Could London Underground services be franchised?

[317 forever]

The government have cut the grant to TfL by £108 million. What could save them money is if the government legislate to put operation of Underground lines to tender. This is the last major operation in Britain neither franchised nor privatised. Potential preferred bidders for each line could be as follows:

Bakerloo - Stagecoach
Central - First
Jubilee - GoVia
Northern - Abellio/ Serco
Piccadilly - Comfort DelGro (Metroline)
Victoria - National Express
Waterloo & City - MTR/ Deutsche Bahn (London Overground)
Sub-surface lines - RATP

I think the sub-surface lines would be tendered as one unit to avoid conflict between "rival" lines at awkward junctions like Baker Street and Gloucester Road.

 

[MCR247]

If it was like the buses, I doubt pax would be able to tell

 

[Tom B]

How would that give any benefit whatsoever?

 

[At_traction]

How would that give any benefit whatsoever?

I think that what the OP is after is the transfer of much of the financial, staffing (unions etc. ) etc. woes to the public coffer to individual operators with their shareholders expecting, well something, perhaps even a well-working system would be in their interest...

I myself would dread such "development", even though many of the lines indeed were independent operators in the past. For such an integrated and inter-woven in-city transport system, a common operator or at least unified central top administrator would be essential. Maybe a franchised-away system would work (better), maybe not, but I'd prefer not even trying...

 

[SS4]

I can't see it serving anyone, especially the public who have to use it. Didn't they try with a public-private partnership (or whatever its called) and end up having to get bailed out by TfL?

I hope not because a network is meant be just that, a linked service for easy interchange. A private operator would want to make money and would scale down and/or close unprofitable services and could well cause conflict. Would the Met and Picc lines both run from Rayner's Lane to Uxbridge for example?

 

[Mojo]

The Tube _was_ privatised (PPP) and it was bought back at a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, with the benefit approximately nil. It was sort of the opposite to what we have now on BR; with the infrastructure private and ops public.

I had one of the PPP contracts under the desk in my old office. It made a nice footrest.

Don't see what the advantages of franchising the separate lines is.

 

[DazzMcGuinness]

This is a great idea, although I think with Metronet's shortcomings I can see why there would be some reluctance to franchising the system.

Especially because the authorities have continued to stress the importance of having as much control as possible, noticeably when Boris said that he wanted to have as much power on the trains coming into London terminals. Not sure how that would be covered in the budget, after cuts and such.

'McGuinness

 

[tom1649]

What is so wrong with running public services in the public sector these days? Even many Metro services in the USA are operated within the public sector for goodness sake and they're about as capitalist as you can get.

At least revenue earned by London Underground goes back into the infrastructure at the moment, rather than into the shareholders' pockets.

Fragmenting the system up into many individual franchises is a bad idea. Lack of co-operation and integration would be a problem. If the worst came to the worst and LU had to be franchised I'd rather the whole network went to one company.

 

[Dai.]

Just imagine, a stagecoach coloured london underground train.

A mass of orange, blue, white, red and yellow shooting through the tunnels of London. It's like a horror movie about a parrot living under the city.

But, is it a good idea? I didn't think it was big enough to make a decent franchise? Would the profit be to small if they were just small franchises?

 

[WatcherZero]

The Tube _was_ privatised (PPP) and it was bought back at a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, with the benefit approximately nil. It was sort of the opposite to what we have now on BR; with the infrastructure private and ops public.

I had one of the PPP contracts under the desk in my old office. It made a nice footrest.

Don't see what the advantages of franchising the separate lines is.

Break the unions, divide and conquer is what I imagine the motive would be since its illegal for workers to strike in support of workers at another company.

 

[N Levers]

"Welcome aboard this First Central line service to Epping..."

"... Customers in our volo tv coach..."

"... Coach G is our Quiet carrige please keep mobile calls..."

 

[jopsuk]

it's been hard enough getting the "metro" TOCs to agree to unified Oyster ticket pricing (rather than setting their own fares within the TfL zone)- unless you had strict controls, you could see ticket integration becoming a mess.

I'd rather "metro" services currently run by TOCs got swallowed up by Overground, with ticket prices brought fully in line with the tube (none of this OEP nightmare). As far as running outside zones 1-6 goes, I'd use the Met line as the model for distance.

 

[tbtc]

Break the unions, divide and conquer is what I imagine the motive would be since its illegal for workers to strike in support of workers at another company.

...so that if the Central Line TOC was on strike you could still use the Circle/ Victoria/ Disctrict instead?

But if they did it, they'd *have* to have the Go-Ahead-Northern line

 

[Mojo]

Break the unions, divide and conquer is what I imagine the motive would be since its illegal for workers to strike in support of workers at another company.

Unfortunately that hasn't really worked though, strikes are still aplenty at the Tocs and the unions have found it far easier to push for what they want.

 

[Ivo]

Should this happen, would it not make more sense if the W&C returned to "British Rail" (i.e. whoever holds the SWT franchise)?

 

[Mojo]

Should this happen, would it not make more sense if the W&C returned to "British Rail" (i.e. whoever holds the SWT franchise)?

The Waterloo and City line is internally classed as part of the Central line, just how the Circle and Hammersmith lines are the same. So to answer, no, I don't think so because it's been so far integrated with the sensible ways of working as used on the Underground, to go back to the BR system would be daft.

 

[317 forever]

If it was like the buses, I doubt pax would be able to tell

it's been hard enough getting the "metro" TOCs to agree to unified Oyster ticket pricing (rather than setting their own fares within the TfL zone)- unless you had strict controls, you could see ticket integration becoming a mess.

