Transport Tycoon Forums

For anyone who hasn't already seen, apparently it is expected that the government will this week pledge an extra 1000 carriages for passenger trains in England. Will this make much of a difference in peoples opinions, or is it merely a small step in the right direction?

The full article can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6448327.stm[/url]

stupidestfool wrote:For anyone who hasn't already seen, apparently it is expected that the government will this week pledge an extra 1000 carriages for passenger trains in England. Will this make much of a difference in peoples opinions, or is it merely a small step in the right direction?

The full article can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6448327.stm

it's a small step in the right direction

a bigger step would be to give the money to Virgin and let them buy them on behalf of the government...

I don't trust the government with decisions like this...

Agreed, the whole scheme with the government buying them then loaning them to the train companies, just seems there's too much scope for problems there.

Saying that, perhaps general public opinion (and this may not reflect the true situation) is that the railways have been throwing away government funding for years, as the news seemed to tell us for many years of the vast sums paid by the government to the supposedly privatised networks to bail them out. Maybe that means they don't trust either.

Generally speaking, most of the trains you see are owned by someone else and loaned to train operating companies. I don't know about Virgin (although they tend not to own 100% of anything) but for most companies this will be just the same as leasing the rolling stock from whoever owns it now (quite often banks, I think).

Here the NS buys it own trains just like Arriva, Syntus and Veolia here, but they (Arriva/Veolia and Syntus), also hire some trains from the NS, the Goverment doesnt buy them. (Except demanding that the trainfloors are as high as the station platforms.)

Maedhros wrote:Generally speaking, most of the trains you see are owned by someone else and loaned to train operating companies. I don't know about Virgin (although they tend not to own 100% of anything) but for most companies this will be just the same as leasing the rolling stock from whoever owns it now (quite often banks, I think).

Indeed they are bank owned (all three are, in fact).

Angel Trains is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland.
HSBC Rail is obviously owned by HSBC.
Porterbrook Leasing is owned by the Abbey National.

Virgin doesn't own their rolling stock. I believe the Pendolinos are owned by Angel Trains (One of the three ROSCOs (Rolling Stock Operators)).

The funny thing is their Voyagers are NOT owned by Angel Trains.

Hence the problem that we have in this country with privatisation. There are so many levels of ownership.

There has been discussion about whether these extra carriages are linked to the HST2 which, coincidentally, also is planned for introduction in 2014.

There aren't enough loco hauled services left to warrant an extra carriage on the end of all of them equalling 1000, so it must be new stock, but how, exactly?

The enthusiast forum I use has been discussing the finer points of this idea, and there's a general consensus that it might be that the BBC (who revealed the story) has confused the new rolling stock with the HST2.

They might be completely separate ventures, of course, but we'll have to see.

I was thinking the same thing is you Dave, surely buying extra carriages is less effective than buying new DMUs or EMUs. And if these carriages are destined for addition to multiple units, who will pay for the adaptation and how long will it take- considering no TOC is going to want a basic-spec government colour carriage, think how long it'll be before they're all built and fitted to each TOCs specification.

I know there was some issue of the government being concerned about safety if you simply add more trains, but perhaps since the Climate Change Bill is coming to fruition, the money would be better spent on brand new, state-subsidised EMUs with higher capacity and better safety and environmental credentials. And if they want to spend money on lines with satisfactory cover with Diesel Class 170's, maybe upgrading the actual line or even electrification would be a better idea?

I'm obviously not an expert being a 17 year old High School pupil, but this idea seems a bit haphazard. And finally, what about Scotland?

Dave Worley wrote: The funny thing is their Voyagers are NOT owned by Angel Trains.

Unless i've confused what you are saying, the Class 220 and 221 are owned by Angel Trains.

http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/datasheets ... ed&Menu=UK

220,221's are Angel Train's leased via Bombardier... sorry Dave, fraid lil JP is right on that one.

HSBC Rail also own all the class 91's and MK4s.

Hmmm. Remember something about conflicting ROSCOs preventing changes to lengths of Virgin srvices.

Ignore me - I remember now it was referring to the possible idea of using Pendolino carriages owned from new by another ROSCO being put into Angel's stuff.

Not gonna happen, of course.

Dave Worley wrote:Hmmm. Remember something about conflicting ROSCOs preventing changes to lengths of Virgin srvices.

Ignore me - I remember now it was referring to the possible idea of using Pendolino carriages owned from new by another ROSCO being put into Angel's stuff.

Not gonna happen, of course.

