| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
TfL rolling stock crisis
Silent Hunter wrote:
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 04:41:12 UTC, Chris Date (CMPD) wrote: Anyone know if Cex buy second hand trains for cash? https://mobile.twitter.com/Cogbat/st...52206986379264 So TfL are so hard up that they are having to "sale and lease back" an unspecified train fleet to generate £875m to pay for the new Picc Line trains. What a shambles - no capital monies. (from today's Assembly budget review mtg) That link doesn't work anymore. Yes, the tweet that Chris was quoting has apparently been deleted — I wonder why? It was from Paul Corfield, so perhaps he could enlighten us? For those who don't know, Paul was previously a senior executive in LU, and he still follows developments closely and knows how decisions are taken. Unlike the rest of us who tend to rely on hearsay and supposition, Paul actually monitors the original source documents. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 23:13:25 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Silent Hunter wrote: On Thursday, 4 January 2018 04:41:12 UTC, Chris Date (CMPD) wrote: Anyone know if Cex buy second hand trains for cash? https://mobile.twitter.com/Cogbat/st...52206986379264 So TfL are so hard up that they are having to "sale and lease back" an unspecified train fleet to generate £875m to pay for the new Picc Line trains. What a shambles - no capital monies. (from today's Assembly budget review mtg) That link doesn't work anymore. Yes, the tweet that Chris was quoting has apparently been deleted — I wonder why? It was from Paul Corfield, so perhaps he could enlighten us? For those who don't know, Paul was previously a senior executive in LU, and he still follows developments closely and knows how decisions are taken. Unlike the rest of us who tend to rely on hearsay and supposition, Paul actually monitors the original source documents. It doesn't work because I deleted it. I was a senior manager - I think "executive" is over-egging things. To be accurate I would not claim to be up to date with current decision making as the internal structure of TfL has changed considerably as have many of the people in key positions. I also think the "influence" of City Hall has changed somewhat in the current Mayoralty but that's more a "feeling" that knowledge. I simply quoted what was said at a London Assembly meeting last week where the Budget and performance Cttee were reviewing the budget for TfL. Either Caroline Pidgeon or Sian Berry queried a capital receipt of £875m in the budget. I think it was Simon Kilonback of TfL who confirmed this was a "Sale and lease back" of an unspecified train fleet. The deal is not yet concluded so there were few other details. Both Mike Brown and Val Shawcross said "this is all standard commercial practice" - which it may well be in some industries. However it is pretty exceptional for TfL where normally a 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 "crazy" (or some similar term). There is a webcast of the meeting available on line if anyone wants to sit through it. TfL's bit starts about 110 minutes in from the start. Plenty of other interesting remarks about how the budget has been cut and the impact on passengers and challenges from Assembly Members - especially on buses. -- Paul C via Google |
TfL rolling stock crisis
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. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
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. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
|
TfL rolling stock crisis
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 ;) |
TfL rolling stock crisis
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. This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing. It would be much cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly. With the best PFI deals, the greater efficiency of a private sector builder/provider/operator more than makes up for the higher interest rates they have to pay, but there's no potential for such efficiencies in a sale/leaseback deal. And because the depreciating asset has very little value to anyone other than LU, the lender has to include a risk premium. It's not like a building sale/leaseback, where the asset has an intrinsic, and possibly growing, value. At the end of the lease, the LU trains will be worth little more than scrap value, so the lease charge has to be high enough to cover their declining value. That's not true of, say, an office building. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
|
TfL rolling stock crisis
In message
-sept ember.org, at 10:36:22 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: 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. This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing. It would be much cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly. Does TfL have the powers to demand the Treasury take out such loans? With the best PFI deals, the greater efficiency of a private sector builder/provider/operator more than makes up for the higher interest rates they have to pay, but there's no potential for such efficiencies in a sale/leaseback deal. And because the depreciating asset has very little value to anyone other than LU, the lender has to include a risk premium. Are you sure this leasing deal has no penalty for early termination? It's not like a building sale/leaseback, where the asset has an intrinsic, and possibly growing, value. At the end of the lease, the LU trains will be worth little more than scrap value, The same value as to TfL, had they owned them outright, then. so the lease charge has to be high enough to cover their declining value. Which is what all leases for diminishing assets do, inherently. -- Roland Perry |
TfL rolling stock crisis
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. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
Roland Perry wrote:
In message -sept ember.org, at 10:36:22 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: 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. This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing. It would be much cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly. Does TfL have the powers to demand the Treasury take out such loans? Obviously not. With the best PFI deals, the greater efficiency of a private sector builder/provider/operator more than makes up for the higher interest rates they have to pay, but there's no potential for such efficiencies in a sale/leaseback deal. And because the depreciating asset has very little value to anyone other than LU, the lender has to include a risk premium. Are you sure this leasing deal has no penalty for early termination? I'm sure there would be, but I'm talking about what happens at the end of the lease. It's not like a building sale/leaseback, where the asset has an intrinsic, and possibly growing, value. At the end of the lease, the LU trains will be worth little more than scrap value, The same value as to TfL, had they owned them outright, then. LU could continue to use the trains if it owned them. But what would the leading company do with a fleet of usable, but ageing, trains that couldn't be used by anyone else? The only buyer at more than scrap value would be LU, but it would have all the pricing power. so the lease charge has to be high enough to cover their declining value. Which is what all leases for diminishing assets do, inherently. Over the expected life of the asset. But I'm assuming the lease is for a shorter period. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
