http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/ews-reg29-dec_220908.pdf

Quote
RFG Press release - immediate release Thursday 25 September 2008

RFG welcomes ORR Decision on EWS Appeal on use of HS1 for freight

RFG today (25 September) welcomed the ORR Decision on the Appeal by
EWS Railway directing the Infrastructure Manager of HS1, formerly the
Channel Tunnel Rail Link, to make arrangements for the publication of
an up-to-date Network Statement for the HS1 railway that ‘includes
sufficient information to enable an operator to calculate how much it
costs to operate services on the HS1 railway.’

This is a milestone in a long running campaign by EWS Railway and RFG
to enable freight to run on the CTRL at a reasonable, and transparent,
pricing regime.

The ORR Decision summarises the complex web of ownership and
operational responsibilities for the CTRL and confirms the arguments
put forward during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
(Supplementary Provisions) Bill in the Lords earlier this year by
Lords Bradshaw and Berkeley that the only sensible way of structuring
the regulatory regime for the CTRL is include it fully as part of the
UK regulated railway.

In this Decision, the ORR has set out the complexity of the current
arrangements and listed the attempts by the Government and its wholly-
owned infrastructure manager to fix access charges so as to maximise
the sale price of the company, rather than to cover costs and
encourage the growth of traffic, in line with EU policy for national
rail infrastructure networks.

RFG Chairman Tony Berkeley commented ‘Government still wishes to
retain control and ownership of the CTRL but has failed miserably as a
regulator.  It even allowed Network Rail to be awarded a contract for
operating and maintaining the infrastructure for 80 years on a cost-
plus basis!   This apparent lack of concern about efficiency of
operation compares with the ORR’s decision on the rest of the network
than Network Rail’s costs should reduce by 50% over ten years.

‘This ORR decision confirms once again that the DfT is not the right
body to regulate the CTRL/HS1.   Its failure to require the
publication of a full Network Statement in a timely manner will delay
the introduction of rail freight on the line for several years since
no operator will commit to using it until the charges are published.
Its failure to put in place any cost control on the infrastructure
management means that trains using the line will not benefit from the
lower access charges which the ORR has specified on the rest of the UK
rail network.

‘The detailed information in the ORR Decision about the complex
structure set up by the DfT confirms our view that, in the process of
sale, all regulatory responsibilities should be transferred to the
ORR, including the setting of charges and cost ceilings, so that the
line can be regulated effectively and in full compliance with the
spirit and letter of EU and UK regulations, be operated with maximum
efficiency and with charges that the market can bear.’

Further information - RFG Chairman Tony Berkeley 07710 431 542

            RFG Director General Alan Bennett 07904 342400

Unquote

Hum ..... the ORR actually doing some RR...ng having grasped the task
from the nerveless fingers of the DfT .....

Mwmbwls  wrote:
>
<all snipped>


You asked "What's the ORR ever done for us?"

Well, it has done an awful lot.  Specifically, it has set the budget
for investment in the infrastructure at a very high level, partly as a
response to Railtrack PLC's woefully inadequate spending, and partly
as a response to a perceived lack of investment over the preceding
decades under BR.

On the one hand, the ORR's actions are leading us towards a railway
with a very modern infrastructure.  On the other hand, the ORR has
given us an extremely expensive railway, which requires massive and
unprecedented funding from the taxpayer.  The cost of all the
infrastructure renewal is such that the proportion of the costs of the
railway paid for through fares has reached an all-time low.  And that
is despite above-inflation increases in fares - some being a very long
way beyond the inflation rate.

BR was strictly cash limited and therefore had to be very cautious
about investment in infrastructure.  The result was a railway that
delivered a great deal at very low cost to passengers and the
taxpayer. 

We now have a railway that delivers more than BR, but at a massively
higher cost to both passengers and taxpayers.  

That's what the ORR has done for us.  Whether what it has done is good
or bad depends very much on your point of view.  But as for value for
money, well, it isn't.  That went out of the window in 1996.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:46:30 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Mwmbwls
 wrote this:-

>http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/ews-reg29-dec_220908.pdf
>
>Quote

>In this Decision, the ORR has set out the complexity of the current
>arrangements and listed the attempts by the Government and its wholly-
>owned infrastructure manager to fix access charges so as to maximise
>the sale price of the company, rather than to cover costs and
>encourage the growth of traffic, in line with EU policy for national
>rail infrastructure networks.

