But that was a Labour Mayor for London asking a Conservative Government who had pressure applied on it by Conservative lead local authorities in Kent and Sussex, the political power has changed the Conservative lead local authorities in Kent and Sussex now may protest to the DfT but if a Labour Mayor for London and a Labour Government want to put the Metro services into the hands of TfL it will happen.

 
These sub-national Transport Authorities are going to be the consultees to the DfTs consultations, and it is looking likely that they'll be getting a budget fairly soon in order to carry out works for the DfT. They already cover the country, from Penninsular in the South West to Transport for Manchester in the north west.

 
The previous three posts here illustrate the problems of devolution in our crowded country, where spheres of influence and economic zones overlap considerably.

I confess to having not heard of Transport for the South East. Having Googled them, I see that it is a forum for 16 local authorities. Quoting from their website-


so it's far from the not-so-mini Department of Transport that TfL is, and therefore unlikely to have resources to be anything more than on a list of consultees. I am not sure that creating any other body in addition to GBR will bring much benefit, but that a proliferation of mayoral/regional passenger transport bodies might just be an even worse muddle than having different train operating companies on the same network.

Better that GBR has a regional structure (at least for passenger transport) and a statutory duty to consult with existing local transport and highway authorities?

 
indeed - that was however the reason I was given about those services going to TfL when the DfT refused the Mayor's previous request.

 

ChrisB, I think you have forgotten ( ) that the Elizabeth Line to Reading is an example of this where the users don't have any representation for this service but where the money from fares goes to Tfl.

 
The problem they would have with that suggestion for TfL/Mayor of London is that TfL isn't then accountable to the voters of the areas that these trains operate in, and thus they have no say in their level of services. This happens currently at the far end of the Met Line & Central Line, but in a small area. Widening this to a larger area will prove difficult without representation.

In my view, it is far likely for those services to be hived off to the sub-national transport bodies - in this case TftSE (Transport for the South-East)

 

An example are class 710 EMU's that operate London Overground services, these units are owned by TfL, RoSCo's are not involved in the ownership of the class 345 on the Elizabeth Line.

So in short, its not a legal requirement to use a ROSCo.

I can foresee that once all (or at least the majority) of the TOC's are under the control of GBR, the Government will set about recasting the shape of the TOCs.  I feel the Government will hand metro services over to the metro Mayors, eg TfL taking over the SE Trains, Southern, SWR inner London services and what is left formed into a new Southern, the same will happen in other areas of the country.

This will, in my opinion, fit into the current Government devolution to metro Mayors and regions

 

I agree in that I think they should do this, but they won't, as letting the ROSCO's buy the trains keeps the cost of purchase off the government balance sheet even though in the long term it would be cheaper for the government/taxpayer/railway.
I would gladly be happy to be provided wrong on this.

 
Perhaps another consideration is to ensure that, should the government make it clear that they will be buying their own rolling stock in future, the TOC's don't resort to a "fire sale" of their stock (abroad?) while they still have some value.....resulting in more severe rolling stock shortages here.

 
Not that I am aware of for new stock orders.

 

Will that require any new legislation?  Are there any conditions within the current legislation that "protects" the ROSCOs from this happening or from any additional competition entering the market?

 
What they can do - and I suspect will do, if they remain in power - is to start buying their own trains as the current ones need replacing - rather than contracting anew with the ROSCOs for them. That way the ROSCOs simply end up with worthless age-expired stock & probably go out of business. Without costing the Government very much.

 

The RoSCos are a far bigger "issue".

As I understand it, it would be very expensive - money the governments don't have - to buy [back] the trains owned by the RoSCos.  Furthermore, The Government wants to encourage private investment and public / private partnerships and to buy out or renationalise the RoSCos would be a warning to anyone looking to invest that they might end up taking all the risk.   

Rather different with the TOCs who have a lot less physical resource (hardly any - the "O" stands for operating not owning) and in any case most of th operating contracts have over time proven to generate slim income for a lot of hard work.

I'm not sure what the contracts between the RoSCos and the TOCs are - but I don't think that HMG could simply return the private trains and buy more of their own.  The Hitachi units (class 800) have a long term contract, the 802s a somewhat different setup, I believe.   As GWR - perhaps  takes on class 175s there's th question for everyone concerned as to their future as, when, if, and however the First group are no longer operating trains in the Western Peninsular.

 
Although the new Government states it will take back all the TOC's,I still think the biggest issue is the Roscos.

As Tfw controls a smaller area and has some sort of control over its train sets.

Could Tfw buy its own sets, as opposed to new and older sets having to be leased from the Roscos?