"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:43:31 on Sat, 27
Sep 2014, tim..... remarked:
According to an item in Octboer's MR

This work is costing 120 million and expects to generate extra ticket
sales of 28 million

If that's the ROI, why has this taken so long to get agreed?

You've forgotten to subtract the operating costs from the ticket sales.

One extra train diagram, per day (apparently). I suspect that will M-F
only - how much can that possibly cost (I have absolutely no idea)

I doubt that station operating costs are going to increase as the service
is terminating at an already staffed station (and I doubt that the new
intermediate stations will be manned - even before the demanning
proposal)

All LU stations are and will remain manned at all times that a service
operates.

What, even Roding Valley with its 8 passengers per day (or whatever stupidly
low number it is)

And the new line will certainly be seven days a week -- Saturday
is now almost as busy as weekdays on LU.

I wasn't questioning that

I was questioning the need for the extra diagram every day.

Weekend trains on urban services can easily be fuller on weekends(/late
evenings) because there are fewer of them.

I suspect that the weekend service will be able to be run with the same
number of diagrams as now (BICBW)

The extra train, new stations and
additional track will also need to be maintained.

Is that really a noticeable percentage of 28 million?

tim

In message , at 17:34:06 on Sat, 27 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].
--
Roland Perry

On 27/09/2014 17:46, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:34:06 on Sat, 27 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].

Wait a moment! Entire network ticket sales £1,600m; projected Croxley
Link ticket sales £28m. Does anyone really believe that the Croxley
link will increase network sales by 2%?

I'd guess what little it will generate will just be stolen from this and
other networks.

BCR - BA

PA

In message , at 19:27:02 on
Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Paul Corfield 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].

Not sure those numbers are quite right.


Probably out of date - I didn't check what year that was.

From the latest Business Plan
I have for 2014/15 (all £s m)

LU Revenue 2430
LU Secondary Revenue 210

LU Operating Costs 2174
LU Minor Projects exp 160

Net Operating Position 315

Capital Investment 1562

Net Expenditure 1247

Therefore there is a smallish surplus that part funds the main LU
capex requirement.

Using those numbers, about £3m of the "extra" fares will be fed back to
CAPEX (that's 40yrs to repay the £120m if we ignore inflation and
interest charges).
--
Roland Perry

"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:43:31 on Sat, 27
Sep 2014, tim..... remarked:
According to an item in Octboer's MR

This work is costing 120 million and expects to generate extra ticket
sales of 28 million

If that's the ROI, why has this taken so long to get agreed?

You've forgotten to subtract the operating costs from the ticket sales.

One extra train diagram, per day (apparently). I suspect that will M-F
only - how much can that possibly cost (I have absolutely no idea)

I doubt that station operating costs are going to increase as the service
is terminating at an already staffed station (and I doubt that the new
intermediate stations will be manned - even before the demanning proposal)

All LU stations are and will remain manned at all times that a service
operates.

What, even Roding Valley with its 8 passengers per day (or whatever
stupidly low number it is)

I suspect that number leaves out season ticket holders, but, yes, every
station is manned whenever open. What the new stations presumably won't
have is manned ticket offices.

And the new line will certainly be seven days a week -- Saturday
is now almost as busy as weekdays on LU.

I wasn't questioning that

I was questioning the need for the extra diagram every day.

Weekend trains on urban services can easily be fuller on weekends(/late
evenings) because there are fewer of them.

I suspect that the weekend service will be able to be run with the same
number of diagrams as now (BICBW)

How? The new stations will still need to be manned, the train will still
need a driver, track faults will have to be fixed, etc.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:34:06 on Sat, 27 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?

tim

"tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...
In message , at 17:34:06 on Sat, 27 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 doesn't, but previous answers did: the link is projected to make a
modest operating surplus, which will go towards servicing the capital cost;
if it ever repays the capital, the surplus will be shared between HHC and
TfL. It is estimated to have a relatively low B/C ratio, just enough to be
worth doing, but not enough to have made it a high priority.

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

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

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.

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.
--
Roland Perry