Right,

Quick question - who paid for Evergreen 2? Am i right in thinking it was
Chiltern (or Chiltern's investors, or banks lending to Chiltern, or
something to that effect)? Not the government? And that presumably
Chiltern thought they could make enough from fares (and perhaps increased
subsidy) from the extra trains to cover it?

Anyone know how that's working out so far?

tom

--
I only listen to mashups of The Carpenters and ear-bleeding German gabber
-- boomaga

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
Right,

Quick question - who paid for Evergreen 2? Am i right in thinking it was
Chiltern (or Chiltern's investors, or banks lending to Chiltern, or
something to that effect)? Not the government? And that presumably
Chiltern thought they could make enough from fares (and perhaps increased
subsidy) from the extra trains to cover it?

Anyone know how that's working out so far?


Chiltern's parent company Laing paid for it to be built, but with a loan
backed by Network Rail IIRC, which meant Laing had the financial risk during
the project; and I believe when it was complete it was then transferred to
Network Rail for an agreed sum. I think it is called a 'Design, Build,
Finance and Transfer' DBFT arrangement...

There seem to have been a few false starts with new timetabling to make use
of the new capacity, though - there was a lot of correspondence with
passenger groups on their website a couple of months back...

Paul

On Fri, 11 May 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Quick question - who paid for Evergreen 2?

Chiltern's parent company Laing paid for it to be built, but with a loan
backed by Network Rail IIRC, which meant Laing had the financial risk
during the project; and I believe when it was complete it was then
transferred to Network Rail for an agreed sum. I think it is called a
'Design, Build, Finance and Transfer' DBFT arrangement...

Aha. So in effect, NR paid for it, but only after it was built, and for a
fixed price, so Laing took the risk of going over schedule and over
budget. Except a loan backed by NR sounds like if it all went (or goes?)
tits-up, they end up footing the bill anyway!

Hmm. So it doesn't really represent private sector investment in the
network. Oh - unless the amount NR paid for it was less than it (was
planned to) cost, in which case it's shared.

Anyone know how that's working out so far?

There seem to have been a few false starts with new timetabling to make
use of the new capacity, though - there was a lot of correspondence with
passenger groups on their website a couple of months back...

I know nothing about Chiltern's market, but do they think they'll be able
to pull in more passengers once this is done?

tom

--
Vive la chimie, en particulier, et la connaissance en general. --
Herve This

Tom Anderson wrote:

I know nothing about Chiltern's market, but do they think they'll be
able to pull in more passengers once this is done?

The December timetable change was the first to take advantage of completion
of the new works under Project Evergreen Phase 2 (two additional platforms
at Marylebone, plus a stabling siding to replace those being lost;
relocation of servicing facilities from adjacent to Marylebone to the new
light maintenance depot at Wembley; shortened signalling sections and
additional signalling and changes from two-aspect to three-aspect and from
three-aspect to four-aspect at various points along the route, particularly
between High Wycombe and Bicester and between Princes Risborough and
Aylesbury) but there are some tweaks to that timetable, in the light of
operating experience, being introduced next week with the summer timetable.

The changes give additional capacity at Marylebone, meaning that trains can
be at the platform for longer (eliminating many of the short turnarounds
that were annoying passengers, by only giving them five minutes or more to
sprint from the concourse to the train) and that more platforms are
available to handle trains when things go awry. The additional signalling
means that trains can run closer together, thus allowing additional trains
to be run. On many services this was becoming necessary due to the booming
number of passengers - but the infrastructure was not in place to allow
additional trains to run. From projected figures this was looking to become
a problem and Chiltern Railways, John Laing and Network Rail acted
proactively to provide the capacity - unlike in several other areas of the
country where pricing passengers away seems to be the accepted action.

At the Network SouthEast launch of the modernised Chiltern network in 1990
the line was operating a total of 89 passenger vehicles (28 two-car trains
and 11 three-car). By privatisation this had been reduced to 75 vehicles by
the transfer of 7 two-car trains to Thames Trains. Since privatisation the
transferred-out trains have returned and an additional 68 vehicles have been
added to the fleet (10 four-car trains, 9 three-car trains and the
single-car used on the peak hour services between Princes Risborough and
Aylesbury). Services have been extended on from Banbury, the former limit of
services (one train every two hours) to serve Birmingham (one train every
half-hour), Kidderminster (peak hours only) and Stratford-upon-Avon.
Passenger numbers have risen significantly over the years and show no signs
of abating, hence the need for Project Evergreen.