On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:56:39 +0100, "Nigel Pendse"
wrote:

"chris" wrote in message

I am sorry to inform Nigel that fares do go to the Contractors running
the rail infrastructure, travel card income is split between the
organisations of bus underground and NR, this forms part of the
scheme paying for the services these render, the fares received at
underground stations for UG fares go directly into the underground
pot. The internal payment is scheme is a complex web as decoding the
original contracts and the basis of complaints and legal challenge of
the Mayor. The payments out is greater than the income, if I remember
correctly some £50 million.

Are you saying that the maintenance companies are paid a percentage of the
fare income? I'm sure that isn't the case above ground, where maintenance
contracts with NR have nothing to do with fare income, which goes to TOCs --
is it the case with the even-more-complex UG PPP scheme?

passengers pay for LUL singles or returns - money goes to LUL
passengers pay for Travelcards / LT Cards - money goes to Travelcard pot
but LUL gets a share plus commission for sales.
passengers pay for through tickets to NR - LUL gets an apportioned share
plus commission for sales.
there are reverse flows where other parties sell tickets for LUL.
Finally there is a share of concessionary fare payments made by the
London Boroughs.

The above constitutes fare revenue. Some other income from property and
secondary revenue also accrues to LUL.

in terms of PPP there is a 4 weekly payment to the Infracos for the full
service provided. This is adjusted up or down subject to their
performance. The 4 weekly payment in effect covers their costs of
operation, costs of investment (projects) and payments to the Banks for
the privately sourced finance that they have secured to fund the works.
In essence it is a very complex mortgage that pays from maintaining and
upgrading the Tube but over a 30 year period. There is fixed rate of
return for each 7½ period - the way the Infracos make more profit is to
become more efficient. PFI Contracts operate in a similar manner.

The PPP payments have no relationship whatsoever to the fare revenue in
terms of a percentage take or rake off. I think what the OP was
referring to was the well publicised analyses that suggest that the
total outward payments by LUL to PPP and PFI contractors and also for
LUL's own staff and operating costs in a year might exceed revenue thus
necessitating government grant. The last annual report stated LUL made a
loss so we are already in the position of requiring a level of grant.
The starting proposition for PPP a very long time ago was that it was
envisaged that LUL could get to a position of operating without
government grant. An awful lot has changed since then.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!