On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:06:02 -0800 (PST)
Paul Corfield wrote:
mix of internally generated surplus and govt investment grant pays for new =
train fleets. I can't recall a train fleet being "flogged off" to pay for a=
new one. It was Caroline Pidgeon who remarked that the proposal was "craz=
y" (or some similar term).

And will almost certainly cost TfL more in the long run. Whoever buys the
trains won't be doing it for the good of mankind, they'll want a long term
profit. As ever short termism rules in british government.

wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:06:02 -0800 (PST)
Paul Corfield wrote:
mix of internally generated surplus and govt investment grant pays for new =
train fleets. I can't recall a train fleet being "flogged off" to pay for a=
new one. It was Caroline Pidgeon who remarked that the proposal was "craz=
y" (or some similar term).

And will almost certainly cost TfL more in the long run. Whoever buys the
trains won't be doing it for the good of mankind, they'll want a long term
profit. As ever short termism rules in british government.

Yes, it's just a way of borrowing money at a significantly higher interest
rate than TfL would pay if it could offer its own bonds, or if the Treasury
funded the trains.

It's not as if the banks doing the lease-back will be bringing in any
private sector efficiencies like a main line ROSCO might. These trains are
completely specific to LU, so there are no potential benefits from their
being leased rather than owned.

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:08:07 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 07:06:02 -0800 (PST)
Paul Corfield wrote:
mix of internally generated surplus and govt investment grant pays for new =
train fleets. I can't recall a train fleet being "flogged off" to pay for a=
new one. It was Caroline Pidgeon who remarked that the proposal was "craz=
y" (or some similar term).

And will almost certainly cost TfL more in the long run. Whoever buys the
trains won't be doing it for the good of mankind, they'll want a long term
profit. As ever short termism rules in british government.

Yes, it's just a way of borrowing money at a significantly higher interest
rate than TfL would pay if it could offer its own bonds, or if the Treasury
funded the trains.

It's not as if the banks doing the lease-back will be bringing in any
private sector efficiencies like a main line ROSCO might. These trains are
completely specific to LU, so there are no potential benefits from their
being leased rather than owned.

Unless Island Line make an offer

In message , at 09:49:27 on Mon, 8 Jan
2018, remarked:

mix of internally generated surplus and govt investment grant pays for new =
train fleets. I can't recall a train fleet being "flogged off" to pay for a=
new one. It was Caroline Pidgeon who remarked that the proposal was "craz=
y" (or some similar term).

And will almost certainly cost TfL more in the long run. Whoever buys the
trains won't be doing it for the good of mankind, they'll want a long term
profit. As ever short termism rules in british government.

What government wants is stability (whichever political party in power
we are talking about).

Thus, raising taxes to fund those trains could result in voters making a
change at the top, which tends to cause all sorts of costly consequences
reversing earlier policy decisions.

A long term lease (which is the opposite of short-term-ism actually)
does at least make things predictable.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:13:16 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:49:27 on Mon, 8 Jan
2018, remarked:

mix of internally generated surplus and govt investment grant pays for new =
train fleets. I can't recall a train fleet being "flogged off" to pay for a=
new one. It was Caroline Pidgeon who remarked that the proposal was "craz=
y" (or some similar term).

And will almost certainly cost TfL more in the long run. Whoever buys the
trains won't be doing it for the good of mankind, they'll want a long term
profit. As ever short termism rules in british government.

What government wants is stability (whichever political party in power
we are talking about).

Thus, raising taxes to fund those trains could result in voters making a
change at the top, which tends to cause all sorts of costly consequences
reversing earlier policy decisions.

A long term lease (which is the opposite of short-term-ism actually)
does at least make things predictable.

Oh please. It'll cost a damn site more long term, its just kicking the actual
costs down the road for the next government/administration to have to explain
to the public. Its exactly the sort of moronic short term thinking that got
us the NHS PFI debarcle simply because the treasury have some pathological
aversion to any sort of direct public investment unless absolutely necessary
regardless if it'll actually be cheaper in the long run than the
keep-it-off-the-books route.

In message , at 10:35:41 on Mon, 8 Jan
2018, remarked:

mix of internally generated surplus and govt investment grant pays for new =
train fleets. I can't recall a train fleet being "flogged off" to pay for a=
new one. It was Caroline Pidgeon who remarked that the proposal was "craz=
y" (or some similar term).

And will almost certainly cost TfL more in the long run. Whoever buys the
trains won't be doing it for the good of mankind, they'll want a long term
profit. As ever short termism rules in british government.

What government wants is stability (whichever political party in power
we are talking about).

Thus, raising taxes to fund those trains could result in voters making a
change at the top, which tends to cause all sorts of costly consequences
reversing earlier policy decisions.

A long term lease (which is the opposite of short-term-ism actually)
does at least make things predictable.

Oh please. It'll cost a damn site more long term,

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising taxes
is likely to be?

its just kicking the actual costs down the road for the next
government/administration to have to explain to the public.

The thing is, they don't ever have to explain it [again]. It's nailed
into the long term (that's good isn't it) operational costs, just like
the rent for the new HQ building they are leasing rather than buying.

I don't know what the ratios are for TfL (maybe PaulC can help) but on
National Rail leasing the rolling stock represents only 11% of the fares
basket.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:35:41 on Mon, 8 Jan
2018, remarked:

mix of internally generated surplus and govt investment grant pays for new =
train fleets. I can't recall a train fleet being "flogged off" to pay for a=
new one. It was Caroline Pidgeon who remarked that the proposal was "craz=
y" (or some similar term).

And will almost certainly cost TfL more in the long run. Whoever buys the
trains won't be doing it for the good of mankind, they'll want a long term
profit. As ever short termism rules in british government.

What government wants is stability (whichever political party in power
we are talking about).

Thus, raising taxes to fund those trains could result in voters making a
change at the top, which tends to cause all sorts of costly consequences
reversing earlier policy decisions.

A long term lease (which is the opposite of short-term-ism actually)
does at least make things predictable.

Oh please. It'll cost a damn site more long term,

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising taxes
is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more cheaply,
thus ultimately reducing future taxes.


its just kicking the actual costs down the road for the next
government/administration to have to explain to the public.

The thing is, they don't ever have to explain it [again]. It's nailed
into the long term (that's good isn't it) operational costs, just like
the rent for the new HQ building they are leasing rather than buying.

Yes, but higher costs than if the government borrowed the money directly.

The whole point of this sort of obtuse deal is just to keep the borrowing
off the Treasury balance sheet.


I don't know what the ratios are for TfL (maybe PaulC can help) but on
National Rail leasing the rolling stock represents only 11% of the fares
basket.

I don't know either, but would speculate that the figure is a bit higher
for TfL as it runs many more trains per mile of track than National Rail.

On 08/01/2018 11:17, Recliner wrote:
snip


The whole point of this sort of obtuse deal is just to keep the borrowing
off the Treasury balance sheet.

Finance leases are on the balance sheet in the Whole of Government Accounts.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising taxes
is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more cheaply,
thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising taxes
is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more cheaply,
thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.