Should GBR have won the London Overground Concession?

[Transilien]

This would have been the perfect opportunity to make GBR the concession operator for London Overground

 

[Snow1964]

This would have been the perfect opportunity to make GBR the concession operator for London Overground

Too early for GBR as shortlisted bidders were nearly year ago.

 

[Class15]

This would have been the perfect opportunity to make GBR the concession operator for London Overground

Why would we (the users) want that?

 

[WAB]

Even if we were several years down the line of the GBR process, there simply wouldn't be the expertise for GBR to bid and mobilise. An organisation in the throes of implementing a new industry structure and improving its own operations will be in no position to go up against the experts at First Group, Go Ahead etc. in any meaningful way.

 

[The Planner]

Even if we were several years down the line of the GBR process, there simply wouldn't be the expertise for GBR to bid and mobilise. An organisation in the throes of implementing a new industry structure and improving its own operations will be in no position to go up against the experts at First Group, Go Ahead etc. in any meaningful way.

There are a significant amount of consultants used in bids, the owning groups are unlikely to be able to do it on their own either.

 

[NCT]

GBR doesn’t even exist yet.

 

[Thirteen]

DfT Operator only operates services that were the former franchises, they couldn't operate LO even if they wanted to.

 

[Djgr]

GBR doesn’t even exist yet.

...is the right answer

 

[Transilien]

Why would we (the users) want that?

It would allow London to finally have a consistent brand for all suburban services as ”Overground” no longer has to be totally separate from ”national rail”. The users will benefit from one operator of both trains and track and a higher quality of service as expected from TfL.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Surely, Overgound should be taken in house?

 

[Recessio]

Surely, Overgound should be taken in house?

I've often wondered this. Am I right in saying that Underground is in house, but Overground, Elizabeth, DLR are contracted out?

 

[Transilien]

Surely, Overgound should be taken in house?

If the Overground wasn’t a part of a larger rail network, then this would be ideal. However in my opinion giving control to GBR of operation would simplify both operation of the current network, (infrastructure and operation can be unified) and the future network (drivers can be shared between depots).

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Without rehashing old arguements, one of the complaints agaist the GB rail system has been that areas outside London and the south east have suffered from chronic under-investment over the last half century while the capital and its surrounds have had gold-plated service and infrastucture enhancements.

Perception is what counts here, rather that the truth or otherwise of that view.

It will probably be to GBR's advantage if it's services are seen as being non-London centric, in other words that it's the champion of rail outside the south east.

 

[AM9]

Without rehashing old arguements, one of the complaints agaist the GB rail system has been that areas outside London and the south east have suffered from chronic under-investment over the last half century while the capital and its surrounds have had gold-plated service and infrastucture enhancements.

That's because London and the South-East has 'gold plated' passenger demand, - on many lines, no matter how many longest possible trains are packed into the timetable, they have a healthy load of fare-paying passengers. Such demand requires reliable capacity.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

That's because London and the South-East has 'gold plated' passenger demand, - on many lines, no matter how many longest possible trains are packed into the timetable, they have a healthy load of fare-paying passengers. Such demand requires reliable capacity.

That too "is the right answer" and, it seems, needs constantly to be re-iterated.

 

[Mgameing123]

That's because London and the South-East has 'gold plated' passenger demand, - on many lines, no matter how many longest possible trains are packed into the timetable, they have a healthy load of fare-paying passengers. Such demand requires reliable capacity.

But the only reason why the south has more passengers is because the south has good public transport. The North has way too much potential that is wasted.

 

[The Planner]

It would allow London to finally have a consistent brand for all suburban services as ”Overground” no longer has to be totally separate from ”national rail”. The users will benefit from one operator of both trains and track and a higher quality of service as expected from TfL.

Overground doesn't have a seperate infrastructure from Network Rail, so where is the benefit?

 

[Mgameing123]

Overground doesn't have a seperate infrastructure from Network Rail, so where is the benefit?

Services are ran for the people and not shareholders.

 

[AM9]

But the only reason why the south has more passengers is because the south has good public transport. The North has way too much potential that is wasted.

... and when London was greatly developed in the late 1700s and through the 1800s and early 1900s, travelling distances were too large for walking and the roads were inadequate for personal transport, (e.g. horses, cars et al).
With most provincial large towns/cities, commuting distances were walkable and then cycle friendly until after the war when cars became more prevalent. Thus the largest of those cities received significant in urban and inter-urban road development. London, by then was far too large for roads to encourage uncontrolled road transport through 20 miles of built-up area, so public transport continued to meet the capital's passenger transport needs. If anybody suggests that roads would have been the right solution for London, take a look at the mess that US cities are now in.

