The "Two Crossrail questions" thread set me thinking. Paddington is
currently FGW territory. Liverpool St is "One Land". So when (yes when)
Crossrail gets built how do the franchises align?

Possibilities:

1) "Paddington (currently FGW) franchise" + "Liverpool St (currently One)
franchise + a 3rd franchise for Crossrail bringing competition at both ends
between the enw Crossrail franchise and the incumbents. (3 franchises)
2) One big franchise covering Paddington + Liverpool St + Crossrail (1
franchise)
3) One of the Paddington or Liverpool St incumbents gets to run Crossrail
bringing competion to the area they don't currently serve.(2 franchises)
4) The incumbents remain in place and run Crossrail as a joint venture.(2
franchises + JV).

Personally, I reckon FGW could do with some competition so I favour 1 or 4.

On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, "Graham Harrison"
btinternet.obvious.com> wrote:

On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, "Graham Harrison"
btinternet.obvious.com> wrote:

The White Paper seemed to imply a separate franchise for Crossrail.

I wouldn't worry too much as to how Crossrail will fit into current
franchises. In the last 10 years we have moved through three different
models of franchise organisation/term. Crossrail is unlikely to be
built for at least another 10 years, maybe even 15. Who is to know
what franchises will look like that far ahead, never mind who will be
running them.

On 2 Aug, 18:37, Bob virgin.net> wrote:

On Aug 2, 6:58 pm, Neal nealmail.cjb.net> wrote:

It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them? Fine by me if London ratepayers pick up the tab, but I somehow
suspect that that's not the intention.

To put it another way, if Ken or Boris should run those trains, why
shouldn't they run all the trains that serve London? I somehow think
that the people of Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, etc, might have
something to say about their trains to London being run by the MoL.
Even if you exclude those trains, the London commuter-belt goes out a
long way these days: Bournemouth, Bristol, Northampton, Grantham,
Cambridge, Norwich, Southend.

On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne ntlworld.com> wrote:

Indeed, but then neither are Amersham, Epping or Watford.

In the 1930s this was solved by making the responsible body be a
committee, with various representation from London, Essex,
Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Kent, Buckinghamshire and Surrey.

On Aug 2, 7:46 pm, "abiga...@gmail.com" gmail.com> wrote:

I think any discussion about Cross Rail is premature. Very.

I cant seen any such line opening before 2016/7, even if it is
approved, and if there is finance available.

On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne ntlworld.com> wrote:

Maidenhead is about the same distance out as Chesham, and Shenfield's
barely outside at all. It's the publicly stated aim of TfL to have
more control over the inner-suburban network, and later this year they
gain powers to negotiate changes to services on it.

Since Crossrail is DfT/TfL led, I think it being TfL run is a safe
bet, though it'll also be advertised as a National Rail service. A lot
like the extended East London Line.

U

"W14_Fishbourne" ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1186077417.092687.153280@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...