The whole argument is because the DFT are refusing to fund the extra carriages when Virgin pay the ROSCO's so much as it is. Angel, who are about to face a Competition Commission review about their charges, quite quickly put a no to paying for the carriages themselves.

For your information about what a ROSCO is, please see the below mock interview on Bremner, Bird and Fortune, a few years ago (or for the humour-less, there is this link):

Taken from Bremner Bird & Fortune Channel4, 29/02/04.

Interviewer: Sir George Parr, you are a banker.

George Parr: Yes I am, yes.

I: And you're particularly involved with the financing of the railway system.

GP: I think system is a bit strong a word,

I: yes,

GP: erm, but broadly speaking, yes, yes I am.

I: Yes and the railways seem to require really enormous amounts of public subsidy.

GP: Er, yes.

I: Why should the railways, running the railways require such vast amounts of taxpayers' money?

GP: If it were run simply on the receipts you get from selling tickets, then the journey from London to Manchester would cost about five hundred pounds,

I: yes,

GP: as opposed to the eminently reasonable one hundred and fifty we pay now.

I: Yes, and what you're saying is that it will never become commercially profitable.

GP: No, I'm not saying that, no, there is one part of the system which is really quite, ha, extremely profitable.

I: Oh really? What part is that?

GP: It happens to be the area in which my bank is involved.

I: Really, yes, yes, I thought it might be. Well, um, what do you do then?

GP: We own the trains.

I: Well no, surely, surely the trains are owned by the train companies, by Arriva and Virgin and South West Trains and all the others?

GP: No, that's very naiive if I may say so.

I: It might be naiive, but it would be logical, wouldn't it?

GP: What's logic got to do with it? We're talking about the railways!

I: Yes.

GP: You know, when the system was set up, it was decided by the Government there would be a group of companies who operated the trains and another group of companies that, er, that owned them.

I: Why?

GP: Well, why not! And, er, my company's one of three rolling stock leasing companies called ROSCOs,

I: yes,

GP: and we lease our trains to the operating companies.

I: And this is profitable, is it?

GP: It is fairly profitable, yes. I mean, just to give you an example, we've just supplied South West Trains with some new rolling stock.

I: How much do you rent those for?

GP: For, er, five hundred thousand pounds a year.

I: And what do they cost to build?

GP: Just over two million.

I: So, a train operator will pay you a quarter of what they cost to build, every year,

GP: every year, yes,

I: for how many years?

GP: Well, not more than forty.

I: That's a huge profit margin, isn't it?

GP: Well, I hope so. But I have to emphasise most strongly here that my company does not receive one penny of taxpayers' money.

I: No, no. So you're only paid by the train operating companies.

GP: Yes, well, let me explain.

I: Yes.

GP: Take the franchise, South Central. Their subsidy is going to increase by £342 million pounds over the next five years. And inevitably, some of that money will come to us for new rolling stock.

I: Yes, how much? What proportion, ten per cent, twenty per cent?

GP: Eighty per cent.

I: Eighty per cent! And this is taxpayers' money?

GP: No, no, no, no, don't run away with that idea, no. No, it's taxpayers' money when it gets to the operating company, you see,

I: yes,

GP: but by the time it moves from the operating company to our leasing company it's a simple commercial transaction.

I: So what sort of return are you getting on your investment, roughly?

GP: Roughly thirty per cent.

I: Thirty per cent?

GP: Thirty per cent, yes.

I: Well, if you compare that with, well, a company regarded with being very successful, Tesco for example,

GP: yes,

I: Tesco's very happy with five per cent.

GP: Yes, but what you have to remember is that the three leasing companies are all owned by banks.

I: Yes.

GP: And by their very nature, banks make a lot of money.

I: But since so much of your revenue actually just comes, you know, from, from the taxpayer, isn't it odd that the Rail Regulator doesn't have anything to say about this?

GP: No it isn't odd, no, because the leasing companies are in fact the only part of the system which is not under the jurisdiction of the Rail Regulator.

I: Really? That's, that's handy, isn't it?

GP: It is very, very handy. It is.

I: This whole arrangement whereby you make these colossal profits from leasing out these trains, I mean, doesn't really make sense.

GP: Well, you see, what you have to remember is that our returns are quite large, but then we're taking a huge risk.

I: What risk?

GP: What risk?

I: What risk, yes.

GP: Well, I mean, because when the franchises were set up, the Government wanted them to be very short, just five, six, seven years,

I: yes,

GP: but as we've discovered in this conversation, trains can rumble along for twenty five to forty years,

I: forty years, yes.

GP: Now, if at the end of a franchise it's not renewed, then we're left holding hundreds and hundreds of trains with nothing to do.

