DfT proposes third class of tickets

[snail]

the current system only encourages LOWER investment in the railway. I don't even know why I have to explain this; is it not obvious?

No, not at all. You make two rather large assumptions: that Government are prepared to spend the money up front to fund new trains; and that the money taken as profit by the ROSCOs would have been there to re-invest.

They may be prepared to do a little of that now, but back when Privatisation was first mooted the aim of Major's Government was to get away with as little spend as possible on the railways. That wonderful thing, hindsight, shows it was a flawed model - but it did save money for the Government of the time.

I wish I lived in your perfect world where economics is simple but I'm afraid I don't. Without the ROSCOs I think there would have been less investment in new trains than there is now, even allowing for their profit margins.

 

[LE Greys]

No, not at all. You make two rather large assumptions: that Government are prepared to spend the money up front to fund new trains; and that the money taken as profit by the ROSCOs would have been there to re-invest.

They may be prepared to do a little of that now, but back when Privatisation was first mooted the aim of Major's Government was to get away with as little spend as possible on the railways. That wonderful thing, hindsight, shows it was a flawed model - but it did save money for the Government of the time.

I wish I lived in your perfect world where economics is simple but I'm afraid I don't. Without the ROSCOs I think there would have been less investment in new trains than there is now, even allowing for their profit margins.

Yes and no is probably the best answer to that. It's well-known that BR (via BREL) was a regular reinvestor in rolling stock, and that they had big plans for bringing in new stock even as the rail grant was going down. I'm generalising, but BR tended to have a major stock renewal programme roughly once a decade, and they were certainly a lot more effective with cascades (it helped that re-allocation did not involve new contracts). However, it seemed to work at its own pace, presumably because the money was not there. One design might be built continuously for an entire decade - the first MkIII prototype was built in 1972, yet the last IIIb FO rolled off the production lines in 1985. Basically, BR built things slowly and steadily, but they never stopped. The political costs of stop-start work for BREL would have been too great to deal with.

 

[snail]

Yes, I should have said less investment under BR than there has been under the ROSCOs. I think your description of BR as slow and steady sums it up well.

 

[dstrat]

I wish I lived in your perfect world where economics is simple but I'm afraid I don't. Without the ROSCOs I think there would have been less investment in new trains than there is now, even allowing for their profit margins.

Sorry but I think you need to count your days between orders before you come up with such claims! It was not so long ago that there was a thread on here about the time between orders being the longest so far (under the current model post 1996 model that is).

If BR surpassed the level of orders that we have in the current set up, under far reduced subsidy levels, then I can't really see your claim.

Simply isn't true! The economics are sound my friend - it is the politics that is the concern. If the government decided they wanted to build trains with funds brought back to them from the TOCs leasing the trains for the similar profit seen now, then they could do so and do so to the tune of £350mill more in 2011...£247mill more in 2010 etc.

I think you may have a misplaced trust in Mr. Friedman perhaps!

 

[Train jaune]

Travelling with Norther Rail in the NW, third class carraiges are just something we whistfully dream will eventually be cascaded to us so we can upgrade from the 142s and 150s that are inflicted on us at the moment

 

[yorksrob]

ROFL. What do you think this "middle class" is?

Establishing an additional class suggests that there will be a specific area of the train set aside with it's own layout etc. What's more, when the vast majority of passengers who merely want to get from A to B for the cheapest price turn up, they won't automatically have access to this section and are likely to end up crammed in steerage.

The configuration of the train is something that is fairly inflexible, hence why TOC's have to vary the price of first (which is flexible) to ensure an even spread throughout the train. Frankly, it would be better not to have an additional class with train space allocated to it, but rather have the TOC's work their magic to ensure that the existing two classes are full.

Now do you see ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where have all the new trains running on the network come from then? Someone has to have paid for them.

This line of argument always amuses me greatly.

Where do people think all our legacy stock came from ? (deposited by the train fairies perhaps). Clue - it wasn't old when it was built.

 

[snail]

Sorry but I think you need to count your days between orders before you come up with such claims! It was not so long ago that there was a thread on here about the time between orders being the longest so far (under the current model post 1996 model that is).

You're the one claiming there would be more invested under a not-for-profit arrangement. You really don't think DfT would have prevaricated just as much (if not more) if they had been charged with finding the cash to buy the post-96 rolling stock? The TOCs want the trains, ROSCOs are probably willing to fund them but it all needs the DfT's approval. I don't quite see how that proves your thinking is right.

Like I said, I wish I lived in your perfect world but I don't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This line of argument always amuses me greatly.

Oh, it amuses me as well. Bear in mind I was responding to the assertion that the ROSCOs are there only to produce profits for shareholders. I would like to see an efficient, nationalised system but while there are Government accountants running the show it's sadly not going to happen.

