https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-indicator.xls

Published today - the link leads to a spreadsheet looking at the total
subsidy per passenger mile.

I must admit, I found the right-most column the most interesting - total
operator subsidy and network grant. If this measure is used only 3 TOCs are
paying a premium. (If only operator subsidy is considered, 8 pay a
premium.)

Hope this is of interest and may spark some debate among those with a better
understanding of the process - e.g. why there are some significant outliers

x-post to UTL as many of the TOCs serve London in some shape or form.

James

"James Heaton" wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-indicator.xls

Published today - the link leads to a spreadsheet looking at the total
subsidy per passenger mile.

I must admit, I found the right-most column the most interesting - total
operator subsidy and network grant. If this measure is used only 3 TOCs
are paying a premium. (If only operator subsidy is considered, 8 pay a premium.)

Hope this is of interest and may spark some debate among those with a
better understanding of the process - e.g. why there are some significant outliers

Interesting that it now shows three, and not just one, TOC paying a bottom
line premium, and that the overall subsidy trend is steadily downward in
terms of pence/pax mile. And all three of those profitable franchises are
London commuter lines. The much lauded Chiltern is rather heavily
subsidised, though, as is the less highly rated Southeastern.

Fans of nationalisation will be pleased to see that EC is the least
subsidised intercity line, but subsidised it still is, even if less so than
Virgin, fGW and XC.

On 22/08/2013 19:45, James Heaton wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-indicator.xls


Published today - the link leads to a spreadsheet looking at the total
subsidy per passenger mile.

I must admit, I found the right-most column the most interesting - total
operator subsidy and network grant. If this measure is used only 3 TOCs
are paying a premium. (If only operator subsidy is considered, 8 pay a
premium.)

Hope this is of interest and may spark some debate among those with a
better understanding of the process - e.g. why there are some
significant outliers

x-post to UTL as many of the TOCs serve London in some shape or form.

James

Eeeek! Northern Snail does not look good.

Brian Robertson wrote:
On 22/08/2013 19:45, James Heaton wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-indicator.xls


Published today - the link leads to a spreadsheet looking at the total
subsidy per passenger mile.

I must admit, I found the right-most column the most interesting - total
operator subsidy and network grant. If this measure is used only 3 TOCs
are paying a premium. (If only operator subsidy is considered, 8 pay a
premium.)

Hope this is of interest and may spark some debate among those with a
better understanding of the process - e.g. why there are some
significant outliers

x-post to UTL as many of the TOCs serve London in some shape or form.

James

Eeeek! Northern Snail does not look good.

I think it's always that way with Northern, and Wales and Scotrail too (not
included in this list). TPE isn't great either, so merging it with Northern
isn't going to look great for either.

In essence, it looks like TOCs with few or no London services generally
perform much worse financially than those with a significant London
presence.

In article , lid
(James Heaton) wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...achment_data/f
ile/230644/rail-subsidy-indicator.xls

Published today - the link leads to a spreadsheet looking at the
total subsidy per passenger mile.

I must admit, I found the right-most column the most interesting -
total operator subsidy and network grant. If this measure is used
only 3 TOCs are paying a premium. (If only operator subsidy is
considered, 8 pay a premium.)

Hope this is of interest and may spark some debate among those with a
better understanding of the process - e.g. why there are some
significant outliers

x-post to UTL as many of the TOCs serve London in some shape or form.

Interesting. I wonder how much the Network grant covers support to freight?
"This is calculated by taking the total Network Grant, apportioned according
to each franchise’s share of fixed track access charges". That sounds to me
as if the support to freight is apportioned to passenger TOCs.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Brian Robertson wrote:

Eeeek! Northern Snail does not look good.

Merseyrail classically even worse, though as it is now locally franchised
it doesn't appear. Northern is of course skewed by having had the TPE
routes idiotically removed.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

In message , at 15:08:21
on Thu, 22 Aug 2013, remarked:
I wonder how much the Network grant covers support to freight?
"This is calculated by taking the total Network Grant, apportioned according
to each franchise’s share of fixed track access charges". That sounds to me
as if the support to freight is apportioned to passenger TOCs.

Unless "franchisee" also includes "open access operator" (either
passenger or freight).
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
15:08:21 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013, remarked:
I wonder how much the Network grant covers support to freight?
"This is calculated by taking the total Network Grant, apportioned
according to each franchise_s share of fixed track access charges". That
sounds to me as if the support to freight is apportioned to passenger
TOCs.

Unless "franchisee" also includes "open access operator" (either
passenger or freight).

Ah yes! I forgot them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel