People Not In the Know Making Decisions...

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:06 am

nwallace wrote:They should know this as they are meant to be regulating the damn industry. And therefore Shoudl be in the Know.

If the ORR aren't "In the know" then the first place to look for the problem with the railways is in that office because clearly if they dont' know then they can't do their job.

Here here!

johncard · Post by **johncard** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:29 pm

Polaris – an InterCity Express passenger train set, able to draw its power source from either overhead electrical equipment or operate under its own power using modern, environmentally efficient diesel engines

My first impression is smart thinking, but then looking at the illustration there is no overhead equipment, so would this be on the other powercar or does it mean you specify diesel or electric in ordering the trainset?

Or maybe you could specify one of each (I can't see the Durham Coast being passed for 140mph anytime soon......)

John

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:47 pm

A 140mph diesel train?! Be quite impressive, although I'm pretty confident that an HST could make 135 if it wasn't for them being limited to 127???

Their first train, the 6:45 to London isn't exactly fast! Infact is no quicker than going via Newcastle.

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:01 pm

allypally wrote:The fact SWT bumped up fares by so much makes it obvious they want to make a profit

That's more to do with the outrageous "premium" (it's really nothing more than a tax) that they've agreed to pay to the treasury.

I don't (yet) begrudge SWT a profit. They are still pretty good at providing clean trains at the times they claim they will.

The 442 withdrawal has reduced my patience with them, though...

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:02 pm

AlistairW wrote:A 140mph diesel train?! Be quite impressive, although I'm pretty confident that an HST could make 135 if it wasn't for them being limited to 127???

Their first train, the 6:45 to London isn't exactly fast! Infact is no quicker than going via Newcastle.

The world record for diesel traction is held by a HST, at 143mph I believe.

Balancing speed for a 9 trailer set on level track is about 115mph. They have to have a hill to help them get to 125!

rikfarish · Post by **rikfarish** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:09 pm

The TOCs, and to a certain extent FOCs, are not obliged to use the ROSCOS. However, due to the fact that the franchises are for set periods of time, the owning group of the TOC would find it difficult to justify the expenditure of buying their own fleet. Especially if they lost the franchise and the new franchisee obtained their stock from elsewhere.

Asides from the above, lead times for new stock - even greater if "specialist stock" is required, would require franchisee's to place orders for stock years before they were awarded the franchise (this will NEVER happen), or place the order on day one and get delivery half way through the franchise.

There is also the question of overhaul and refurbishment, which is usually the responsibility of the ROSCO with the franchisee financing everything over and above the basic overhaul.

However, there have been a couple of development recently in relation to TOCs and ROSCOS. The first is the sale of the 1938 tube trains to South West Trains by the owning rosco, albeit for a nominal price of £1 each.

And, I am also led to believe that First Great Western has bought outright several HST power cars.

Going forward, the only way to really break the monopoly of ROSCOs is to award considerably longer franchises to enable the TOCs to buy their own stock and get value for money from the asset.

I can't see what referring the ROSCOs to the M&CC will achieve. The ROSCOS are no more a monopoly than Network Rail is, no more a monopoly that First Group is in Scotland. The ROSCOs are doing nothing legally wrong in what they charge for rolling stock leases. Morally, what they are charging is outrageous - citing the example of pacer units - but they are only doing what every other business is doing - rail industry or not - maximising profits.

andrewtoplis · Post by **andrewtoplis** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:42 pm

nwallace wrote: Have the ORR (Office of Rail Regulation i presume) cosnidered the fact that there are only 3 Roscos due to some of the earlier ones having gone titsup?

They didnt go 'titsup', they were bought up by banks, because of a tax condition that says leasing companies can write off a proportion of their tax because they have invested in new equipment. The original ROSCOs probably didnt pay that much tax, but in the multi billion pound world of finance that can be a lot of money saved, so the banks took the opportunity and went into the leasing trade.

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:14 am

rikfarish wrote: citing the example of pacer units - but they are only doing what every other business is doing - rail industry or not - maximising profits.

I felt the price tag the media gave (Half a million) for a pacer was way too much until someone pointed out this charge included all maintanence and refurbishment work etc. Then half a million doesn't sound too bad.