If you read the proposal, you'll see that TfL» address that by proposing a system operator function within NR» maintaining ‘fair play’ for timetabling with arbitration by ORR» .
...
I presume "the proposal" must be
TfL's full submission "Evidence to the Williams Rail Review" (for which I can't see a previous link). That barely mentions infrastructure - just these places that propose something:
1.7 Making TfL infrastructure manager (IM) for selected routes would reduce the distance between investment decision-making and the end beneficiary (that is customers). This would mean the land-use and transport decision-making would be more closely coordinated than would ever be the case currently. It would also mean local funding can more readily be leveraged, with the returns to such investment also captured locally.
1.9 A TfL infrastructure management function could maintain and renew more of the National Rail infrastructure in and around London just as we do already for the East London line (contracted to Cleshar) or London Underground (Harrow to Amersham) and we will do for the central section of Crossrail. TfL could become responsible where its operator(s) make up a majority of services or elsewhere by agreement.
1.14 Only relevant infrastructure assets would be managed by TfL. This would primarily be those relevant to the provision of local London services, but where necessary, InterCity, freight and other users could buy access (e.g. train paths, station access) from a regulated tariff in a similar manner as now. A system operator function with Network Rail would maintain fair play for timetabling with arbitration by ORR as per the current model.
4.5 A London route or ‘virtual’ route, possibly creating a ‘Big Seven’ would provide a greater focus, but we suggest instead an alternative approach which is to devolve infrastructure management functions to relevant local transport authorities, just as selected concession management has already been devolved.
There is also this, rather awkwardly worded and positioned, paragraph:
1.11 NR would also retain signalling, power supply and other operations not readily devolved, with route control and train operations remaining on the basis of railway geography de facto defined by NR's rail operating centres. A national system operator independent of DfT» and with representation from devolved bodies would ensure local accountability.
So what is to be devolved? This infrastructure proposal looks like something added to this submission that hasn't been thought about much let alone through. The submission itself could well be based on that "Oranges are the only trains" report, more so than last year's
Mayor's Transport Strategy or the Assembly's response
"Broken rails - A rail service fit for passengers"*. The Assembly studiously avoid suggesting structural changes, but did include this:
Recommendation 4 - A single rail strategy for London
London has no rail strategy. TfL and Network Rail should produce a rail strategy for London that all parties will commit to implementing, which will improve rail services for passengers in London.
I can't imaging anyone denying that sounds rather sensible.
*
there's a link to that in the submission that doesn't work