I'd rather "metro" services currently run by TOCs got swallowed up by Overground, with ticket prices brought fully in line with the tube (none of this OEP nightmare). As far as running outside zones 1-6 goes, I'd use the Met line as the model for distance.

I would be looking at Underground lines being put out to tender like London bus routes, with TfL deciding the fares and ticketing. I probably should have clarified this from the outset rather than describing this as a franchising exercise.

...so that if the Central Line TOC was on strike you could still use the Circle/ Victoria/ Disctrict instead?

But if they did it, they'd *have* to have the Go-Ahead-Northern line

That is one advantage in tendering the lines seperately. Strikes effecting the whole Underground would happen less often. Eat your heart out Bob Crow!

 

[DavyCrocket]

I would be looking at Underground lines being put out to tender like London bus routes, with TfL deciding the fares and ticketing. I probably should have clarified this from the outset rather than describing this as a franchising exercise.



That is one advantage in tendering the lines seperately. Strikes effecting the whole Underground would happen less often. Eat your heart out Bob Crow!

Which, other than the four in 2010 and two in 2009 are/were rather rare. A network wide strike is often for a good reason - the planned destaffing of stations, both ticket offices and bog standard CSAs.

What you also need to remember via "franchising" is will it be integrated stations, trains, control. At big central London stations would you have separate staff for each platform? Who would signal the District line (at present most of it is done by Piccadilly line staff!

 

[DazzMcGuinness]

If any franchising were to happen, would it be franchising of the rolling stock, of the lines themselves, of the platforms, of the stations? Because if it were the stations, who would own/control the Jubilee, for example, as it runs through all the lines at some point...

'McGuinness

 

[Mojo]

If any franchising were to happen, would it be franchising of the rolling stock, of the lines themselves, of the platforms, of the stations? Because if it were the stations, who would own/control the Jubilee, for example, as it runs through all the lines at some point...

'McGuinness

How'd you think it works at present? All stations fall under the operation of one line anyway. For example on the Jubilee, Stanmore - St John's Wood are Jubilee, Baker Street is Met, Bond Street is Central and Green Park is Pic. The rest are Jubilee.

 

[DazzMcGuinness]

Oooo...I just thought London Underground had total control over the whole thing, didn't know each branch was separately operating certain aspects.

But the budget still currently comes out of the one pot; this would have to change surely if private companies had differing interests and controls, and different shareholders and stakeholders to please.

'McGuinness

 

[SS4]

There would still need to be some sort of central authority in terms of safety since LU is more inter-connected than the NR network especially when it comes to terrorism. What would be the protocol if a circle line train evacuated via a different operator's station? What I'm trying to say is that a level of co-operation above and beyond what we have now will be needed.

Also if it were franchised could they connect with their NR franchise. If Virgin get the Vic line for example then would a strike on VT cause that to shut along with the Euston lines?

 

[DazzMcGuinness]

Yeah, I can see how it might be a nightmare to operate. But hopefully with more competition there would be a higher efficiency because the operators would be trying to undercut prices...?

Or maybe it'd be a restructure of London, with certain companies or industries creating transport-linked contracts so that, for example, the Central line may be the 'banking' line, or the Northern line might be the 'research labs' line?

'McGuinness

 

[jopsuk]

to be able to charge different prices per line, you'd have to gate between lines surely in order to prove which line was travelled on- and the Sub Surface lines would have to be a single operation?

 

[WestCoast]

I can't see it working - there would be fares for only traveling on a certain operator, different off-peak times and so on.............................:-x

However, if it was done in a similar way to the buses then it may work, even so I can't see it bringing about benefits only problems.

I can imagine the announcements..

The next station is Bank, where this train will terminate, thank you for traveling on the South West Trains Wateroo & City line.

Welcome aboard the Virgin Trains Piccolino service to Heathrow Terminal 5, a shop is located in coach C, selling a wide range of drinks and refreshments...

 

[Aictos]

I don't think it should be privatised especially if you consider the disaster that was PPP.

No I think it is far better to keep the London Underground network as it is but work towards making the network more effective however possible.

 

[DavyCrocket]

There is already an internal market within LU, caused mainly by the 80s/90s project 'Make or buy'. This was when they stopped fixing anything, waited for things to break, shut the building department and outsourced catering, cleaning and allsorts. Now it costs thousands of pounds to get a plug installed. Then the various PFI projects that are still ongoing/

Privatisation of the national network has failed to save money, increase efficiency - look what happened ante and post Potters Bar or create competition - Virgin complaining about WSMR. Then there's the huge fragmentation.

 

[MCR247]

Tbf, the Moderation of Competion was written into the franchise by the DfT, not Virgin

 

[colchesterken]

if it aint broke dont fix it as someone said
I believe ther is some sort or franchise with london overground but it is still under the control of T F L. and seems to work the ELL is good and D L R works well correrct me if I am wrong but I think that is operated by Serco
Anyone think it would work with the main line You could have a company called how about British Railways they could contract out the running of trains or do it themselves then we would not have to pay shareholders of private companies ,How about a not for profit trust ( oops I sound like a Commie )

 

[jopsuk]

Overground is run as a management contract by London Overground Rail Operations Ltd, 50:50 owned by MTR (Hong Kong metro) and DB. TfL are responsible for ticketing, branding, publicity, setting service levels etc. Very different arrangement to the franchises- even the current Scotrail arrangement doesn't come close.