"Paul Scott"  wrote:

>John Tattersall wrote:
>> "MIG"  wrote in message
>> news:d0981b81-2d8b-47e1-99d1-ad3e4c9d3a4a@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> It was all down to leases running out, but in a saner world, better
>>> 450 availability would have cascaded the 458s to Gatwick/Brighton and
>>> left the 442s on the route they were designed for.
>>
>> Nothing to do with better 450 availability, and the lease on all SWT
>> stock would always have expired at the end of the old franchise.
>>
>
>So you might expect, but in fact many of the leases for stock used by SWT 
>during the 'old franchise' are still extant. Have a look at the tables on 
>pages 27-29 here:
>
>http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/sswt/sswtfranchise.pdf


Would new leases have been automatically assigned at handover of the
franchise if the TOC had changed?

Tony Polson wrote:
> "Paul Scott"  wrote:
>
>> John Tattersall wrote:
>>> "MIG"  wrote in message
>>> news:d0981b81-2d8b-47e1-99d1-ad3e4c9d3a4a@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> It was all down to leases running out, but in a saner world, better
>>>> 450 availability would have cascaded the 458s to Gatwick/Brighton
>>>> and left the 442s on the route they were designed for.
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with better 450 availability, and the lease on all SWT
>>> stock would always have expired at the end of the old franchise.
>>>
>>
>> So you might expect, but in fact many of the leases for stock used
>> by SWT during the 'old franchise' are still extant. Have a look at
>> the tables on pages 27-29 here:
>>
>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/sswt/sswtfranchise.pdf
>
>
> Would new leases have been automatically assigned at handover of the
> franchise if the TOC had changed?

That is the inference of the Competition report IIRC, and probably why the 
DfT/ORR were mad to make the referral in the first place I suspect.

Paul

Paul

"Paul Scott"  wrote:
>
>Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> Would new leases have been automatically assigned at handover of the
>> franchise if the TOC had changed?
>
>That is the inference of the Competition report IIRC, and probably why the 
>DfT/ORR were mad to make the referral in the first place I suspect.


Hmmm.  Was it really wrong to refer it just because the answer is not
what DfT Rail expected?  That seems to me to prove that the decision
to refer was the right one!

In fact the referral has turned out to be **spectacularly good value**
since it appears to have demolished, once and for all, one of the
basic tenets of the privatised railway, that following the over-easy
ride the ROSCOs were given from the outset (widely admitted) they have
since abused their monopoly position to the benefit of their
shareholders and, by implication, to the disbenefit of TOCs, the
fare-paying passengers and the taxpayer.  

I can only imagine the deep discomfort felt by Ministers and many of
the civil servants at DfT, and not just at DfT Rail.  However, the
whole point of referral was to prove or disprove the deeply (and
widely) held belief that the ROSCOs were not operating in the public
interest, and the result will inform Government policy making for
years to come.

Before the referral, there wasn't a single rail journalist who would
defend the ROSCOs' position.  Their unanimous expectation was that the
ROSCOs would be adjudged to have abused their monopoly position.
Indeed, that belief was strongly held across almost the whole rail
industry - obviously excepting the ROSCOs themselves, but even they
expected some very strong criticism from the report. 

Now those very same rail journalists have turned on DfT Rail and
accused them of wasting money on the referral!

It's HUMBUG !!!! 

They should read some of their own articles in their publications'
back issues and collectively hang their heads in shame, because not
one of them called it right.  And now, like the rats of Hamelin, they
just meekly follow the piper that plays the anti-DfT Rail tune.