 

[dstrat]

You're the one claiming there would be more invested under a not-for-profit arrangement. You really don't think DfT would have prevaricated just as much (if not more) if they had been charged with finding the cash to buy the post-96 rolling stock? The TOCs want the trains, ROSCOs are probably willing to fund them but it all needs the DfT's approval. I don't quite see how that proves your thinking is right.

Like I said, I wish I lived in your perfect world but I don't.

My point was that ROSCOs make profits that year on year leaks money from the railway from paying passengers and whatever else to those who invest in ROSCOS purely as a financial investment.

I can't speculate on what the DfT doesn't do...I can only talk about the realised facts of the bizarre leasing system that we have now. We have had a previous system which had higher investment so we can either argue on theories or simply look to the facts that have been seen in the UK in the last 50 years.

If you want to argue semantics about the DfT then fine, I'll state that the a body that owned the stock that was not-for-profit that at the same time was progressive in its outlook for rolling stock investment would be better than the current system

Believe it, the investors in Porterbrook, Angel Trains and Eversholt are for profit and not for the good of the railway. When you are leaking hundreds of millions of pounds out of the system as payoffs for investors how can we justify that?

If over 5 years or so these companies could potentially make a billion pounds in profit, how in the right mind can we justify that? Because essentially you are saying that isn't a problem because they invest more (which by proof in comparison to BR they haven't).

Don't get me wrong I have no love affair with BR, however I can recognise a fiddle when I see one and the leasing arrangements have got it written all over it.

 

[ainsworth74]

If BR surpassed the level of orders that we have in the current set up, under far reduced subsidy levels, then I can't really see your claim.

A bit of back of a napkin maths comparing the period 1980-1990 with 2000-2010 suggests that BR delivered fewer vehicles to the network than the ROSCOs have. The figures are rough and ready (a bit hard to work out exactly how many vehicles were delivered in the period when they were delivered 1979-1981 for example) but I have BR delivering 841 DMUs and 2233 EMUs (total 3074). Privatisation and the ROSCOs delivered 1114 DMUs and 4033 EMUs (total 5147). An overall difference of 2073 vehicles. I've not counted LHCS in the BR totals so you can add an extra few hundred to those figures but even accounting for any errors and the extra LHCS vehicles I don't think BR delivered more than the ROSCOs and privatisation has.

This is not to suggest the current system is fantastic because it patently isn't but still it's not done badly on the whole.

 

[snail]

If over 5 years or so these companies could potentially make a billion pounds in profit, how in the right mind can we justify that? Because essentially you are saying that isn't a problem because they invest more (which by proof in comparison to BR they haven't).

What proof? Your argument is based on how more trains would be delivered under a not-for-profit scheme. But you haven't explained how this would happen. The only numbers we have are the number of trains delivered post-privatisation, which are higher than in the comparable period before privatisation. You have admitted yourself that the DfT are not coming up with new trains very quickly now they are controlling the financing more directly. So we either let the evil ROSCOs take profit and provide rolling stock or let the DfT sit on their hands until they are forced to act. Neither is perfect but I know which I prefer.

{afterthought} I've realised what you are claiming here. You claim BR invested more than the ROSCOs - but they delivered fewer trains over an equivalent period. So it's ok for BR to spend more money producing less because they don't make a profit but it's not ok for private companies to spend less money, deliver more and at the same time make profits. QED.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

The idea of a third class wont go down well IMO.

If you wanted to do something like this, the standard would be bottom and the middle would be the equivalent of Coach-D on a super voyager, then First class the top.

 

[maniacmartin]

One possibility is not making them sit amongst normal standard-class ticketholders but giving them some free refreshments. Or alternatively lettignthem sit in First amongst normal first-class ticketholders but not giving them the free meals.

An extra class of tickets doesn't necessarily mean cordoning off a section of the train.

 

[HH]

The idea of a third class wont go down well IMO.

You should read the thread before opining.

 

[yorksrob]

A bit of back of a napkin maths comparing the period 1980-1990 with 2000-2010 suggests that BR delivered fewer vehicles to the network than the ROSCOs have. The figures are rough and ready (a bit hard to work out exactly how many vehicles were delivered in the period when they were delivered 1979-1981 for example) but I have BR delivering 841 DMUs and 2233 EMUs (total 3074). Privatisation and the ROSCOs delivered 1114 DMUs and 4033 EMUs (total 5147). An overall difference of 2073 vehicles. I've not counted LHCS in the BR totals so you can add an extra few hundred to those figures but even accounting for any errors and the extra LHCS vehicles I don't think BR delivered more than the ROSCOs and privatisation has.

