Big loss at scotrail

[SamYeager]

Actually the Scottish Government funds most of Network Rail’s operations in Scotland.

That may be but I believe a pretty large proportion of the Scottish Government's income comes courtesy of HM Treasury of which English taxpayers are very large funders. "British taxpayer" seems the correct phrase to use IMO.

 

[Sleepy]

Hmmm so smart card useage has seen a reduction - meanwhile daft have specified as a franchise commitment sister company Greater Anglia will issue season tickets on smart cards, like it or lump it ! ( or order paper one on another TOC's website of course) Someone (Grayling) desperately wants shot of ticket office staff it seems.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

That may be but I believe a pretty large proportion of the Scottish Government's income comes courtesy of HM Treasury of which English taxpayers are very large funders. "British taxpayer" seems the correct phrase to use IMO.

Barnett Agreement etc ....

 

[Highlandspring]

Scots are ‘British taxpayers’ too.

 

[Darandio]

Scots are ‘British taxpayers’ too.

Indeed. But given Scotland spends more than it actually provides, maybe that was the point being made?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Indeed. But given Scotland spends more than it actually provides, maybe that was the point being made?

From the Scottish press even ...

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14701901.UK_subsidy_to_Scotland_soars_after_oil_price_slump/

Spending was £1200 more per head in Scotland than in the rest of the UK in 2015-16, while taxes raised per head were £400 lower, a gap of £1600.

The total difference between Scottish tax income and public spending, assuming a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas revenue, was £14.8bn, a deficit of 9.5 per cent of Scottish GDP, compared to £14.3bn and 9.1 per cent in the previous year.

The UK deficit in 2015-16 was less than half that, at 4 per cent of GDP, a figure that has improved for three years while Scotland’s deficit has worsened for three years.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Actually the Scottish Government funds most of Network Rail’s operations in Scotland.

With money allocated from the UK Treasury under the Barnett formula.
It's not directly Scotland's money, but they get to decide what it is spent on and to measure NR's performance on it.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Yes it is (if it is a commercial operation, as TOCs are).
Do you think the publicly-owned Manchester Airports Group does not run its airports to make a profit for its shareholders (the GM local authorities)?

Just for the record Manchester Airports Group is 35.5% privately owned (IFM Investors, from Australia).

 

[uww11x]

Where’s the compelling evidence of that?
He conveniently left northern shortly after the strikes begun.

Offered a better opportunity and left.....

 

[richw]

Take some of these losses as a pinch of salt. Creative accounting, write downs of future losses and lots more are all common. If the parent company has made huge profits elsewhere, creating losses (quite legally) in another arm is commonly done to reduce tax liability

 

[ChiefPlanner]

With money allocated from the UK Treasury under the Barnett formula.
It's not directly Scotland's money, but they get to decide what it is spent on and to measure NR's performance on it.

Which is absolutely correct and appropriate.

(PS - I got some unspent money south of the Border on the "7 Day Railway Initiatatve" redirected to Scotland , rather than lose it , so am not all bad !)

 

[HH]

Take some of these losses as a pinch of salt. Creative accounting, write downs of future losses and lots more are all common. If the parent company has made huge profits elsewhere, creating losses (quite legally) in another arm is commonly done to reduce tax liability

This is true, but I cannot see Abellio making a profit in a year when they bid for several franchises and had to mobilise for one as well. GA can hardly be rolling in money either, given the general revenue pattern.

 

[sannox]

Erm... The 156/5s were ordered by SPT... Before the 170s arrived, all modern DMUs in Scotland were 2 car. IIRC there were a couple of longer 117 sets in the 1990s, not sure if the 1980s 101/107 sets were longer. By the early 1990s the SPT 101s were 2 car anyway

The 156s were split into 3 car sets initially am I correct, although perhaps not in SPT area. I have a memory of 101s with guards areas operating as 3 car initially after taking over from 156s on the Canal line, but can't find any images and wonder if my head is wrong!

 

[infobleep]

Actually the Scottish Government funds most of Network Rail’s operations in Scotland.

To be pedantic for a moment, the Scots are British, so it's still the British tax payer. You could argue a subset of British tax payers fund it.

 

[HH]

To be pedantic for a moment, the Scots are British, so it's still the British tax payer. You could argue a subset of British tax payers fund it.

No need to be pedantic. As already pointed out, the Scottish Government is not funded only by Scottish taxpayers. If it were, it wouldn't be able to subsidise NR Scotland or ScotRail so heavily.

Basically in Public Transport, as in many other public services, those who live in Scotland get a pretty sweet deal compared to the rest of the UK. Not that facts ever changed someone's opinions. If one is determined to feel hard done by, one finds a way.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The 156s were split into 3 car sets initially am I correct, although perhaps not in SPT area. I have a memory of 101s with guards areas operating as 3 car initially after taking over from 156s on the Canal line, but can't find any images and wonder if my head is wrong!

