"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"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.

Why not? You'd have the fixed cost to lease the asset, and the variable
operating costs to run it. That's exactly how trucks, buses, trains or
planes are accounted for. Some planes and aircraft engines are charged on
a
power-by-the-hour basis, which includes all those costs in on single
payment, which is how taxi fares work.

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.

The lease cost takes that into account. It includes the interest on the
original loan, and the depreciation.

I know it does

that's why the lease cost is an operational cost

It a cost that occurs , on a day to day basis, just to run the service.

If you decide not to run the service you can avoid that cost by using the
asset elsewhere for a different service or by giving it back to the lease
company and not paying for it at all. You can't do that with the track.

tim