the DfT or the Government in general will want. It’s quite Livingstonesque as an approach if that is indeed the case, and I’m slightly impressed."

 

[Stats]

A bit of clarity on Boris' plans in this written answer from last month's Mayors. Question Time

Overground franchising
Question number 1503/2012
Meeting date 23/05/2012

Question by
Valerie Shawcross


I support the proposal that responsibility for London’s suburban rail network should be placed with the Mayor. Please give an update on your discussions with the government in this regard and your indicative timetable for this proposal to be instigated.

Answer by Boris Johnson

I am pleased that you support the proposal for devolving responsibility for London’s suburban network and I hope you will respond to the DfT’s consultation on Rail Decentralisation.


Since my meeting with Justine Greening, Secretary of State for Transport, on 30 January 2012, my officers have continued to discuss the means by which franchises can be devolved with DfT officials and with other key stakeholders. I will respond to the DfT consultation by the closing date of 28 June.


My proposals are described in my Rail Vision published in February 2012. This document prioritises the West Anglia and Southeastern inner suburban routes for devolution. Both of these routes are due for refranchising in 2014 and transfer of responsibility for the inner suburban routes could take place at a suitable timetable change date in 2014/15.


I will be discussing this with the Secretary of State as soon as possible.

 

[jon0844]

That could presumably mean FCC follows after, along with other franchise renewals?

I really do think we're going to see London Overground spreading throughout London and beyond the M25 in places.