|
grahame
|
 |
« on: December 17, 2007, 18:25:05 » |
|
Some figures from the franchise ... and some thoughts as to where fares may be going in the next seven years. Figures in the first section are from franchise plans and the journey figures may in practise be better or worse.
--------------------------------------------------------
2008 - 2009. FGW▸ Franchise subsidy per passenger journey = 0.13 pounds (82.46 million forecast passenger journeys per annum , 10.8 million pounds subsidy received.)
2015 - 2016. FGW Franchise premium per passenger journey = 2.82 pounds (110.74 million forecast passenger journeys per annum , 312.8 million pounds premium payable.)
Average journey of an FGW passenger - 44.6 miles.
--------------------------------------------------------
So ... for 2008-2009 the government is paying a subsidy of 0.3p per mile, but by 2015-2016 that will be a Train Travel Tax to the government of 6.3p per mile. On that basis, consider the following.
6.80 return, Bristol to Bath, is 30p per mile, 24 mile round trip journey. For 2008-09 that will be subsidised by 7p in total; for 2015-2016, the government will expect a payment of 190p - that's one pound 90p.
115.00 return, Chippenham to Paddington, is 57.5p per mile, 200 mile round trip. For 2008-09 that will be subsidised by 60p; for 2015-2016, the government will expect a payment of 1260p - that's twelve pounds 60p.
7.10 return, Melksham to Swindon, is 12.5p per mile, 57 mile round trip. For 2008-09 that will be subsidised by 17p; for 2015-2016, the government will expect a payment of 360p - that's three pounds 60p.
I have used fares from January in these calculations, and assumed that the subsidy or TTT (Train Travel Tax) is levied equally over all routes in the FGW area, which is probably an unfair assumption to make, as it makes TTT 50% on the Melksham to Swindon route, 28% on the Bath to Bristol run and 11% on Chippenham to London. These tax rates for the 2015-16 year.
Fares quoted are for next year, standard returns. As the franchise payments are NOT based on fares, you can consider every journey to be taxed at the amount shown no matter what the fare levels are, though of course if you're on a cheap ticket the tax RATE will be even higher.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 18:30:02 by grahame »
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2008, 18:06:14 » |
|
IT won't happen, in 7 years that's a 34% increase in Passengers numbers, Trains Are FULL, NO more stock is on line to come to FGW▸ .
Shoot a few H & S reps you could put passengers on the Roof India style like.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2008, 18:31:48 » |
|
We should get more stock when 150/1s in the west mids are displaced by 172s.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2008, 21:11:16 » |
|
We should get more stock when 150/1s in the west mids are displaced by 172s.
I believe the right pieces of paper have already been signed for us to have the 150/1's. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2008, 21:41:12 » |
|
I believe the right pieces of paper have already been signed for us to have the 150/1's.
Excellent news. Don't suppose you know how many sets by any chance? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2008, 22:25:15 » |
|
I believe the right pieces of paper have already been signed for us to have the 150/1's.
Excellent news. Don't suppose you know how many sets by any chance? Should be another 10, we have 2 already. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2008, 10:18:57 » |
|
Dont we have to wait until 2009 for the Class 150/1 units, and can FGW▸ weather the media storm up until that point?
Also, arent they meant to replace the Class 142 units, 5 of which we are due to lose in October 2008 as they are only short-leased to cover refresh?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2008, 10:34:03 » |
|
I rekon they will keep those 142s, as we ideally don't need 4 cars, but need more than 2 cars.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2008, 10:50:24 » |
|
Dont we have to wait until 2009 for the Class 150/1 units, and can FGW▸ weather the media storm up until that point?
Also, arent they meant to replace the Class 142 units, 5 of which we are due to lose in October 2008 as they are only short-leased to cover refresh?
The 150/1's are due to replace the 142's, but bear in mind that we currently have up to four units unavailiable at any one time due to refurbishments! Currently 158798, 158751, 150261 and 153305 (allegedly) are in various workshops. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2008, 11:23:28 » |
|
Dont we have to wait until 2009 for the Class 150/1 units, and can FGW▸ weather the media storm up until that point?
Also, arent they meant to replace the Class 142 units, 5 of which we are due to lose in October 2008 as they are only short-leased to cover refresh?
The 150/1's are due to replace the 142's, but bear in mind that we currently have up to four units unavailiable at any one time due to refurbishments! Currently 158798, 158751, 150261 and 153305 (allegedly) are in various workshops. So that's (in effect) 14 units coming in, 12 units going out, making a gain of 2 units compared to today. But not until 2009. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2008, 18:41:27 » |
|
Aren't the West Midlands 150/1s three car sets? If so these would be quite a gain for FGW▸ . If they are just two car then as Lee says all it would be is a gain of two sets replacing the 142s currently on loan.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shazz
|
|
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2008, 19:01:57 » |
|
i believe we're getting 8 of the 2 car sets
the 3 are staying, for now anyway
I could of coruse be wrong
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2008, 21:36:08 » |
|
Aren't the West Midlands 150/1s three car sets? If so these would be quite a gain for FGW▸ . If they are just two car then as Lee says all it would be is a gain of two sets replacing the 142s currently on loan.
Andy Mellors has said that it would be an "option at the time", all of the three car 150/1's APART from 150001/002 are hybrid units, like the 158's that Wessex ran, i.e. they have a 150/2 car in between 2 150/1 vehicles, so effectively if they were all split up then there would be a load more 150/2's availiable aswell, which would be better for FGW. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2008, 12:02:14 » |
|
Aren't the West Midlands 150/1s three car sets? If so these would be quite a gain for FGW▸ . If they are just two car then as Lee says all it would be is a gain of two sets replacing the 142s currently on loan.
London Midland currently have 14 three-coach and 10 two-coach Class 150/1 units plus 150001/002. In addition, they have 2 two-coach Class 150/2 units. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2008, 12:25:56 » |
|
Aren't the West Midlands 150/1s three car sets? If so these would be quite a gain for FGW▸ . If they are just two car then as Lee says all it would be is a gain of two sets replacing the 142s currently on loan.
London Midland currently have 14 three-coach and 10 two-coach Class 150/1 units plus 150001/002. In addition, they have 2 two-coach Class 150/2 units. If we had 001 and 002 then they cant split them into two cars! We'll heve those ones then! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