I: No, no you aren't, because they just give the franchise to somebody else and you rent the trains to them.

GP: Not necessarily. It might happen that way.

I: No, the only risk you're taking is that if one day the Government suddenly decides for some reason to, to completely tear up the whole railway system - and close it down - overnight.

GP: Well it could do that. It could do that...

I: But they aren't going to do that, are they?


GP: No, no, they might. I mean, look at it from the Government's point of view, if they close down the whole thing there wouldn't be any more complains about punctuality, you wouldn't have these awful accidents on the railways, and the Government would save billions and billions of pounds.

I: Yes, so you want to make as much money as you can while there is still a railway?

GP: Well, wouldn't you?

I: Yes. Sir George Parr, thank you very much.

GP: Thank you very much indeed.

---------
Says it all, doesn't it?

Haha, genius!

stupidestfool wrote:For anyone who hasn't already seen, apparently it is expected that the government will this week pledge an extra 1000 carriages for passenger trains in England. Will this make much of a difference in peoples opinions, or is it merely a small step in the right direction?

The full article can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6448327.stm[/url]

Thing is they are planning on lengthening the trains to about 12 long, in turn meaning stations have to be made longer, meaning more money being spent. Thats pathetic, why dont they just alter timetables and add extra trains

I think it's a little unfair to by more trailer cars, because what of companies like Virgin that want to modernise, and use MU's only? It is unfair on them, because they can't use the stock that is (forcibly) leased to them...

Raichase wrote:I think it's a little unfair to by more trailer cars, because what of companies like Virgin that want to modernise, and use MU's only? It is unfair on them, because they can't use the stock that is (forcibly) leased to them...

yes agreed but can't the the govenment buy more 390 coaches

alistairgrew wrote:

Raichase wrote:I think it's a little unfair to by more trailer cars, because what of companies like Virgin that want to modernise, and use MU's only? It is unfair on them, because they can't use the stock that is (forcibly) leased to them...

yes agreed but can't the the govenment buy more 390 coaches

Its not that simple. The DFT are beginning to get a little peeved at paying Virgin huge amounts of subsidy so that they can lease very expensive trains. Angel (who own the 390s, 220/221s) is refusing to buy more carriages unless the DFT underwrite the cost of the carriages (IE: insurance). The DFT are refusing because they are annoyed at the amount that it costs to lease them... and the whole scene unfolds - please see my previous posts.

3 day wrote:Thing is they are planning on lengthening the trains to about 12 long, in turn meaning stations have to be made longer, meaning more money being spent. Thats pathetic, why dont they just alter timetables and add extra trains

Well, paths have to be found for extra trains and as I understand it, parts of the network are quite congested. Virgin Cross Country did start off running more trains when the Voyagers were introduced but these were cut back somewhat because of this kind of problem.

1000 extra carriages might work something like THIS:

The Javelin (Class 395s) for the olympics - 174 cars
Transport for London's new Class 376s - 152 cars + whatever else they want
The extra carriages in the Bendydildos (Pendos...) - 106 cars

And of course the new Intercity trains to replace the HST and probably 91s with mark 4 will be 500-2000 cars.

Take your pick.

From what I've seen this is basically what we need today, but we'll get it in 5-10 years time. What we'll need in 5-10 years time (HSLs, Crossrail, re-opened branch lines, extensive tram networks, etc) cannot of course be even considered until we've passed the time when we really really need them.

Allow me, if you will, to draw the analogy of a house that is built with an open fireplace. Then, at some point, the fire gets out of control and sets fire to the carpet.

In Europe: "Oh look, the fire is doing something that we reasonably might have expected it to do at some point. Good job we thought of this. The carpet is non-flamable, we have an extinguisher on hand, and as a fall-back there are sprinklers in the roof."

In the UK: "The house may or may not be burning down. This is the fault of the previous labour/conservative government. Now the flames have spread to the hallway and the first floor I would like to suggest launching a public enquiry into the feasibility of the purchase of a small bucket of cheap sand, to be delivered in 5-10 years' time to tackle this problem, which I might add is the result of this government's highly successful keep people toastie warm project."

High Speed outes will never be built in this country.

Which stations, for example, would utilise them?

Say you had an upgrade to the West Coast to allow 200mph running. You'd have to reduce stops to call at (hypothetically) London Euston, Crewe and Glasgow Central.

That's all you'd be able to afford to get the highest amount of efficiency.

Britain doesn't NEED High Speed Rail.

Crossrail is good because we have seen what the Cross-City did for Birmingham on a smaller scale.

Re-opened branches will never happen.