• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

How does this work?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
26 Sep 2009
Messages
556
Location
Bishops Stortford
London Midland has got more new stock than any other DfT franchised operator (London Overground being franchised by TfL) yet they can freeze unregulated fares, despite the government saying new stock must be paid for by rail passengers?!

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2010/12/31/massive-railway-fare-rises-prompt-petition/

Unless I'm mistaken, the RPI+3% is on regulated fares, and it's for future new rolling stock, not that already purchased. The lease deals for the last wave of new stock and already built in to the TOCs' costings.

This does raise an interesting issue though. For those TOCs that don't need new stock, where does the extra farebox revenue go, and how does this find it's way into the new rolling stock kitty?
 

Oliver

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2007
Messages
477
Unless I'm mistaken, the RPI+3% is on regulated fares, and it's for future new rolling stock, not that already purchased. The lease deals for the last wave of new stock and already built in to the TOCs' costings.

This does raise an interesting issue though. For those TOCs that don't need new stock, where does the extra farebox revenue go, and how does this find it's way into the new rolling stock kitty?

It raises an interesting question; has the government arbitarily changed the terms of the franchises? The fare rises are mandated by the government to recover more of the cost of running the system from the passenger (that's the theory, anyway). But if a franchise deal is fixed for 7 years, how does the government see any of the extra money, unless there is a cap-and-collar, which I didn't think many franchises had.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
The Government arent taking any grief. Most people dont equate the rise in prices to the action of the government. Any trouble will soon go away becuase people have a simple choice (as with the price of petrol) which all companies and the government have hit on, either pay up or loose your job. Simple.

it is wrong but it is what happens in every walk of life at the moment. Lets see how much profit the TOC's make this year. Plus lets see how many new trains we get.

In an ideal world they would be not for profit companies, ploughing all profits back into services/facilities, but they are not
 

Oliver

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2007
Messages
477
In an ideal world they would be not for profit companies, ploughing all profits back into services/facilities, but they are not

I spoke to a "fares expert" within the industry who knew what he was talking about: Today's fare increase is not directly a result of the new Government policy, though the government will receive a large share of any increased revenue through the "cap and collar" mechanism. The 2012 fare changes will take account of new DfT policy, and during 2011 the DfT will be revising the terms of the franchise agreements with individual TOCs. Based on stated policy that will mean a reduction in subsidies and/or an increase in premiums.
 

Matt Taylor

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2008
Messages
2,362
Location
Portsmouth
either pay up or loose your job.

There is nothing to stop any commuter moving house to be nearer work or changing jobs to be nearer home, there are a lot of people who want the convenience of living in nice areas and expect taxpayers and other passengers to subsidise their season tickets so they can have a nice peaceful life.



In an ideal world they would be not for profit companies, ploughing all profits back into services/facilities, but they are not

The system would soon fall apart, if their is no profit involved just how do expect any private money to be invested in the railways?



I actually had a customer complain today because SWT has relaxed some of the Off Peak Return restrictions, there really is no pleasing some people.
 

DavidSmith

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2010
Messages
19

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
There is nothing to stop any commuter moving house to be nearer work or changing jobs to be nearer home, there are a lot of people who want the convenience of living in nice areas and expect taxpayers and other passengers to subsidise their season tickets so they can have a nice peaceful life.

That is very simplistic view i am afraid - there is lots to stop people moving to a house nearer to thier work or moving their work nearer to thier house. I have moved from home to live in the south. I wont be able to buy a house down here any time soon (or ever - god knows how you would manage closer to/in London) i have moved down here becuase that is where my job went and there are no other jobs "at home" I commute a few stops every day and have no other choice but to get the train.I am seperated frorm my partner by the need to work, i live in diggs and i have kept my job - Or I go go on the dole at home - not much of a chopice really!



The system would soon fall apart, if their is no profit involved just how do expect any private money to be invested in the railways?

I dont expect private money to pay for the railways - i expect the government to do it!
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
LM already put their unreg fares up in September. So when they say they are being 'frozen' its only technically true.

Northern have put their unregulated fares up twice a year for the last few years so a freeze in January by LM is better than other areas despite the rise last September.
 

