On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:50:25 +0100, "Lüko Willms"
wrote:

Am Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:58:28 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
auf uk.railway :

I would strongly expect that TfL is leasing them from the manufacturer
Bombardier, and no Rosco will be involved.

Your expectation was not strong enough:


------- quote -------------
31 January 2008

ANGEL TRAINS ORDERS "GREEN TRAINS" FOR THE UK RAIL MARKET

Angel Trains has placed a major order for Class 172 cars from
Bombardier Transportation's next generation 'Green Trains' for London
Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL) and Chiltern Railways. The
contract, worth approximately 33 million GBP, is for eight 2-car next
generation diesel multiple units for use on the London Overground
network and four 2-car units for Chiltern Railways.
----------- unquote ---------
full: http://www.angeltrains.com/press/release.aspx?Id=692

Sorry but this time you are incorrect. The original post referred to a
leasing arrangement for the class 378 *electric* stock and not the
diesel order.
--
Paul C

Paul Corfield wrote:

Sorry but this time you are incorrect. The original post referred to a
leasing arrangement for the class 378 *electric* stock and not the
diesel order.

As TfL made clear at the time, the reason for using the traditional RoSCo
method of acquiring stock for the Tottenham and Hampstead was so that they
wouldn't be left with a fleet of useless trains if/when the line is
eventually electrified. They could return them to the RoSCo for use
elsewhere and then acquire new electric units directly, as per the 378s.

Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:02:43 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

One could develop this further - the recent "global credit crunch"
could have led TfL to believe they're going to have a harder time
borrowing money in the future, so instead they've cashed in the ?250
million and now have it to spend on other things - and there are a
great many other projects that are yearning for that cash, perhaps
particularly so in the context of the strain that Crossrail will put
on TfL's finances.

This latter point about TfL's budget overall is the key point. There are
massive pressures post 2010 despite the recently announced government
settlement. Anything that can free up cash is sensible in that context.

Not so sure about the global credit crunch - TfL generally has a very
good rating in terms of its debt and overall financial management. There
is usually a report on this in the TfL Board Papers.
--
Paul C


TfL gets an AA credit rating of course - there's not much risk that
TfL will default on their loans. The rather ill thought through point
I was trying to make is that there might simply be less money out
there in the market to borrow - but of course in times of trouble
lenders will be especially attracted to very low risk borrowers such
as TfL.


P.S. An almost totally off topic question - should I avoid using the
pound sterling symbol "?" when posting to usenet? (I note that Paul's
post above has transferred the symbol into a "?" question mark.)

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:58:39 -0800 (PST), Mr Thant
wrote:

What alternative are you suggesting would be cheaper?

I was under the impression that the Government were putting actual
cash up, like BR would have had.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Mizter T" wrote

P.S. An almost totally off topic question - should I avoid using the
pound sterling symbol "?" when posting to usenet? (I note that Paul's
post above has transferred the symbol into a "?" question mark.)

The preferred convention is to use GBP.

Peter

On 13 Feb, 22:49, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
I was under the impression that the Government were putting actual
cash up, like BR would have had.

But how would that be cheaper? It just pushes the debt elsewhere.

And ultimately it means the cost of the debt isn't borne by TfL, which
is hardly transparent accounting.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Mizter T wrote:
P.S. An almost totally off topic question - should I avoid using the
pound sterling symbol "?" when posting to usenet? (I note that
Paul's post above has transferred the symbol into a "?" question
mark.)

I think the problem lies at your end. The post in which you wrote
"£250" was sent with (according to the headers):

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It displays correctly on my PC, and so does Paul's reply. But all the
pound signs are rendered as "?" in the post that I'm replying to. In
that one, the headers include:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

So it looks as if you've changed a setting somewhere between those two
posts.

HTH
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Mizter T wrote:

P.S. An almost totally off topic question - should I avoid using the
pound sterling symbol "?" when posting to usenet? (I note that Paul's
post above has transferred the symbol into a "?" question mark.)

Yes. I'm only seeing question marks here.

The convention i see most often is to use ISO 4217 currency codes
postnumerically; for instance, i might assert that Sir Ian Blair is bent
as a 3 UKP note.

Incidentally, should you be discussing transactions in the UIC franc,
that's XFU.

tom

--
Me ant a frend try'd to WALK the hole unterrgrand but was putting off -
sometime we saw a trane! -- Viddler Sellboe

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Mizter T wrote:

P.S. An almost totally off topic question - should I avoid using the pound
sterling symbol "?" when posting to usenet? (I note that Paul's post above
has transferred the symbol into a "?" question mark.)

Yes. I'm only seeing question marks here.

The convention i see most often is to use ISO 4217 currency codes
postnumerically; for instance, i might assert that Sir Ian Blair is bent as a
3 UKP note.

Although if i were discussing non-bent currency, that would be GBP.

*headdesk*

tom

--
Me ant a frend try'd to WALK the hole unterrgrand but was putting off -
sometime we saw a trane! -- Viddler Sellboe

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Tom Anderson wrote:
The convention i see most often is to use ISO 4217 currency codes
postnumerically; for instance, i might assert that Sir Ian Blair is
bent as a 3 UKP note.

Although if i were discussing non-bent currency, that would be GBP.

*headdesk*

Heh. Just to be clear, the ISO 4217 currency code is GBP. I usually use
the currency code before the number much as I would an analphabetic
symbol for curency.
--
Michael Hoffman