This is not to suggest the current system is fantastic because it patently isn't but still it's not done badly on the whole.

It has to be remembered as well, that the Network was only just embarking on it's big rise in passenger usage in the early eighties, so it's questionable whether it would have needed an extra one and a half thousand vehicles at the time.

The question that needs to be asked about the ROSCO's as with any PFI (for that is what they are) is whether they provide value for money. However, it seems to me fairly obvious that the sky wouldn't fall in if we didn't have them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That wonderful thing, hindsight, shows it was a flawed model - but it did save money for the Government of the time.

Mr Major didn't need to employ the services of Mystic Meg for this. He could have just asked any number of his railway professionals.

 

[ainsworth74]

It has to be remembered as well, that the Network was only just embarking on it's big rise in passenger usage in the early eighties, so it's questionable whether it would have needed an extra one and a half thousand vehicles at the time.

Of course. As the saying goes 'Lies, damned lies, and statistics'. I was merely illustrating that any suggestion that BR procured more rolling stock than the existing system has managed (in similar time spans) is false. Whether BR could have procured as much rolling stock, more rolling stock or would have got less if it had been around in the period 2000-2010 we can't know because it never got the chance. Any attempt to guess is also likely to be difficult because even if BR had survived we can't know what level of funding it would have received. If it got the £5bn or so per year that the railway gets today I'd imagine it could easily have procured as much (perhaps more) new stock but then again what if it was still getting in the region of £1bn? There are a lot of variables that make an accurate analysis very difficult.

Again I'm not trying to suggest that the present system is perfect (it isn't). I'm simply showing that BR wasn't some paradigm which was able to supply vast quantities of rolling stock with ease, whilst the present system supplies very little. Because this is clearly inaccurate.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course. As the saying goes 'Lies, damned lies, and statistics'. I was merely illustrating that any suggestion that BR procured more rolling stock than the existing system has managed (in similar time spans) is false. Whether BR could have procured as much rolling stock, more rolling stock or would have got less if it had been around in the period 2000-2010 we can't know because it never got the chance. Any attempt to guess is also likely to be difficult because even if BR had survived we can't know what level of funding it would have received. If it got the £5bn or so per year that the railway gets today I'd imagine it could easily have procured as much (perhaps more) new stock but then again what if it was still getting in the region of £1bn? There are a lot of variables that make an accurate analysis very difficult.

Again I'm not trying to suggest that the present system is perfect (it isn't). I'm simply showing that BR wasn't some paradigm which was able to supply vast quantities of rolling stock with ease, whilst the present system supplies very little. Because this is clearly inaccurate.

Indeed. I think the one scenario that can safely discounted is the one where rolling stock replacement would have ground to a halt had the ROSCO's not been created, particularly as this didn't even happen in the eighties when the railway was getting 1 billion a year.

 

[34D]

Potentially, there is no end to the types of new tickets/offerings that could be introduced on inter city type routes:

1. Economy - you have to give up your seat if required by a holder of a higher category ticket
2, Premium Economy - you are entitled to a seat if one is available or if it is occupied by an economy ticket holder
3. Standard - you will receive a seat reservation if the ticket is purchased the day before travel and seats are available. You may physically remove Economy ticket hodlers form any seats they are occupying.
4. Silver Standard - As per Standard. Also entitles the holder to one complimentary hot drink and a biscuit
5. Gold Standard - As per Silver Standard, but the complimentary refrehsments are upgraded to two hot drinks and two biscuits, or one alcoholic drink and no biscuits.
6. Super Gold Standard - As per Gold Standard, but two alcoholic drinks or three hot drinks and CRISPS as well as biscuits.
7. Business Standard - Guaranteed seat where available, the power to physically remove Economy ticket holders from their seat, PLUS a sandwich, crisps, a biscuit and up to three hot drinks or one alcoholic drink.
8 Premium Super Business Standard - as Business Standard plus a hot snack instead of a sandwich
9. Economy First - A seat in First Class if available, but no freebies.
10. First - A seat in First if not required by passengers, sorry customers, holding higher category tickets. Able to take up seats in place of First Economy ticket holders.

And so on. All it needs is some imagination and the freedom needed from the dead hand of the DfT!

Love it.

I must say though that I can see a rationale for creating a bottom class, which would (taking FGW/EC/VWC as the example) a coach with 2+3 seating, with as many seats crammed in as possible, for a cheap price. Similar to airline economy (which I did once, and never again).

I realise obviously that what is actually being proposed here is a premium economy, potentially similar to the silver standard (or briefly, the three tier approach that MML used in the mid 90s which for a time saw passengers with first class tickets seated in standard coaches).