Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at 03:40:45 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
The extra train, new stations and
additional track will also need to be maintained.

Is that really a noticeable percentage of 28 million?

Why do you think this particular stretch of line will pay its
operating costs from revenue, when the system taken as a whole doesn't?

[Tube fares are about £1.6BN, operating costs about £2.4BN, capital
costs on top of that].

How does that answer my question?

It shows that the margin cost of operating the line could well be of the
same order of magnitude as the farebox. In other words, you are seriously
underestimating the additional cost of operating the trains.

TfL apparently expects a modest operational surplus, presumably because
this simple above-ground line is relatively cheap to operate compared to
the deep level Tubes.

A modest surplus is reasonable, but Tim seemed to think it would be the bulk of the £26m.

I think you and I agree that he was ignoring most of the operating costs
(manning the additional train and stations for 2-3 shifts, cleaning and
maintenance of the train, track and stations, electricity, etc). Apart from
at the new stations, won't there also have to be LU staff at the shared NR
stations, Watford Junction and High St?

And I suppose many of the additional fares will be to
Zone 1, and therefore quite expensive.

I hope they don't take such a simplistic view of the extra fares. Quite a
bit of traffic to Z1 will be abstracted from existing stations.

Let's hope not. But obviously there will be net additional fares from zones
7&8, and therefore expensive if to London.

On 28/09/2014 10:19, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

And I suppose many of the additional fares will be to
Zone 1, and therefore quite expensive.

I hope they don't take such a simplistic view of the extra fares. Quite a
bit of traffic to Z1 will be abstracted from existing stations.

Let's hope not. But obviously there will be net additional fares from zones
7&8, and therefore expensive if to London.

It is ironic that one of the rationales given in the past for closing
Chesham is that little traffic will be lost, the bulk being transferred
to Amersham and Chalfont.

Here we have the same situation in reverse. How realistic is it to
"hope" that the Croxley link will generate £500k of NEW business per week?

PA

Peter Able stuck@home wrote:
On 28/09/2014 10:19, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

And I suppose many of the additional fares will be to
Zone 1, and therefore quite expensive.

I hope they don't take such a simplistic view of the extra fares. Quite a
bit of traffic to Z1 will be abstracted from existing stations.

Let's hope not. But obviously there will be net additional fares from zones
7&8, and therefore expensive if to London.

It is ironic that one of the rationales given in the past for closing
Chesham is that little traffic will be lost, the bulk being transferred
to Amersham and Chalfont.

Here we have the same situation in reverse. How realistic is it to
"hope" that the Croxley link will generate £500k of NEW business per week?

Yes, put like that, it does look rather optimistic. I wonder if that's the
projected fare revenue in a few years, once new developments are in place
around the new stations? It's hard to envisage such high net revenue
increases in the first year or two.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 08:47:27 on Sun, 28 Sep
2014, tim..... remarked:
The extra train, new stations and
additional track will also need to be maintained.

Is that really a noticeable percentage of 28 million?

Why do you think this particular stretch of line will pay its operating
costs from revenue, when the system taken as a whole doesn't?

[Tube fares are about £1.6BN, operating costs about £2.4BN, capital
costs on top of that].

How does that answer my question?

It shows that the margin cost of operating the line could well be of the
same order of magnitude as the farebox.

The point is that the increase in revenue is (somewhat obviously) not just
the fares for the route.

They are income from additional passengers to other station who otherwise
would have driven.

It's not normal to attribute per route income against fixed costs this way.


In other words, you are seriously underestimating the additional cost of
operating the trains.

No I don't think so

think that they are wrongly attributing some of the increased income to the
line

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message

, at 03:40:45 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
The extra train, new stations and
additional track will also need to be maintained.

Is that really a noticeable percentage of 28 million?

Why do you think this particular stretch of line will pay its
operating costs from revenue, when the system taken as a whole
doesn't?

[Tube fares are about £1.6BN, operating costs about £2.4BN, capital
costs on top of that].

How does that answer my question?

It shows that the margin cost of operating the line could well be of the
same order of magnitude as the farebox. In other words, you are
seriously
underestimating the additional cost of operating the trains.

TfL apparently expects a modest operational surplus, presumably because
this simple above-ground line is relatively cheap to operate compared to
the deep level Tubes.

A modest surplus is reasonable, but Tim seemed to think it would be the
bulk of the £26m.

no of course not

TBH, after ALL costs there doesn't need to be a surplus at all.

It's not normal for new build railways to make any significant contribution
to the capital costs.

But here, even if we deduct the interest on the 26m and allow for a small
repayment of capital there still seems to be enough



And I suppose many of the additional fares will be to
Zone 1, and therefore quite expensive.

