Would a not-for-profit TOC work?

[ChrisCooper]

Norwich must be the only major city where you can't reach any other significant settlement without at least one bit of single carriageway. Gather the A11 gap filling is still a way off, I wonder if the A47 will be dualed even as far as Kings Lynn (the gateway to Norfolk from the North and West) in my lifetime, let alone to Peterborough. Shows something that the route always given from the East Midlands to Norwich is via the A14 to Cambridge then the A11, although that's supposed to take about 3 hours too. Then again, 3 hours on the A47 is a good run, 4 or more is not uncommon on a bad day, especially getting stuck behind a lorry doing 40mph. At least tractors pull off eventually.

 

[route:oxford]

Norwich must be the only major city where you can't reach any other significant settlement without at least one bit of single carriageway.

Inverness is the same.

Maybe Aberdeen?

 

[Zoe]

Maybe Aberdeen?

No, Aberdeen has the A90.

 

[me123]

Hail all!
I've recently found myself thinking about how TOCs are operated in a commercial sense, and - Despite knowing nothing about economics (Hey, I'm being honest here! ) - I've been wondering if a TOC working on a not-for-profit basis could exist?

I think the biggest issue with a not-for-profit model would be that it wouldn't make as much of a difference as people would think. I believe a TOC gets only 3% of their ticket sales as profit. That's a pretty poor margin. Whether they were to cut the fares by the 3%, or reinvest the 3% into the railways, I honestly doubt you'd notice that much of a difference (although it'd probably be better to reinvest; you may not get much, but it would be something). I think some people in the public would be rather disappointed in this respect, as many seem to believe that a large portion of your ticket price goes straight into profits.

I guess we'll find out one of these days. I think the Scottish Government or WAG both look likely to go for a not-for-profit model in the years to come, and it will be interesting to see how this "nationalisation" would work. As for a private company going for a not-for-profit model... I doubt we'll ever see it to be honest. Too much capital needed at the outset, and obviously they're not going to make a return on it.

 

[HST-DAVE]

Norwich must be the only major city where you can't reach any other significant settlement without at least one bit of single carriageway. Gather the A11 gap filling is still a way off, I wonder if the A47 will be dualed even as far as Kings Lynn (the gateway to Norfolk from the North and West) in my lifetime, let alone to Peterborough. Shows something that the route always given from the East Midlands to Norwich is via the A14 to Cambridge then the A11, although that's supposed to take about 3 hours too. Then again, 3 hours on the A47 is a good run, 4 or more is not uncommon on a bad day, especially getting stuck behind a lorry doing 40mph. At least tractors pull off eventually.

A11 dualling has been given funding from govt very recently, so maybe it will happen soon. I Liive in North Suffolk and the A12 is single lane most of way to Ipswich, A47 single lane to Norwich, London forget it by car!
That is why I use NXEA quite often and then wish I'ld gone by car, it took me 5 hours 10mins LST-NCH-Lowestoft Central (and then 20min drive from station) last November, engineering works and then frozen points. Not to mention the octagonal wheels NXEA Intercity have on certain carriages. I'm gradually working out what carriage has the round wheels. The route TO London wasn't much better that day, had to go to Cambridge and change for Kings Cross and taxi across to the 'city'.

 

[Welshman]

I guess we'll find out one of these days. I think the Scottish Government or WAG both look likely to go for a not-for-profit model in the years to come, and it will be interesting to see how this "nationalisation" would work. As for a private company going for a not-for-profit model... I doubt we'll ever see it to be honest. Too much capital needed at the outset, and obviously they're not going to make a return on it.[/QUOTE]


I note that Plaid Cymru's manifesto outlines a plan for a greater integration of public transport within Wales, and the return of the railways into public ownership, on a not-for-profit basis, with income being reinvested into rolling-stock, infrastructure, etc. Interesting possibilities!

 

[laird]

Thinking back to the national lottery tender, there was a not for profit bid (or something similar), the reasoning behind its failure to win was that it would have returned less to the nominated recipients than the ultimate winner.

I guess the same would apply to a bid for any operator.
If you could show that you were going to take less subsidy and not offer a worse service then that should be fine.

If however you go for a franchise which is due to provide a premium in return then offering more of the profits should help.

That leaves the dilema, in the first option the not for profit would have to find ways to minimise the cost which I guess was opposed to what was originally in mind.

The latter option of paying a greater premium back but then setting up a fund to improve things with the balance could work.
It would take some fairly substantial backing I guess but maybe it is worth trying.

I guess the profit return to each of the groups (First, Stagecoach etc.) is probably commercially sensitive but I'd be surprised if it was a high percentage, so having had to offer a lower percentage to ensure the wiinning bid then using the money to repay loans or equity dividents there might not be a great deal left to actually make payments toward an improvement fund. That said the improvement fund would end up being used to expand services which in turn you migh hope would bring in extra revenue but would you be allowed to keep the fares received from whatever new services came about?

