HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,857
Remember when a ROSCO had to be shamed out of charging £130,000/yr for the lease of 1930s tube stock?
Well, I'm not against cascades per se. What worries me is whether these will include enough additional capacity to deal with growth, and whether enough provision is being made for those routes which are unlikely to be electrified in the near future.
I'm pretty sure that the figures are available for the business cases - I'll have a look and see if I can dig them out.
From memory, the average Northern passenger pays 35p/ mile to travel, which means a subsidy from central/local government of around 40p per mile (i.e. passengers aren't even paying half of the cost)
.
It would have been interesting if the DMUs for Wales were ex-London ones.
It's unfortunate that you don't understand it. Putting the wires up costs real public money. There must either be a direct return , i.e. reduced costs and/or increased patronage; or an indirect return, as in it reduces road traffic and all the associated benefits that brings.I don't think so. If you are clearly going to continue running services for the indefinite future ( I don't believe anyone is questioning the need for services such as Manchester-Liverpool) then the question is simply "What is the most efficient means of providing those services?" Either continue with diesel or electrify. Someone has cranked the numbers, fed in the alleged benefits of electrification, together with the costs of providing, and concluded that electrification is the solution. The phrase "If the cost of track electrification is amortised over the volume of passenger traffic, its probably just about justified" is nonsensical gobbleldygook.
Do you think that if the DfT wrote in the scheme that only shiny new stock would be deployed, it would suddenly appear from the ROSCOs at the same cost as redeployed stock, I think not. They are just profit-making organisations doing the minimum possible for maximum return. The price would rise (maybe as much as has been suggested on this thread). The TOC subsidy would have to rise and as the case is marginal the scheme may be regarded as just not worth it. Cue more cries of 'not fair' from the North.The numbers used will have been real cash flow forecasts. The lease charges are real cash flows. The leasing companies are charging what they can for trains many will consider written down. However what's been written down in their books is irrelevant-they charge as much as they can. And those charges are what comes out of the Railway's bottom line. The reference to the Rosco's as middlemen is barmy. The DfT cant just make up some notional written down figures as you suggest, the Treasury wouldn't allow it. The actual cash you are going to have to pay out is what has to be used in the case.
Clearly the Lessors need to maximise the yield from their assets which includes trying to gain additional leasing years out of old stock. Hence they try to make them appealing with re-tractioning and refurbishment proposals. They may have quoted figures which have been used in the Business Case which should also cover such as maintenance, energy usage, effect on passenger demand etc all of which can be compared with new stock. It may be that the overall cash flows for old stock look better than new. But of course that should also be the case down south.
True, but just because there weren't enough passengers to make a profit, it doesn't mean that there weren't substantial numbers of passengers. Don't forget, that a considerable proportion of the London commuter railway hasn't made a profit through a fait proportion of the 20th century.
Well, I'm not against cascades per se. What worries me is whether these will include enough additional capacity to deal with growth, and whether enough provision is being made for those routes which are unlikely to be electrified in the near future.
Like I've pointed out before there are places where newer 3 car trains could run diagrams currently operated by 4 car Pacers without a noticeable reduction in capacity. Newer trains may have higher leasing costs but can have cheaper maintenance costs and be more fuel efficient but of course it's not always the case e.g. 185s use more diesel than 3 car 158s.
You possibly don't understand just how cheap the pacers are relative to other rolling stock. Those 4 pacers would cost less than ONE EMU. The running costs are less, but nowhere near enough less to make up that difference.
If the EMUs are really as expensive as you say (in comparison to Pacers) then maybe we should look at acquiring some 2 car EMUs for the services that are under wires but don't get very high loadings, such as Alderley Edge to Manchester services.
Which class do you feel would be best suited ?
The thing is that Pacers won't last all that much longer and unless Angel Trains and Porterbrook lower the leasing costs (relatively compared to inflation) then they will get more expensive to maintain rather than cheaper. If Porterbrook were to proceed with the extensive refurbishment they propose as a possible way of keeping them in service post-2019 how much extra would Porterbrook charge to lease out the units with much more limited capacity then they have currently?
The thing is that Pacers won't last all that much longer and unless Angel Trains and Porterbrook lower the leasing costs (relatively compared to inflation) then they will get more expensive to maintain rather than cheaper. If Porterbrook were to proceed with the extensive refurbishment they propose as a possible way of keeping them in service post-2019 how much extra would Porterbrook charge to lease out the units with much more limited capacity then they have currently?
If the EMUs are really as expensive as you say (in comparison to Pacers) then maybe we should look at acquiring some 2 car EMUs for the services that are under wires but don't get very high loadings, such as Alderley Edge to Manchester services.
Actually both Pacers and 319s will need refurbs to be compliant post 2019.
There aren't any 2-car AC EMUs, and it begs the question of viability if Alderley Edge services can't fill anything bigger.
It's unfortunate that you don't understand it. Putting the wires up costs real public money. There must either be a direct return , i.e. reduced costs and/or increased patronage; or an indirect return, as in it reduces road traffic and all the associated benefits that brings.
.