You may be thinking of when some ‘ScotRail’ Class 156s (I.e. not the Strathclyde-liveried 1565xx series) were re-formed into three-car sets for use on the West Highland in the summer. This allowed a 3+3 split at Crianlarich rather than being stuck with 4+2 that could leave Oban or Fort William under or over done. This arrangement was far from ideal as you ended up with random amounts of bike spaces and numbers of toilets depending on which half of the split 156 was sandwiched.
On the 101s, when these were re-introduced to cover the newly re-opened lines (Rutherglen-Coatbridge and Queen Street-Maryhill, by means of displacing 156s from the Barrhead line) I thought that they were 2-car power twin formations. There was no way that centre trailers could be worked within prevailing sectional running times and headways around Glasgow IIRC.

 

[snookertam]

Why else would Abellio, (a publicly owned company) have taken on the Scotrail Franchise?.

It's a subsidiary of the Dutch Railways, which themselves are publicly owned. There's no way that their intention is for the Dutch taxpayer to fund train services in Scotland. They don't run Dutch railways for a profit. If anything their intention is for their Scottish operation to help fund their Dutch operation. A publicly owned ScotRail wouldn't be run for a profit motive as that's not the measure of success. Instead it may aim to break even, but could also be measured on it's overall contribution to the economy ie. how much value is added through a frequent, reliable rail service?

On another point, we were told we were getting Dutch expertise and innovation, they actually imported most of their managers from England and began turning the service into just as big a mess as it is there. ScotRail employees feared the worst when Abellio became involved and little has been done to dissipate those fears. I'll be surprised if they don't begin agitating to hand back the franchise at some stage.

 

[alangla]

I thought that they were 2-car power twin formations. There was no way that centre trailers could be worked within prevailing sectional running times and headways around Glasgow IIRC.

That didn't stop NatEx trying going by the number of times I got one with only 2 or more often 3 engines running! I was amazed First North Western took those things on, they were utterly knackered & only good for scrap when Scotrail were done with them.

 

[14sutton]

Numbers for greater Anglia have been reported today, does not look to good. Did someone say they needed 10% growth per year to meet the premium payments?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07861414/filing-history

 

[route:oxford]

Erm... The 156/5s were ordered by SPT... Before the 170s arrived, all modern DMUs in Scotland were 2 car. IIRC there were a couple of longer 117 sets in the 1990s, not sure if the 1980s 101/107 sets were longer. By the early 1990s the SPT 101s were 2 car anyway

Pre 15x series, the DMUs running between Stirling and Glasgow/Edinburgh ran as 3 car unit and "sixers" in the peaks.

Post Sprinterisation, heritage DMUs that were still operational lost their trailer to help them keep up with the then modern units.

 

[Journeyman]

The aim of public ownership isn't to make a profit.

But you can't carry on making massive losses forever either.

 

[Journeyman]

I do hope they succeeded though, at least they are trying which First never did with their eternal Sprinter/Turbostar usage for everything!

Yes, underfloor engines are a tool of Beelzebub... *eyeroll*

First weren't brilliant, but they got a lot of the day-to-day basics right, and never seemed to run into as much trouble as Abellio have so far.

 

[GrimShady]

Yes, underfloor engines are a tool of Beelzebub... *eyeroll*

First weren't brilliant, but they got a lot of the day-to-day basics right, and never seemed to run into as much trouble as Abellio have so far.

Just the same as horrible screeching, bouncing Mk3s coach's straight from hell sending passengers and hot drinks hurtling to their doom.....

 

[hwl]

Numbers for greater Anglia have been reported today, does not look to good. Did someone say they needed 10% growth per year to meet the premium payments?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07861414/filing-history
View attachment 53284

The loss is probably due to the Brantham* disaster if they have chosen to write down all the cost this year

*Proposed depot can'd after spending £18m on it.

 

[Malcolmffc]

This. I think it's fairly normal for franchises to lose money at the start, but recover it plus more at the end.

The projections for VTEC started with heavy losses, before turning to surplus.

And the first part of those projections was spot on!

 

[hwl]

And the first part of those projections was spot on!

Those loses were way bigger than expected!

 

[JohnR]

The Dyce to Aberdeen blockade pushed a lot of people into their cars. Unscientific observation since suggests that loadings haven't returned to pre works levels.

It's a bit of a shame as the replacement bus service was excellent.

These results are for 2017 - they wont include the impact of the Dyce-Aberdeen blockade.

 

[InOban]

But it will include the QS closure.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

If one is determined to feel hard done by, one finds a way.

Agreed.

 

[HH]

The loss is probably due to the Brantham* disaster if they have chosen to write down all the cost this year

*Proposed depot can'd after spending £18m on it.

Thanks for bringing this up. Sounds like extremely poor project management - might explain the departure of the Deputy MD and Programme Director...

They would have to account for it this year IMO, as there is no value to carry forward.