 

[Zoe]

Thinking back to the national lottery tender, there was a not for profit bid (or something similar), the reasoning behind its failure to win was that it would have returned less to the nominated recipients than the ultimate winner.

This was controversial, Virgin were going to run the lottery on a not for profit basis. Both Virgin and Camelot bid but on the day the decision was due neither were annouced as winners. Camelot were out of the running but further negociations were to be held with Virgin. Camelot then took the Lottery Commission to court and the court forced the lottery commission to reopen the bidding which Camelot then won.

 

[tbtc]

I believe a TOC gets only 3% of their ticket sales as profit. That's a pretty poor margin.

But Bob Crow said that "Fat Cats are making obscene profits from the railways"...

Seriously though, if that's the rate of return you get as a TOC then it's pretty marginal (e.g. First/Stagecoach aim for around 15% from bus routes), which explains the reluctance to invest in new trains etc

(unless "ticket sales" are only half the story?)

 

[jopsuk]

most of the TOCs do, of course, receive a hefty subsidy from the government.

 

[Greenback]

Maybe there are additional exopenses for TOC's because of the franchise system? There's certainly a lot of money that has been spent on franchise bids, when you add this on to other costs associated with the structure of the industry, maybe there is scope for the 3% to be increased under a different structure?

 

[laird]

I guess it would depend upon whether the 3% is a fixed markup in addition to operating costs for the business, if so then that 3% of the ticket revenue is what the not for profit company would get to fill its account for future improvements?
Would that three percent be sufficient to make a real difference to the travelling public?
The worst case scenario I guess is that the 3% has to cover the operating cost of the business, if that is the case then fairly quickly that could be absorbed by the operating costs of the not for profit company, I guess the bigger groups are able to share these costs to some extent across their various business interests.

 

[Zoe]

Norwich must be the only major city where you can't reach any other significant settlement without at least one bit of single carriageway.

Edinburgh has the A8/M8 to Glasgow but road access to England is quite poor. The A1 is mostly single carriageway from Dunbar all the way to Morpeth and the A702 that links Edinburgh to the A74(M) is almost 40 miles of single carriageway.

 

[chuckles1066]

(unless "ticket sales" are only half the story?)

I paid a ridiculous amount for a can of 440ml luke warm Stella Artois on a Portsmouth - Bristol service about 18 months ago.

I suspect ticket sales are indeed only a part of the bigger picture.

 

[Flamingo]

I paid a ridiculous amount for a can of 440ml luke warm Stella Artois on a Portsmouth - Bristol service about 18 months ago.

I suspect ticket sales are indeed only a part of the bigger picture.

FGW lose money on their catering, it's only provided as a franchise requirement. The price from the buffet does compare with the on-station shops and restaurants. But that is a subject for a different thread.

 

[colpepper]

I wonder if the A47 will be dualed even as far as Kings Lynn

In November I had reason to be on the A47, stuck behind an artic. He was doing 40 so I assumed he must have a heavy load, there was no opportunity or sight lines to pass and the queue behind was out of sight.
This went on for miles and when the road eventually became dual carriageway I dropped a gear and started to pass him, only to find he wasn't restricted to 40 by the weight of his load but that holding up the traffic was obviously his idea of fun. The single road wasn't a 40 limit incidentally. It probably passes for entertainment in Norfolk.

 

[Flamingo]

In November I had reason to be on the A47, stuck behind an artic. He was doing 40 so I assumed he must have a heavy load, there was no opportunity or sight lines to pass and the queue behind was out of sight.
This went on for miles and when the road eventually became dual carriageway I dropped a gear and started to pass him, only to find he wasn't restricted to 40 by the weight of his load but that holding up the traffic was obviously his idea of fun. The single road wasn't a 40 limit incidentally. It probably passes for entertainment in Norfolk.

I refer the honourable member to my previous post!

"All it takes is a farmer with a wide load and an attitude and Norwich is cut off from the rest of the country!

 

[me123]

Edinburgh has the A8/M8 to Glasgow but road access to England is quite poor. The A1 is mostly single carriageway from Dunbar all the way to Morpeth and the A702 that links Edinburgh to the A74(M) is almost 40 miles of single carriageway.

Zoe, I live in Glasgow and I can assure that we are a "significant settlement", as are Dundee and Aberdeen. It's also worth noting that travelling from Edinburgh to Carlisle via the M8 (and either the A725 or M73) isn't actually all that much longer than the direct route (Google maps suggests 10 minutes). Indeed, I suspect that a good run via the M8 could beat the A702 route if you were stuck behind a lorry or something similarly unlucky.

