"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

"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.


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

Sure, but you don't ignore it. My suggestion was that the fare revenue for
an Amersham Watford Junction shuttle wouldn't even cover the variable
operating costs, let alone the lease costs for two S8 trains. So, even if
there were spare S8 trains available for free (there aren't), the service
probably still wouldn't cover its costs.

"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

On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 10:28:00 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"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's the servicing and repayment of a capital cost, not an operating
cost.

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

No, that's the point. It's a cost that occurs on a monthly or annual
basis, whether you run the service or not.


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.

If you decide not to run the service, you save the operating cost, but
not the capital cost. So you don't have to power, clean or maintain
the train, or pay the staff to run it, but you're still lumbered with
the fixed capital cost (as well as other fixed costs, like insurance
and stabling). You can't just send it back to the lease company, as
you'll be locked into a long-term lease, or will have bought it
outright.

For specialised assets like S stock trains, which have no market other
than on LU, you'd be locked into a life-of-train lease of, say, 25
years. It's different with assets that have other markets (eg, a car
or standard airliner), where the minimum lease may be for, say, five
years.

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 11:34:45 +0100
Recliner wrote:
For specialised assets like S stock trains, which have no market other
than on LU, you'd be locked into a life-of-train lease of, say, 25

I'm sure someone would buy them if LU sold them now. Someone bought up some
old D stock to convert into DEMUs after all!

I suppose S stock could be converted to 3rd rail and let loose on southern
region somewhere. Unless its too wide.

--
Spud

On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:17:04 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 11:34:45 +0100
Recliner wrote:
For specialised assets like S stock trains, which have no market other
than on LU, you'd be locked into a life-of-train lease of, say, 25

I'm sure someone would buy them if LU sold them now. Someone bought up some
old D stock to convert into DEMUs after all!

At little more than scrap prices.


I suppose S stock could be converted to 3rd rail and let loose on southern
region somewhere. Unless its too wide.

The width and the low top speed could both be show stoppers.