ukclique > railway

Roland Perry (14.07.2017, 16:25)
In message <0tehmch13c38lkqdd6ueahjhgatgkqsqvf>, at 13:46:50 on
Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Recliner <Recliner.ng> remarked:

>The new integrated East West Rail may find such an opportunity.


You seriously expect that to survive the recent change of policy to
scrap Network rail doing anything but maintenance of the existing
network?
Graeme Wall (14.07.2017, 16:43)
On 14/07/2017 13:06, NY wrote:
> <losborne74> wrote in message
> news:6038
> More to the point, has anyone worked out the relative cost of a complex
> relationship of many companies all doing business with each other (and
> making a margin on each transaction) compared with having one big
> company that is one big profit centre and so mostly does business with
> itself and works at-cost.


Which is not how BR worked.
Basil Jet (14.07.2017, 17:04)
On 2017\07\14 11:53, losborne74 wrote:

> Thinking about the very populist policy of rail renationalisation, I can't help but feel that those on the left have missed a very serious issue that makes it expensive and difficult to do, at least entirely.
>
> Whilst migrating franchises back to public sector operation as they expire looks reasonably easy, what on earth is meant to happen with the rolling stock leasing companies? The amount of money that's floating about in this sector is astronomical, and the financial deals they have must be ridiculously complex. Presumably most new builds of stock are purchased from builders with long-term finance deals that result in them being paid for over their expected life-cycle, with repayments coming from leasing charges etc. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but the ROSCOs own assets that are worth billions in leasing charges over their projected lifecycles, and how on earth can you renationalise something that's worth so much money? It seems prohibitively expensive, so until a new way of acquiring rolling stock can be devised, all existing stock will probably have to remain under private sector ownership until it ends up being withdrawn, which in some cases could be many decades away.
>
> Has anyone actually worked this one out, or costed it up? I doubt it.


Diane Abbott said she would cover it by borrowing her mum's Freedom Pass.
spud (14.07.2017, 17:09)
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:20:47 +0100
Roland Perry <roland> wrote:
>In message <5ef3cb79-15bd-4a0c-97f7-1840a3566038>, at
>03:53:07 on Fri, 14 Jul 2017, losborne74 remarked:
>You've fallen for the spin that delivering re-nationalisation of the
>railways is the Labour Party's objective here. Rather than getting
>elected.


Don't think Corbyn won't do it however. Unlike a lot of Labour MPs he seems to
believe the rubbish he spouts and I doubt trivial stuff like balancing public
finances and UK debt will stand in his way.
John Levine (14.07.2017, 17:51)
In article <435075dd-8698-40f7-b2e0-43e5b700e9d5>,
<rob499> wrote:
>Any incoming Labour government would have to look at what they could afford at a time when international pressure will be to bring
>the public accounts closer to a balance and prioritise accordingly. ...


International pressure? The UK borrows in its own currency so the
only meaningful evidence of international pressure is the interest
rate it has to pay. The current rate on 10 year gilts is a piddly
1.3% and even 30 year gilts are under 2%. Since the UK has the
world's best repayment record, there is no risk premium.

Men in expensive suits at Davos may wag their fingers and say how bad
you are being, but they may safely be ignored since they are always
wrong. Indeed, the past decade of UK austerity has been an unforced
error by economically illiterate Conservative governments. (I'm not
saying Labour would be much better, but at this point it's hard to
tell.)

With the likely dislocations from Brexit, rounds of borrowing and
investment would make a great deal of sense. We can argue whether
buying back the railways counts as investment.

R's,
John
R. Mark Clayton (14.07.2017, 18:41)
On Friday, 14 July 2017 16:51:53 UTC+1, John Levine wrote:
[..]
> buying back the railways counts as investment.
> R's,
> John


My memory is longer than yours.

Back in the late 1970's I remember an advert in The Times for UK governmentbonds. I can't remember their redemption date, but they were offered at 15%pa at £98.50p. I had no money otherwise it was a one way bet (if they couldn't pay the cash in your bank would likely be worth nothing either).. In the event after a year you would have had £15 interest and the price was £130 with no CGT on gilts.

OTOH this was around the time inflation reached over 26%...

Healey had to grovel to the IMF.
NY (14.07.2017, 19:25)
<losborne74> wrote in message
news:dae8
> I do think we have a successful railway in *spite* of privatisation rather
> than because of it, and I do think fewer franchises would be a wise idea,
> but I'm not too fussed on who owns what, as long as they're competent.


I'd say that we have a successful railway in spite of *fragmentation* that
came with privatisation.

The basic model of one infrastucture company (Railtrack/Network Rail) plus
various TOCs seems eminently sensible, But then they go and complicate it by
allowing TOCs and NR to subcontract work rather than each company doing
everything in-house, and having the trains owned by separate companies who
lease the trains to the TOCs, That is bound to lead to wastage due to every
employer-contractor relationship needing to cream off its bit of profit.