Besides, Edinburgh-London is one of the biggest rail markets, and one of the biggest air markets, in the UK. There's not all that many people who would drive that route unless they had to for some reason. Given how many people travel between the two cities by alternative means, it makes a significant difference.

One of the main reasons that the roads from Edinburgh to England aren't dualled is that they're apparently not struggling all that much. Although I would like to see the A1 dualled throughout its entire length (perhaps bar a few of the streets in Edinburgh itself).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In November I had reason to be on the A47, stuck behind an artic. He was doing 40 so I assumed he must have a heavy load, there was no opportunity or sight lines to pass and the queue behind was out of sight.
This went on for miles and when the road eventually became dual carriageway I dropped a gear and started to pass him, only to find he wasn't restricted to 40 by the weight of his load but that holding up the traffic was obviously his idea of fun. The single road wasn't a 40 limit incidentally. It probably passes for entertainment in Norfolk.

Just because he could have legally gone faster doesn't mean that the driver deemed it safer to go any faster.

 

[Zoe]

Zoe, I live in Glasgow and I can assure that we are a "significant settlement", as are Dundee and Aberdeen.

Sorry, I certainly wasn't suggesting Glasgow is not a significant settlement. I was just saying was that there is no direct high quality road to England. Not everyone travelling from Scotland to England is going to London. As I said, the A1 is mostly single carriageway from Dunbar to Morpeth and the A702 can be very slow at times. Even within Scotland Inverness is not linked by dual carriageway. Good to see they are finally going to upgrade the missing section of the M8 though.

 

[colpepper]

Just because he could have legally gone faster doesn't mean that the driver deemed it safer to go any faster.

It wasn't dangerous or speed restricted for the most part, lorries coming in the other direction were doing 50-60. He began to accelerate just before the road doubled to the amusement of driver and mate.
I was in no hurry anyway but other drivers behind gave him plenty of stick. I'd guess he does it all the time and listens to hear whether it makes traffic news.

 

[Flamingo]

It wasn't dangerous or speed restricted for the most part, lorries coming in the other direction were doing 50-60. He began to accelerate just before the road doubled to the amusement of driver and mate.
I was in no hurry anyway but other drivers behind gave him plenty of stick. I'd guess he does it all the time and listens to hear whether it makes traffic news.

Like this chap...

AN "ARROGANT" farmer who held up a convoy of 20 cars as he drove his tractor home from a cattle mart has been banned for driving for one year.

In what could be an historic prosecution, the farmer, who was called "arrogant and individualistic" by a District Court judge, was told: "You don't have the right to force other people to drive at 15 miles per hour."

More at http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/road-ban-for-tractor-traffic-jam-farmer-1635180.html

 

[HST-DAVE]

Perhaps the 1 year ban is a bit harsh. I got stuck last Friday behind a trailer full of carrots (I guess there was a tractor in front of it), farmers are nornally pretty good in Norfolk and will pull over after 3 or 4 miles at 15mph
...saying that we also have the fast-trac tractors which with a few engine adjustments can zoom along, they dont reach the 60mph limit but they are better.. as for combine harvesters they're huge and take 1 and a half lanes, can't be helped though.
Tourists (suitcases on roof or back shelf) can be the worst drivers 90mph or 25mph on country roads. Best go by train

 

[mac]

In November I had reason to be on the A47, stuck behind an artic. He was doing 40 so I assumed he must have a heavy load, there was no opportunity or sight lines to pass and the queue behind was out of sight.
This went on for miles and when the road eventually became dual carriageway I dropped a gear and started to pass him, only to find he wasn't restricted to 40 by the weight of his load but that holding up the traffic was obviously his idea of fun. The single road wasn't a 40 limit incidentally. It probably passes for entertainment in Norfolk.

speed limit for lorries is 40 on single carriageways,and 50 on dual carriageways so it was not for fun but the law.

 

[HST-DAVE]

... and 60 for motorways, except lorries are limited to 90kmph (56mph) by the EU. And another thing (rant rant) why on the only decent road in East Anglia (the A14) does a lorry doing 55.9 mph try and overtake a lorry doing 55.8 mph? six miles later a hill appears and the overtaking lorry then loses ground and then gets the wind sheer and another 6 miles later may have gained the 50 feet it needed. In the meantime causing 1000 cars to all clog up ! (rant rant).. happens every time on the A14.

Back to topic, the branch lines in Norfolk out of Norwich would be ideal for 'micro-franchising' e.g. by a NP-TOC. West Runton station for example is 'looked after' by volunteers..

p.s. I know lorry drivers are only doing their job, so nothing personal in my ranting on... just don't overtake unless you have 10mph or more over the other vehicle!