Do you think that if the DfT wrote in the scheme that only shiny new stock would be deployed, it would suddenly appear from the ROSCOs at the same cost as redeployed stock, I think not. They are just profit-making organisations doing the minimum possible for maximum return. The price would rise (maybe as much as has been suggested on this thread). The TOC subsidy would have to rise and as the case is marginal the scheme may be regarded as just not worth it. Cue more cries of 'not fair' from the North.
.
I have to admit that I've never travelled on a pacer, but judging by the continual complaining about them on this forum, I imagine that by most people's standards, a 315 service would be an upgrade, i.e more capacity, quieter, faster acceleration and more reliable to name just a few. If there is an insistence on new trains to replace the 142s then the 142s can't be that bad.
Your comment about direct and indirect returns also shows you don't have the depth of understanding. Basically you have to evaluate all the practical options than select the best. It could be that the option selected shows neither a direct or indirect positive return, but shows the least worst of all the possible options. Logically in another business if none of the options showed a return you wouldn't spend any money and would leave the market. Hence my use of the caveat re continuing the service. If you are to keep this going, even if unprofitable, but for social reasons than the minimum option might be to invest in refurbishing/re-engining etc. the existing fleet to keep the service going. But there might be no positive financial return on this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If you actually read what I wrote it clearly states the overall costs for old stock need comparing with similar for new stock, and if you want new than you have to justify the extra cost. Nothing to do with "not fair" other than the same principles should also apply in the South East and Scotland.
rectify the infrastructure shortfalls, (particularly as the expected 'sparks' effect may justify increasing the lines capacity in the near future
I think anyone expecting a 'sparks' effect will be very disappointed. In the past electrification schemes have occurred on lines where growth is expected and they have then seen growth post-electrification. However, this time it's occurring on lines which have already seen substantial growth and are overdue extra capacity, so unless electrification is alongside a service revision (as North TPE will be) I expect we'll see average growth on lines being electrified in line with lines not being electrified.
2 Car EMUs run on the continent (eg the Talent 2 is available in 2-6 vehicle form)
Well the problem is there's no 2 car EMUs or EMUs which can be shortened to 2 car. Maybe it would be a good long term investment to get some, considering the plan is for a rolling electrification program and there's always going to be some services on electrified routes that'll struggle to fill up a larger train. If they were compatible with a 4 car EMU design then they could also be used to lengthen services where 8 cars would be overkill.
They have single car EMUs on the continent.....
Like grown-up trams, or Locomotives with lots of 2nd men seats.
They have single car EMUs on the continent.....
A rather more serious answer would be that electrification of low density lines on the continent has been practiced for many decades, many before reliable diesel traction was economical, and especially in alpine areas.
In the UK, it seems that a decision was made around the '60s that diesel should follow steam on low density routes. Thus the requirements for short multiple units only really involved diesels, except for SR 3rd rail branch lines in rural areas. They have benefitted from the established supply of 2-car EMUs that have long been used to make up suburban and main-line trains, e.g. 2HAP, 2BIL, and more recently as mentioned, 456s.
The few branch line wirings there have been were either as add-ons to mainline schemes, e.g. Witham-Braintree, or to remove diesel islands adjacent to high density electric routes, e.g. Romford-Upminster, Wickford-Southminster, Watford Juction-St Albans Abbey.
Ironically, lines in and around hilly areas like the Pennines, seem to have been caught up in various infrastructure improvement famines since the '60s.
We did have one route through the pennines which saw considerable investment and electrification. Unfortunately, it was closed !
At least the new tunnels are wired with AC!
Glass half full type of person are we
New report reveals how biased cost allocation system penalises local rail services in the regions
Thursday, July 10, 2014
- Lightweight regional trains allocated same share of maintenance costs as much heavier Intercity trains -
- A fairer system of cost allocation would reduce regional rail’s share of government support by around 50% –
A new report from pteg takes the lid off the complex way in which the costs of running the national rail network to show how time and again the rules are biased against regional rail, loading on costs in a way that feeds false perceptions about the value for money of local rail services in England outside the South East.
The report finds that:
•the allocation of maintenance and renewal costs largely treats every passenger train in the same way even though Inter-city trains are estimated to produce twenty times the amount of track damage as the most basic regional train (a Pacer)
•in order to make rail freight competitive, and to keep freight off the roads, the substantial damage that freight trains cause to rail infrastructure are largely ignored. However, the knock on effect is that many of these costs are then picked up by regional rail even though freight trains cause up to sixty times the track damage of a Pacer train
•Although regional rail received only 20% of new investment by Network Rail in 2012/13, regional rail contributed 30% of fixed track access charges and was allocated 32% of Network Rail’s overall financing costs
•A system that allocates costs more fairly would result in regional rail going from taking an estimated 58% share of total government support for the railways to 28%
The report finds that: ‘…it is clear that the current method for allocating costs is heavily skewed against regional railways. Our alternative approach would create a more level playing field for regional rail and ensure that the national debate and key decisions are informed by robust evidence.’
The report comes at a time when the Government is consulting on the future of the Northern Rail franchise in a way that highlights the ‘high costs’ of the franchise to justify low aspirations for investment in the network and to raise the prospect of fares increases and service reductions.