I hope they don't take such a simplistic view of the extra fares. Quite a
bit of traffic to Z1 will be abstracted from existing stations.

the extra trips to Harrow (for example) will likely be abstracted from the
car

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message

, at 03:40:45 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
The extra train, new stations and
additional track will also need to be maintained.

Is that really a noticeable percentage of 28 million?

Why do you think this particular stretch of line will pay its
operating costs from revenue, when the system taken as a whole
doesn't?

[Tube fares are about £1.6BN, operating costs about £2.4BN, capital
costs on top of that].

How does that answer my question?

It shows that the margin cost of operating the line could well be of
the
same order of magnitude as the farebox. In other words, you are
seriously
underestimating the additional cost of operating the trains.

TfL apparently expects a modest operational surplus, presumably because
this simple above-ground line is relatively cheap to operate compared to
the deep level Tubes.

A modest surplus is reasonable, but Tim seemed to think it would be the
bulk of the £26m.

I think you and I agree that he was ignoring most of the operating costs

I hadn't ignored them

I just assumed that they wouldn't make a significant dent in the total

Even if they are 10 million, that still leaves 15 million per year to pay
down the capital costs of 120 million. Over a 25 year period that's more
than enough.

But are they 10 million. I have no idea, and so far no-one has come up with
any figures beyond the total costs of maintaining the complete network

tim

In message , at 11:28:14 on Sun, 28
Sep 2014, tim..... remarked:
Why do you think this particular stretch of line will pay its
operating costs from revenue, when the system taken as a whole doesn't?

[Tube fares are about £1.6BN, operating costs about £2.4BN, capital
costs on top of that].

How does that answer my question?

It shows that the margin cost of operating the line could well be of
the same order of magnitude as the farebox.

The point is that the increase in revenue is (somewhat obviously) not
just the fares for the route.

They are income from additional passengers to other station who
otherwise would have driven.

How do you know they aren't included. Actually, at £500k/week extra
revenue I suspect they must be, that's an awful lot of short trips.

It's not normal to attribute per route income against fixed costs this way.

In this case the operating surplus is being used to pay for the capital
costs (which are being paid up front by the council, not TfL).

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:38:00 on Sun, 28
Sep 2014, tim..... remarked:
I think you and I agree that he was ignoring most of the operating costs

I hadn't ignored them

I just assumed that they wouldn't make a significant dent in the total

Even if they are 10 million, that still leaves 15 million per year to
pay down the capital costs of 120 million. Over a 25 year period
that's more than enough.

But are they 10 million. I have no idea, and so far no-one has come up
with any figures beyond the total costs of maintaining the complete
network

Total *operating* costs, which includes maintenance as one aspect.
--
Roland Perry

Recliner wrote:

A modest surplus is reasonable, but Tim seemed to think it would be
the bulk of the £26m.

I think you and I agree that he was ignoring most of the operating
costs (manning the additional train and stations for 2-3 shifts,
cleaning and maintenance of the train, track and stations,
electricity, etc). Apart from at the new stations, won't there also
have to be LU staff at the shared NR stations, Watford Junction and
High St?

Why would you need two separate sets of staff at those stations? It
would be no different to the other shared stations between Queen's Park
and Harrow.

Peter Smyth

On 28/09/2014 11:17, Recliner wrote:
Peter Able stuck@home wrote:
On 28/09/2014 10:19, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

And I suppose many of the additional fares will be to
Zone 1, and therefore quite expensive.

I hope they don't take such a simplistic view of the extra fares. Quite a
bit of traffic to Z1 will be abstracted from existing stations.

Let's hope not. But obviously there will be net additional fares from zones
7&8, and therefore expensive if to London.

It is ironic that one of the rationales given in the past for closing
Chesham is that little traffic will be lost, the bulk being transferred
to Amersham and Chalfont.

Here we have the same situation in reverse. How realistic is it to
"hope" that the Croxley link will generate £500k of NEW business per week?

Yes, put like that, it does look rather optimistic. I wonder if that's the
projected fare revenue in a few years, once new developments are in place
around the new stations? It's hard to envisage such high net revenue
increases in the first year or two.


You earlier corrected the "expected incremental fare box revenue" quoted
by the OP to £26 million. Dare I suggest that the figure comes from this?

LU Fare Revenue 2013/14: £2,286m (tfl annual report)
Number of LU stations: 270 (Wikipedia)
Fare Revenue per station: £8.5m (calculated)

Net increase in LU stations by Croxley Link: 3 (croxleyraillink.com)

Fare Revenue for 3 stations: £26m (calculated)

My, my, what a coincidence.

This sort of back-of-the-fag-packet crude estimation (by the promoters
of the Croxley Link, I mean) is not at all rare. Early on someone makes
a wet-fingered guess and twenty PowerPoint presentations later it is
quoted as Gospel.

PA