 

[Clip]

... and 60 for motorways, except lorries are limited to 90kmph (56mph) by the EU. And another thing (rant rant) why on the only decent road in East Anglia (the A14) does a lorry doing 55.9 mph try and overtake a lorry doing 55.8 mph? six miles later a hill appears and the overtaking lorry then loses ground and then gets the wind sheer and another 6 miles later may have gained the 50 feet it needed. In the meantime causing 1000 cars to all clog up ! (rant rant).. happens every time on the A14.

)

Because of the slipstream effect of the Lorry in front meaning it either overtakes or has to slow down or it will hit the lorry in front.. Well thats how ive always known it to be.. so could be wrong.

 

[me123]

Sorry, I certainly wasn't suggesting Glasgow is not a significant settlement. I was just saying was that there is no direct high quality road to England. Not everyone travelling from Scotland to England is going to London. As I said, the A1 is mostly single carriageway from Dunbar to Morpeth and the A702 can be very slow at times. Even within Scotland Inverness is not linked by dual carriageway. Good to see they are finally going to upgrade the missing section of the M8 though.

As I've said, I reckon travelling via the M8 and A725 (or M73) is potentially just as quick if you get a good run, and dualled in its entirety. Although the M8 completion works will undoubtedly make life a nightmare if you choose this way!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... and 60 for motorways, except lorries are limited to 90kmph (56mph) by the EU. And another thing (rant rant) why on the only decent road in East Anglia (the A14) does a lorry doing 55.9 mph try and overtake a lorry doing 55.8 mph? six miles later a hill appears and the overtaking lorry then loses ground and then gets the wind sheer and another 6 miles later may have gained the 50 feet it needed. In the meantime causing 1000 cars to all clog up ! (rant rant).. happens every time on the A14.

I get stuck with this all the time on the A8. There should be a law against it. Seriously. I've seen traffic have to drop from 70mph to 45mph very quickly because of this, so it's potentially very dangerous.

 

[Zoe]

As I've said, I reckon travelling via the M8 and A725 (or M73) is potentially just as quick if you get a good run, and dualled in its entirety. Although the M8 completion works will undoubtedly make life a nightmare if you choose this way!

Scotland are doing a good job at filling in the remainign missing gaps in the highways network. It seems to have gone a bit quiet on the A9 Perth to Inverness plans though. Other than that Dundee could do with a bypass to complete the high quality route from Edinburgh to Aberdeen.

 

[Geezertronic]

I get stuck with this all the time on the A8. There should be a law against it. Seriously. I've seen traffic have to drop from 70mph to 45mph very quickly because of this, so it's potentially very dangerous.

The M42/A42 towards the M1 is a prime site for this (dual carriageway). In fact the lorries used to do it through the section that was designated as no overtaking for lorries, no one to my knowledge was ever done for it because it was not monitored. They've removed it now anyway

 

[me123]

Scotland are doing a good job at filling in the remainign missing gaps in the highways network. It seems to have gone a bit quiet on the A9 Perth to Inverness plans though. Other than that Dundee could do with a bypass to complete the high quality route from Edinburgh to Aberdeen.

The gaps really do need feeling in, and have done for some time. They've been sub-standard for years and years, and improvements have been on the cards for a long time. I recently read a news article somewhere stating that the new M80 upgrade, due to be completed this year, would be finished by 2001! Similarly, there was a project to upgrade the A8 that was cut back to basically put hard shoulders on the road and upgrade a few junctions. All this was back in the days when transport wasn't devolved; TBH I think devolution has helped give these things the priority they've needed, as think Westminster was always very slow to legislate up here (mostly due to time constraints, to be fair).

A9 Perth-Inverness isn't going to be dualled for the entire length, but should be upgraded. I think there'll be quite a lot of "2+1", some dualling, and a lot of overtaking opportunities such as laybays. Sadly, a lot of people seem incapable of using laybays, and I doubt that these will come to anything. :cry:

The M42/A42 towards the M1 is a prime site for this (dual carriageway). In fact the lorries used to do it through the section that was designated as no overtaking for lorries, no one to my knowledge was ever done for it because it was not monitored. They've removed it now anyway

One of the worst in Scotland is the M73. Lorries use lane 3 to overtake lane 2. Of course, they're not allowed in that lane, but because lane 1 goes off at the next junction, they just assume that they can use it :roll: Again, that's quite a big problem because Junctions 1 and 2 (where this happens) are very very close together.

 

[Zoe]

If I remember correctly the SNP said they were going to dual the A9 to Inversess but the money is going on a controversial tram scheme in Edinburgh instead. One other thing though, why does the M74 drop to 2 lanes for the last section before Glasgow?