Skimble19

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2009
Messages
1,508
Location
London
FCC have put a fair few fares up well above the "average" of 5.6%.. oh, and increased car park charges for the who knows what time since they put their signs up 5 years ago, it's got so many stickers on covering old prices it'll fall off one of these days! Yet what do we get: 321's and the same old service as usual..
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
FCC have put a fair few fares up well above the "average" of 5.6%.. oh, and increased car park charges for the who knows what time since they put their signs up 5 years ago, it's got so many stickers on covering old prices it'll fall off one of these days! Yet what do we get: 321's and the same old service as usual..

FCC will benefit from the new Thameslink order and 377s being cascaded on to non-Thameslink routes.

The North West and Great Western areas are only guaranteed EMUs once the new Thameslink order is confirmed. Also, the modified DfT document relating to this states about Thameslink stock being returned to the leasing company and sepeartely states that the North West and Great Western operators will be able to lease EMUs due to more being available. This could mean LM or NXEA could take the 319s and leave something like 317s or 323s for the newly electrified wires. (I'm not saying that will happen, just that the new electrfication document's vague wording allows that to happen without breaching any wording.)
 
Joined
26 Sep 2009
Messages
556
Location
Bishops Stortford
FCC will benefit from the new Thameslink order and 377s being cascaded on to non-Thameslink routes.

The North West and Great Western areas are only guaranteed EMUs once the new Thameslink order is confirmed. Also, the modified DfT document relating to this states about Thameslink stock being returned to the leasing company and sepeartely states that the North West and Great Western operators will be able to lease EMUs due to more being available. This could mean LM or NXEA could take the 319s and leave something like 317s or 323s for the newly electrified wires. (I'm not saying that will happen, just that the new electrfication document's vague wording allows that to happen without breaching any wording.)

If it hadn't been done this way, DfT would (rightly) have been accused of manipulating and micro-managing the market.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,052
Location
Reston City Centre
The North West and Great Western areas are only guaranteed EMUs once the new Thameslink order is confirmed

That's still more than some areas are getting... :(

As for LM, I guess the equation is "Marginal Political Constituencies = Fare Freeze + Brand New DMUs + Brand New EMUs" :|
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
That's still more than some areas are getting... :(

True. However, a lot of Northern routes should get improvements because of it as the 319s will replace 150 and 156 operated services, which can be cascaded on to 142 operated services.

I should have said 'delivered' in my previous post not 'confirmed' otherwise that would mean the Thameslink EMUs will be cascaded
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,052
Location
Reston City Centre
True. However, a lot of Northern routes should get improvements because of it as the 319s will replace 150 and 156 operated services, which can be cascaded on to 142 operated services

In theory. However we don't know whether Northern will be allowed to keep the "displaced" 150/156s.

ScotRail are allowed to keep the DMUs from the Bathgate line (post electrification), presumably FGW will keep the 165/166s from the Thames Valley lines (since they may only be suited to the Great Western clearances), but I've not seen 100% confirmation that the "spare" DMUs from Lancashire (approx 15 Northern units) will be kept in "the north".

Logically, I'd say "of course they'll be kept", but since when did logic dictate the railways?
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
In theory. However we don't know whether Northern will be allowed to keep the "displaced" 150/156s.

ScotRail are allowed to keep the DMUs from the Bathgate line (post electrification), presumably FGW will keep the 165/166s from the Thames Valley lines (since they may only be suited to the Great Western clearances), but I've not seen 100% confirmation that the "spare" DMUs from Lancashire (approx 15 Northern units) will be kept in "the north".

Logically, I'd say "of course they'll be kept", but since when did logic dictate the railways?

There's over 100 Pacers in the Northern to replace by 2019 under DDA, for which there has been 25 years to prepare for (it was announced they would need to be replace by 2019 in 1994.)

It should be more than 15 units released (although some will be Pacers.)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,052
Location
Reston City Centre
There's over 100 Pacers in the Northern to replace by 2019 under DDA, for which there has been 25 years to prepare for (it was announced they would need to be replace by 2019 in 1994.)

It should be more than 15 units released (although some will be Pacers.)

Having used some crude maths (and assuming Manchester Airport - Barrow will be chopped at Lancaster), it worked out at fifteen Northern units and fifteen TPE units "saved" by electrification (unless anyone can provide better figures?).

