"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 15:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
But as both Amersham and Watford are well outside London, it's hard to
see
why TfL and the London mayor would want to subsidise such services.
Would

If they're served by the tube then there's no reason why TfL shouldn't
cough up
if the route is viable since they're getting ticket revenue from non
london
residents. Otherwise put the buffers at Harrow and let chiltern take
over the
rest of the line.

I don't think the fare revenue from an Amersham Watford Junction shuttle
would even cover the operating costs, let alone the capital cost of a
couple of additional S8 trains.

That's a strange meaning of "Operating costs" that doesn't include the
costs of the stock

Why is it strange? It's completely normal.

Is it?

It wouldn't be if the item being operated was a car (taxi) or a bus.

Operating costs and capital costs are usually quoted separately for an
asset.

But it's a depreciating asset. It's not the same as the track. It's good
for 30 years use at which time you throw it away.

So, maintaining, cleaning and powering the stock are operating
costs, but the lease costs represent a repayment of the capital to buy the
trains. The latter is essentially fixed, even if the trains do no mileage.

I thought that was taking into account when deciding how many you needed to
buy

tim