 

[The Planner]

Services are ran for the people and not shareholders.

What shareholders?

 

[Mgameing123]

What shareholders?

The owners of the the train companies.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I've often wondered this. Am I right in saying that Underground is in house, but Overground, Elizabeth, DLR are contracted out?

Overground is part of National Rail (DfT/NR) but is managed/branded by TfL, who let the operation as a concession - fares and revenue stay with TfL.
Arriva is the contracted operator (passing to First Group in 2026), trains (class 378) are leased (I think).

Elizabeth Line is a 50/50 partnership between DfT/NR and TfL and also managed by TfL, who let the operation initially to MTR and then GTS (Go-Ahead consortium). Trains (class 345) are leased.
DLR is fully part of TfL, but operation is contracted as a concession to Keolis Amey.

Underground is fully part of TfL with in-house operation.
Rolling stock is owned in-house but maintenance of new fleets is outsourced to the manufacturers.

GBR does not exist as a corporate body yet, so can't bid for rail contracts.
DFTO (part of DfT) runs the contracts that are not outsourced, including those recently "renationalised".
This will change when the Railways Bill going through parliament becomes law (2027?).
There is no plan for GBR to own its rolling stock, which will continue to be leased - some are on long leasing/maintenance contracts with the manufacturers.

 

[Brubulus]

Overground is part of National Rail (DfT/NR) but is managed/branded by TfL, who let the operation as a concession - fares and revenue stay with TfL.
Arriva is the contracted operator (passing to First Group in 2026), trains (class 378) are leased (I think).

Elizabeth Line is a 50/50 partnership between DfT/NR and TfL and also managed by TfL, who let the operation initially to MTR and then GTS (Go-Ahead consortium). Trains (class 345) are leased.
DLR is fully part of TfL, but operation is contracted as a concession to Keolis Amey.

Underground is fully part of TfL with in-house operation.
Rolling stock is owned in-house but maintenance of new fleets is outsourced to the manufacturers.

GBR does not exist as a corporate body yet, so can't bid for rail contracts.
DFTO (part of DfT) runs the contracts that are not outsourced, including those recently "renationalised".
This will change when the Railways Bill going through parliament becomes law (2027?).
There is no plan for GBR to own its rolling stock, which will continue to be leased - some are on long leasing/maintenance contracts with the manufacturers.

When there's a ban on giving contracts to non public sector companies, will this apply to TfL?

 

[The Planner]

The owners of the the train companies.

Yes, but the post 12 stated infrastructure, that isn't private.

 

[JonathanH]

When there's a ban on giving contracts to non public sector companies, will this apply to TfL?

That depends on which contracts can't be given to non-public sector companies. GBR will need to engage with private sector companies at various levels, just as TfL do.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

When there's a ban on giving contracts to non public sector companies, will this apply to TfL?

Not as far as I know.
TfL is not classed as central government, and I believe it operates under local government laws (as does TfW, Transport Scotland and PTE-type agencies).
Just as local authorities can outsource contracts like recycling and bus services, they can do that with rail services too.
The 25-year Merseyrail contract is coming up for renewal in 2028, it will be interesting to see what happens with that one outside DfT control.

TfL would undoubtedly like to in-house all its rail services, but it doesn't wholly own LO or EL.
It did buy rolling stock for both these services, but has since sold and leased back the fleets, using the cash generated to buy new Underground trains.
TfL has strict capital limits like the main line does, and can't always fund what trains it needs so has to lease instead.

 

[Farnborough]

When there's a ban on giving contracts to non public sector companies, will this apply to TfL?

TfL is a devolved organisation...

What is the point of devolution if Central Government sets all of the Rules?

 

[Richardr]

Isn't GBR somewhat more than just an operator? Whilst it controls the railways outside of any devolved services, such as those devolved to TfL, it isn't designed to be just an operator under TfL's control.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

But the only reason why the south has more passengers is because the south has good public transport. The North has way too much potential that is wasted.

"the only reason?" The fact that London and the south east is by far the most densely populated part of the country has no effect on passenger numbers? Really?

 

[Class15]

"the only reason?" The fact that London and the south east is by far the most densely populated part of the country has no effect on passenger numbers? Really?

I completely agree. There are reasons why peak time trains into London are often 12 coaches and into Manchester often 2 coaches.