On 08/01/2018 10:36, Recliner wrote:
snip This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing. I am long past the need to know but thought that accounting standards had now stopped such sale and leaseback deals escaping the balance sheet. I can't see TfL arguing successfully it's an operating lease. And I think IFRS16 removes even that distinction from next year for plant and machinery so TfL would have to show a “right to use the stock” asset and a "lease" liability on their balance sheet. It would be much cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly. Cheaper for TfL, yes. Whether it's cheaper for the country depends on what the bond markets decide about UK national debt. And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask why Londoners who don't should be bailed out. -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
TfL rolling stock crisis
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 |
TfL rolling stock crisis
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 |
TfL rolling stock crisis
In message
-sept ember.org, at 11:23:18 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: I'm assuming Well, there you go. -- Roland Perry |
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:10:47 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message -sept ember.org, at 11:23:18 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: I'm assuming Well, there you go. Well, it's a pretty safe assumption, and you don't have any facts, either. TfL certainly wouldn't want to commit to a lease longer than the minimum expected life of the fleet in question. The actual life is probably much longer. TfL will then be in a position to pay a much lower price for any extension lease or re-purchase -- which would cause the bank to charge more for the lease. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
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. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:24:38 +0000, Robin wrote:
On 08/01/2018 10:36, Recliner wrote: snip This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing. I am long past the need to know but thought that accounting standards had now stopped such sale and leaseback deals escaping the balance sheet. I can't see TfL arguing successfully it's an operating lease. And I think IFRS16 removes even that distinction from next year for plant and machinery so TfL would have to show a right to use the stock asset and a "lease" liability on their balance sheet. It would be much cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly. Cheaper for TfL, yes. Whether it's cheaper for the country depends on what the bond markets decide about UK national debt. And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask why Londoners who don't should be bailed out. Yes, that does the raise the question of why TfL is still freezing Tube fares when it doesn't have enough budget to renew life-expired fleets. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
In message , at 12:37:01 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: 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. But can it borrow money to prop up TfL's current account? Remember - the funds raised by the sale/leaseback are being used keep TfL going on a day to day basis. -- Roland Perry |
TfL rolling stock crisis
In message , at 12:36:17 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: I'm assuming Well, there you go. Well, it's a pretty safe assumption, and you don't have any facts, either. Come back when you have some. -- Roland Perry |
TfL rolling stock crisis
|
TfL rolling stock crisis
|
TfL rolling stock crisis
In message , at 12:38:11 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing. I am long past the need to know but thought that accounting standards had now stopped such sale and leaseback deals escaping the balance sheet. I can't see TfL arguing successfully it's an operating lease. And I think IFRS16 removes even that distinction from next year for plant and machinery so TfL would have to show a “right to use the stock” asset and a "lease" liability on their balance sheet. It would be much cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly. Cheaper for TfL, yes. Whether it's cheaper for the country depends on what the bond markets decide about UK national debt. And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask why Londoners who don't should be bailed out. Yes, that does the raise the question of why TfL is still freezing Tube fares when it doesn't have enough budget to renew life-expired fleets. Because the Mayor made it an election commitment. If he goes back on that, he may well not get re-elected, which party politics aside, will very likely cause turbulence costing more than this one-off deal's low interest rates on money to prop up day to day operations; which they can't raise as a free-standing loan because that's not how public financing works. -- Roland Perry |
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:31:36 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 12:37:01 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: 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. But can it borrow money to prop up TfL's current account? Remember - the funds raised by the sale/leaseback are being used keep TfL going on a day to day basis. No, as stated in Paul's tweet that started this thread, they're to help fund the new Piccadilly line fleet. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
|
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:32:44 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 12:36:17 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: I'm assuming Well, there you go. Well, it's a pretty safe assumption, and you don't have any facts, either. Come back when you have some. And vice versa. Not having facts or the latest publicly available information certainly doesn't stop you commenting on everything. Indeed, why did you even join this thread, as you have zero facts related to it? |
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:37:12 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 12:38:11 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing. I am long past the need to know but thought that accounting standards had now stopped such sale and leaseback deals escaping the balance sheet. I can't see TfL arguing successfully it's an operating lease. And I think IFRS16 removes even that distinction from next year for plant and machinery so TfL would have to show a right to use the stock asset and a "lease" liability on their balance sheet. It would be much cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly. Cheaper for TfL, yes. Whether it's cheaper for the country depends on what the bond markets decide about UK national debt. And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask why Londoners who don't should be bailed out. Yes, that does the raise the question of why TfL is still freezing Tube fares when it doesn't have enough budget to renew life-expired fleets. Because the Mayor made it an election commitment. If he goes back on that, he may well not get re-elected, which party politics aside, will very likely cause turbulence costing more than this one-off deal's low interest rates on money to prop up day to day operations; which they can't raise as a free-standing loan because that's not how public financing works. Again, get your facts straight: this is not to prop up day-to-day operation. I know you love speculating without facts, while pretending to know what you're talking about, but you could have at least read the tweet that started this thread. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