I don't much care whether the railways are public or private, as long as
they are run as efficiently as possible to keep fares as low as possible. I
want fares to pay only for the costs of running and maintaining a railway,
not also to line every-intermediate-and-his-dog's pockets as well. Anything
which lowers fares and yet keeps the same level of service and investment by
running more efficiently has got to be a Good Thing.
Graham Murray (14.07.2017, 20:10)
rob499 writes:

> The ROSCOs don't just own the rolling stock, they're responsible for
> periodic maintenance and a number of safety-related roles. These
> functions would also need to find new homes if the rolling stock was
> to be nationalised.


Would they not just nationalise these maintenance facilities as well?
John Levine (14.07.2017, 21:05)
In article <5466cbc0-00eb-4b45-8f28-dfedd6a9abd0>,
R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram> wrote:
>> International pressure? The UK borrows in its own currency so the
>> only meaningful evidence of international pressure is the interest
>> rate it has to pay. The current rate on 10 year gilts is a piddly
>> 1.3% and even 30 year gilts are under 2%. Since the UK has the
>> world's best repayment record, there is no risk premium. ...


>My memory is longer than yours.
>Back in the late 1970's I remember an advert in The Times for UK government bonds. I can't remember their redemption date, but they
>were offered at 15%pa at £98.50p. I had no money otherwise it was a one way bet (if they couldn't pay the cash in your bank would
>likely be worth nothing either). In the event after a year you would have had £15 interest and the price was £130 with no CGT on gilts.


I rememeber it too, but that was then, this is now. If rates were 15%
I would agree there was international pressure on the budget. At 1.3%
there is not.

The Bank of England is unfortunately famous for fighting the last war.

R's,
John
Roland Perry (14.07.2017, 21:14)
In message <AumdnYJu-dHoY_XEnZ2dnUU78bvNnZ2d>, at
18:25:12 on Fri, 14 Jul 2017, NY <me> remarked:

>I want fares to pay only for the costs of running and maintaining a
>railway, not also to line every-intermediate-and-his-dog's pockets as
>well.


On one hand the fares only pay about 2/3 of the costs; on the other hand
the pocket-lining you dislike is down in the noise level compared to
running the infrastructure.
Arthur Figgis (14.07.2017, 21:24)
On 14/07/2017 15:25, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <0tehmch13c38lkqdd6ueahjhgatgkqsqvf>, at 13:46:50 on
> Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Recliner <Recliner.ng> remarked:
>> The new integrated East West Rail may find such an opportunity.

> You seriously expect that to survive the recent change of policy to
> scrap Network rail doing anything but maintenance of the existing network?


But if Network Rail isn't directly involved in it, that wouldn't matter.
Patrick Hearn (14.07.2017, 21:32)
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:41:58 PM UTC+1, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Friday, 14 July 2017 16:51:53 UTC+1, John Levine wrote:
> My memory is longer than yours.
> Back in the late 1970's I remember an advert in The Times for UK government bonds. I can't remember their redemption date, but they were offered at15%pa at £98.50p. I had no money otherwise it was a one way bet (if they couldn't pay the cash in your bank would likely be worth nothing either). In the event after a year you would have had £15 interest and theprice was £130 with no CGT on gilts.
> OTOH this was around the time inflation reached over 26%...
> Healey had to grovel to the IMF.


Bond yields

1979-97 was no picnic either

Patrick
mcp (14.07.2017, 21:32)
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 14:57:22 +0100, Robert <coppercapped>
wrote:

[..]
>(And the Potters Bar crash was not so much to do with inspection and
>testing - the rail was scheduled for replacement - but the contractor
>getting access to the tracks to do the work.).


Are you thinking of another crash? At Potters Bar the private
contractor" inspected" the points twice earlier that month but failled
to notice the nuts were falling off the stretcher bars. There was
nothing wrong with the rails.
Roland Perry (14.07.2017, 21:36)
In message <bI2dnX9AYqUUh_TEnZ2dnUU78N-dnZ2d>, at
20:24:47 on Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis> remarked:

>>> The new integrated East West Rail may find such an opportunity.

>> You seriously expect that to survive the recent change of policy to
>> scrap Network rail doing anything but maintenance of the existing network?

>But if Network Rail isn't directly involved in it, that wouldn't
>matter.


Why do you think it isn't?

<
projects/east-west-rail/>
Roland Perry (14.07.2017, 21:44)
In message <fd6imcd4a954e26mrpu2v0r87lk3cdr08l>, at 20:32:48 on
Fri, 14 Jul 2017, mcp remarked:

>>(And the Potters Bar crash was not so much to do with inspection and
>>testing - the rail was scheduled for replacement - but the contractor
>>getting access to the tracks to do the work.).

>Are you thinking of another crash?


Hatfield maybe?

Similar Threads