Pacer replacement is a whole separate kettle of fish, and something which should be done nationally (partly as it needs to lead on to replacement of the first Sprinters too, as a rolling programme).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
tbtc - if they are needed/wanted in the south they will be away. No doubt swapped for pacers

That is VERY cynical Rich - but i think correct

(to use your own words ;))
 
Joined
2 Jun 2009
Messages
1,135
Location
North London
Unless I'm mistaken, the RPI+3% is on regulated fares...where does the extra farebox revenue go, and how does this find it's way into the new rolling stock kitty?

The RPI+3% formula is government revenue raiser. Nothing more, nothing less. It will allow the government to reduce the contribution from the taxpayer to run our railways.

IIRC, in the last few years of BR, the taxpayer contributed about 25% towards the railway's running costs. The remaining 75% coming from fares. Thanks to financial mismanagement, politically motivated regulated fares, cost overuns and optimistic franchise commitments, 15 years on, we now have a situation where the cost of running the railways is now 50% met by the taxpayers. How on earth did we get to this financial mess, when we told the privatising our railways would save us all money ?

Our railways cost more than ever to run. In 1989, the Tisbury loop cost £400,000 to build. 20 years on, and further down the line, the Axminster loop cost £20 million. The additional Chesterfield platform recently cost £1 million to build...for just one piece of scaffold platform.

Multiple web sites, marketing policies and duplication of staff just add to the cost. And there's a whole army of staff whose sole job it is to allocate minutes and compensation between operators when delays arise.

Politicans know full well that our railways are even more 'deeply inefficient' than the deeply inefficient BR of which John Major spoke of prior to privatisation. But it's easier to raise fares than reform our railways and the savings which would follow.

In short, we (the passengers) and everyone in the UK (the taxpayers) are paying for past mistakes.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Having used some crude maths (and assuming Manchester Airport - Barrow will be chopped at Lancaster), it worked out at fifteen Northern units and fifteen TPE units "saved" by electrification (unless anyone can provide better figures?).

Manchester-Scotland going to EMUs will probably just reinstate the pre-Dec 07 diagrams and services on TPE so no real gain.

15 sounds too low as there also should be units from Manchester Airport/Wigan to Liverpool, Manchester Airport/Victoria/Liverpool to Blackpool and Hazel Grove to Preston, with some of those routes seeing doubled up units during busy periods.

Pacer replacement is a whole separate kettle of fish, and something which should be done nationally (partly as it needs to lead on to replacement of the first Sprinters too, as a rolling programme).

Pacer replacement could involve tram-trains on some lines depending how succesful the Rotherham-Sheffield trial is, if it ever goes ahead.
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
I'd like to try a tram-train to see what all the hype is about. As you say, trams are for city centres.
 

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,569
Location
Macclesfield
I can see that going in the bin straightaway.

Given that SYPTE are simultaneously upgrading two nearby bus routes that offer a similar service to the Tram-train (Can't remember if I heard that on here or picked it up elsewhere), then I'm inclined to agree with you there. Although I have to say that I think that Sheffield-Rotherham is considerably more preferable for a Tram-train trial than the Penistone line or Harrogate circle.
 

Oliver

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2007
Messages
477
The RPI+3% formula is government revenue raiser. Nothing more, nothing less. It will allow the government to reduce the contribution from the taxpayer to run our railways.

Yes, and not necessarily a bad thing in isolation. As you point out, the problem is fundamentally that operating and infrastructure costs are too high. In particular Network Rail's costs are much higher than BR's, as your examples showed. Network Rail is essentially state owned, but responsible to no-one; it makes a point of excluding people with railway knowledge from its representative group. Its senior management have show themselves to be very free with other people's money when it comes to expenses, secret pay-offs, etc. Major reform is urgently required. In contrast, TOCs are much more careful; you may not like people such as like Brian Souter, but he comes from humble origins and keeps track of the pennies.
 
Last edited:

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
Given that SYPTE are simultaneously upgrading two nearby bus routes that offer a similar service to the Tram-train (Can't remember if I heard that on here or picked it up elsewhere), then I'm inclined to agree with you there. Although I have to say that I think that Sheffield-Rotherham is considerably more preferable for a Tram-train trial than the Penistone line or Harrogate circle.

Ah yes the Quality Bus Corridor or something along those lines, funding that at the same time as the tram. Still, more suitable as you say than compared to Harrogate line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top