|
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:50:15 +0000
Recliner wrote: On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:37:12 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:38:11 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing. I am long past the need to know but thought that accounting standards had now stopped such sale and leaseback deals escaping the balance sheet. I can't see TfL arguing successfully it's an operating lease. And I think IFRS16 removes even that distinction from next year for plant and machinery so TfL would have to show a right to use the stock asset and a "lease" liability on their balance sheet. It would be much cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly. Cheaper for TfL, yes. Whether it's cheaper for the country depends on what the bond markets decide about UK national debt. And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask why Londoners who don't should be bailed out. Yes, that does the raise the question of why TfL is still freezing Tube fares when it doesn't have enough budget to renew life-expired fleets. Because the Mayor made it an election commitment. If he goes back on that, he may well not get re-elected, which party politics aside, will very likely cause turbulence costing more than this one-off deal's low interest rates on money to prop up day to day operations; which they can't raise as a free-standing loan because that's not how public financing works. Again, get your facts straight: this is not to prop up day-to-day operation. I know you love speculating without facts, while pretending to know what you're talking about, but you could have at least read the tweet that started this thread. Whatever the reason, if it this has been devised by Boris or some other Tory mayor you can gaurantee corbyn, abbot and the other usual suspects would be making hay in parliament and on TV about it. You'd be able to hear the squeals of righteous indignation from across the channel. But because its little khan golden boy there hasn't been a squeak from any of them. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
In message , at 13:43:43 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: 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. But can it borrow money to prop up TfL's current account? Remember - the funds raised by the sale/leaseback are being used keep TfL going on a day to day basis. No, as stated in Paul's tweet that started this thread, they're to help fund the new Piccadilly line fleet. As an outright purchase (which I agree would be sending money round in circles) or to pay a different set of leasing costs? -- Roland Perry |
TfL rolling stock crisis
In message , at 13:47:38 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: I'm assuming Well, there you go. Well, it's a pretty safe assumption, and you don't have any facts, either. Come back when you have some. And vice versa. Not having facts or the latest publicly available information certainly doesn't stop you commenting on everything. Everything? Really!! I don't even comment on a fraction of the postings in half of the threads in this one newsgroup, let alone the rest of the big wide world out there. You appear to have a very severe persecution complex. Indeed, why did you even join this thread, as you have zero facts related to it? My accumulated understanding of how public finance works, is not "zero facts". -- Roland Perry |
TfL rolling stock crisis
In message , at 13:50:15 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: you could have at least read the tweet that started this thread. The one which was deleted before I had a chance to. That one? -- Roland Perry |
TfL rolling stock crisis
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600, wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message -s eptember.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. But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they aren't. I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet. The issue is that would be seen as government backed as well, Increasing government debt affwcts the interest payable on it thuis raidung government spending. ALso there are many people complaining about increasing debt. See the history of BR for underinvestment due to this. What fraction of the cost of a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet be? .001? or 99%? -- Mark |
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:54:39 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 13:43:43 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: 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. But can it borrow money to prop up TfL's current account? Remember - the funds raised by the sale/leaseback are being used keep TfL going on a day to day basis. No, as stated in Paul's tweet that started this thread, they're to help fund the new Piccadilly line fleet. As an outright purchase (which I agree would be sending money round in circles) or to pay a different set of leasing costs? The old stock will be worth much less than the new, so it's presumably to part-fund the purchase of the new stock. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:02:31 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 13:50:15 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked: you could have at least read the tweet that started this thread. The one which was deleted before I had a chance to. That one? Yes, that one. Hint: Chris quoted it in his posting. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600, wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message -s eptember.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. But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they aren't. I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet. The Government don't care. They want to punish Labour for the fares freeze. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
TfL rolling stock crisis
wrote:
In article , (Recliner) wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600, wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message -s eptember.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. But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they aren't. I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet. The Government don't care. They want to punish Labour for the fares freeze. Yes, that's a very good point. |
TfL rolling stock crisis
wrote in message ... In article , (Recliner) wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600, wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message -s eptember.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. But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they aren't. I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet. The Government don't care. They want to punish Labour for the fares freeze. Hm I wonder what their plan is to win back the mayoralty in 2020 - only a 50% fare increase? tim |
TfL rolling stock crisis
On Monday, 8 January 2018 18:45:13 UTC, tim... wrote:
Hm I wonder what their plan is to win back the mayoralty in 2020 - only a 50% fare increase? tim Obviously no one knows what the politicians are planning post 2020 but TfL are assuming fares will rise by RPI after the fares freeze. I got this from them when I recently FOI-ed a load of extra data from the new Business Plan. -- Paul C via Google |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:20 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk