"Tony Polson" wrote in message

"Paul Scott" wrote:

Er, doesn't that just make the Lloyds TSB subsidiary another Rosco?
What's the main difference?


It depends how you define a ROSCO. The accepted definition is being
one the three Rolling Stock Companies that were set up in the
mid-1990s to hold former BR rolling stock.

These three ROSCOs - Angel Trains, Eversholt Leasing and Porterbrook-
were privatised in 1996. Angel Trains was later sold to Abbey
National which later became part of the Banco Santander group.
Eversholt Leasing was sold to HSBC and became HSBC Rail. But all
three are still trading.

Other leasing companies have entered the market, but they don't tend
to be called "ROSCOs" because they were not among the original three.
The Lloyds TSB subsidiary will probably resemble a ROSCO in all but
origin - if it isn't one of the original three, it isn't a true ROSCO.

Certainly, the DaFT vendetta is only against those original three
ROSCOs, as it is convinced that they're over-charging for the leases on
the legacy BR stock they inherited. This may be partly because the
original ROSCOs were sold for a song, and the first owners therefore
paid a very low price for all that BR stock, much of which remains in
service. [As an aside, the low prices were largely because of the
Prescott threat in 1995-7 to nationalise the ROSCOs with minimal
compensation, once Labour got into power. Once in became clear that this
wasn't going to happen, the ROSCOs shot up in value and the MBO teams
retired rich.]

Of course, the current ROSCO owners all paid much higher prices when
they bought the second-hand ROSCOs, so one could argue that the
unjustified profit all went to the original ROSCO owners, and that the
current owners paid a fair market price for them. I think there's much
less dispute over the lease prices charged for new-build post-BR stock,
whether by the original ROSCOs or newer entrants to the market, as all
transactions are at market value.

"Recliner" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message

"Paul Scott" wrote:

Er, doesn't that just make the Lloyds TSB subsidiary another Rosco?
What's the main difference?


It depends how you define a ROSCO. The accepted definition is being
one the three Rolling Stock Companies that were set up in the
mid-1990s to hold former BR rolling stock.

These three ROSCOs - Angel Trains, Eversholt Leasing and Porterbrook-
were privatised in 1996. Angel Trains was later sold to Abbey
National which later became part of the Banco Santander group.
Eversholt Leasing was sold to HSBC and became HSBC Rail. But all
three are still trading.

Other leasing companies have entered the market, but they don't tend
to be called "ROSCOs" because they were not among the original three.
The Lloyds TSB subsidiary will probably resemble a ROSCO in all but
origin - if it isn't one of the original three, it isn't a true ROSCO.

Certainly, the DaFT vendetta is only against those original three
ROSCOs, as it is convinced that they're over-charging for the leases on
the legacy BR stock they inherited. This may be partly because the
original ROSCOs were sold for a song, and the first owners therefore
paid a very low price for all that BR stock, much of which remains in
service. [As an aside, the low prices were largely because of the
Prescott threat in 1995-7 to nationalise the ROSCOs with minimal
compensation, once Labour got into power. Once in became clear that this
wasn't going to happen, the ROSCOs shot up in value and the MBO teams
retired rich.]

Of course, the current ROSCO owners all paid much higher prices when
they bought the second-hand ROSCOs, so one could argue that the
unjustified profit all went to the original ROSCO owners, and that the
current owners paid a fair market price for them. I think there's much
less dispute over the lease prices charged for new-build post-BR stock,
whether by the original ROSCOs or newer entrants to the market, as all
transactions are at market value.


Yes, I would agree with all of that.

The demonising of the original three companies probably means that being
called a ROSCO is the very last thing that new entrants to the rail
leasing sector would want. ;-)

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
03:16:09 on Fri, 3 Apr 2009, remarked:
And what happens to them after the end of NXEA'a franchise? ISTR it
was only for 9 years, giving us enough grief planning the future of
Cambridge station.

Is it not the case that franchises such as FCC to Cambridge will
run until taken over by an integrated "Thameslink 2013" franchise,
by which time all the infrastructure improvements will be complete.

Bzzt! Cambridge station comes under the East Anglia franchise!

So it's being extended independently of the Thameslink 2013 project?

Yes! Do keep up at the back, Roland! This comes from the WAML project this
thread is about. Nothing to do with the Thameslink programme.

In any event, the NXEA franchise is extendable until March 2014.

I said East Anglia franchise without commenting on who holds it.

Now we are on the subject, have they done the small increases in
length of platform 1 & 4 (to 12 cars) yet?

1 yes (the fencing was removed a few weeks ago), 4 no.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Theo Markettos wrote:

In uk.railway Steve M wrote:

Sounds like an opportunity to put up the ticket prices on the Stansted
Express *even more*.

Oh how I wish the Express had a premium fare and the local from
Stratford was dirt cheap...

It does... kind of.

Off peak day return:
London-Stansted Airport: 19.50
London-Stansted Mountfitchet: 13.90
Mountfitchet-Airport: 3.10

I thought there was an easement that Mountfitchet passengers could double
back via the Airport, but I can't find it right now...

Here are more CDR prices to add to that list:
London-Audley End 15.00
Stratford-Stansted Mountfitchet 13.10
Stratford-Stansted Airport 19.80
Stratford-Audley End 19.80
Stratford-London 4.10 (or 2.20 each way with Oyster PAYG)

Starting at Liverpool Street means Audley End is the best choice since
travel via Stansted Airport is permitted, as is breaking your
journey/finishing 'early'/starting 'late'.

Starting at Stratford means you can travel to the Stansteds either
directly or via Liverpool Street. You can choose either Stansted Airport
or Audley End as your destination but NOT a London Terminals origin;
WebTIS journey planners (a la NXEC) also claim you can double back at
the Airport with a ticket to Mountfitchet but I couldn't find an
easement permitting that either.

As it happens, both Stansteds are part of the 'Stansted Group' for
routeing purposes...

In message , at 08:02:16
on Fri, 3 Apr 2009, remarked:

This comes from the WAML project this
thread is about. Nothing to do with the Thameslink programme.

Sorry, I was expecting a certain degree of joined-up-ness here.

So, the Platform 1 & 4 extensions are required for Thameslink, and the
new island platform quite separately for 12-cars to Liverpool St?

In any event, the NXEA franchise is extendable until March 2014.

I said East Anglia franchise without commenting on who holds it.

If the current franchise is extended until March 2014, won't the works
be in place?
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
08:02:16 on Fri, 3 Apr 2009,
remarked:

This comes from the WAML project this
thread is about. Nothing to do with the Thameslink programme.

Sorry, I was expecting a certain degree of joined-up-ness here.

In the privatised railway? Where have you been in the last 15 years,
Roland?!

So, the Platform 1 & 4 extensions are required for Thameslink, and
the new island platform quite separately for 12-cars to Liverpool
St?

Seems so, simply because they seem to involve processes that are totally
unrelated.

In any event, the NXEA franchise is extendable until March 2014.

I said East Anglia franchise without commenting on who holds it.

If the current franchise is extended until March 2014, won't the
works be in place?

Who knows? I wouldn't count on it. The new Stansted Express trains are due
late 2011 I think. The Thameslink programme won't be complete in 2014,
that's for sure.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
...
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:


So, the Platform 1 & 4 extensions are required for Thameslink, and
the new island platform quite separately for 12-cars to Liverpool
St?

Seems so, simply because they seem to involve processes that are totally
unrelated.

This all reminds me that south of the river there are also all sorts of 12
car platform lengthening projects in the Southern and Southeastern areas.
Again, there are also various 12 car platforms required for Thameslink
projects. As of now they haven't decided which routes Thameslink is going to
subsume, particularly the likes of Littlehampton and Guildford, persistently
showing on all the route diagrams.

I wonder if there is a known deadline for the route finalisation, ie
sometime before KO1 - 12 car at 16 tph - because they need to make decision
that soon, before the wrong platforms are accidentally lengthened...

Paul S

wrote:

The new Stansted Express trains are due
late 2011 I think.

Based on current progress, NXEA will still be waiting for some of them,
as will Southern and TfL :-)