Why does the EU set such a high hurdle? EWS' road-based competitors
are not expected to cover the costs they impose on the
infrastructure.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 25 Sep, 12:27, Tony Polson  wrote:
> Mwmbwls  wrote:
>
> <all snipped>
>
> You asked "What's the ORR ever done for us?"
>
> Well, it has done an awful lot.  Specifically, it has set the budget
> for investment in the infrastructure at a very high level, partly as a
> response to Railtrack PLC's woefully inadequate spending, and partly
> as a response to a perceived lack of investment over the preceding
> decades under BR.
>
> On the one hand, the ORR's actions are leading us towards a railway
> with a very modern infrastructure.  On the other hand, the ORR has
> given us an extremely expensive railway, which requires massive and
> unprecedented funding from the taxpayer.  The cost of all the
> infrastructure renewal is such that the proportion of the costs of the
> railway paid for through fares has reached an all-time low.  And that
> is despite above-inflation increases in fares - some being a very long
> way beyond the inflation rate.
>
> BR was strictly cash limited and therefore had to be very cautious
> about investment in infrastructure.  The result was a railway that
> delivered a great deal at very low cost to passengers and the
> taxpayer.
>
> We now have a railway that delivers more than BR, but at a massively
> higher cost to both passengers and taxpayers.  
>
> That's what the ORR has done for us.  Whether what it has done is good
> or bad depends very much on your point of view.  But as for value for
> money, well, it isn't.  That went out of the window in 1996.

Note Tony's perceptive insertion of 'perceived'.before lack of
investment aka the decades of underinvestment beloved of politicians..

In the latest ORR document they point out that Network Rail is having
to fund a 'bow wave' of track  renewals caused by BR's high level of
renewals in the late 1970s early 1980s.  In the most intensive years
BR renewed 3% of the network - Network Rail is working on the basis of
2.7% a year - an assumed life of 37 years.

And the railway says it needs twice as much money (farebox plus
subsidy) as it received 20 years ago, even though train miles have
gone up by only 35%.

"Capt. Deltic"  wrote:
>
>On 25 Sep, 12:27, Tony Polson  wrote:
>> Mwmbwls  wrote:
>>
>> <all snipped>
>>
>> You asked "What's the ORR ever done for us?"
>>
>> Well, it has done an awful lot.  Specifically, it has set the budget
>> for investment in the infrastructure at a very high level, partly as a
>> response to Railtrack PLC's woefully inadequate spending, and partly
>> as a response to a perceived lack of investment over the preceding
>> decades under BR.
>>
>> On the one hand, the ORR's actions are leading us towards a railway
>> with a very modern infrastructure.  On the other hand, the ORR has
>> given us an extremely expensive railway, which requires massive and
>> unprecedented funding from the taxpayer.  The cost of all the
>> infrastructure renewal is such that the proportion of the costs of the
>> railway paid for through fares has reached an all-time low.  And that
>> is despite above-inflation increases in fares - some being a very long
>> way beyond the inflation rate.
>>
>> BR was strictly cash limited and therefore had to be very cautious
>> about investment in infrastructure.  The result was a railway that
>> delivered a great deal at very low cost to passengers and the
>> taxpayer.
>>
>> We now have a railway that delivers more than BR, but at a massively
>> higher cost to both passengers and taxpayers.  
>>
>> That's what the ORR has done for us.  Whether what it has done is good
>> or bad depends very much on your point of view.  But as for value for
>> money, well, it isn't.  That went out of the window in 1996.
>
>
>Note Tony's perceptive insertion of 'perceived'.before lack of
>investment aka the decades of underinvestment beloved of politicians..


Thanks Roger, I'm glad someone spotted that.


>In the latest ORR document they point out that Network Rail is having
>to fund a 'bow wave' of track  renewals caused by BR's high level of
>renewals in the late 1970s early 1980s.  In the most intensive years
>BR renewed 3% of the network - Network Rail is working on the basis of
>2.7% a year - an assumed life of 37 years.
>
>And the railway says it needs twice as much money (farebox plus
>subsidy) as it received 20 years ago, even though train miles have
>gone up by only 35%.


And to think privatisation was justified on the basis that the private
sector would be more efficient!  ;-)

As time goes on, it becomes even clearer that the Sectorised BR was a
paragon of efficiency, needing very low levels of public subsidy while
delivering a high quality service at very reasonable fares.

One reason for this was that, in the 1980s, BR implemented many of the
suggestions for efficiency improvements that formed the main part of
the Serpell Report.  

Serpell has been vilified for years by railway enthusiasts who have
never read his report, or have only read the part that contained
options for savings by making further closures over and above those
recommended by Beeching.  But the Serpell Committee's main work was in
researching what and how BR operated and identifying where money could
be saved. 

It is quite clear from the Serpell Report that the Committee had
little or no enthusiasm for further closures.  Their Report made it
clear that any cuts would have to be disproportionately large in
comparison to the savings that would accrue.

Instead, the Committee concentrated on what they always saw as their
primary task; helping make BR more efficient.  As a result, with some
very able BR managers in place, the 1980s were a time when BR showed
real excellence, with the InterCity Sector making a good profit under
John Prideaux (despite carrying far more than its fair share of
infrastructure costs) and Network SouthEast approaching break-even
under Chris Green.  

For all this to have been shattered into many small pieces and
franchised out to bus companies is an enduring tragedy for which we
will be paying dearly for the foreseeable future.  That's because
neither of the main political parties has the slightest idea how to
put right what the Tories broke in the 1990s.

Now, every single TOC needs a subsidy.  The headline "premium
payments" of some franchises are negated by the level of subsidy paid
directly by the Treasury to Network Rail in order to subsidise track
access charges.  The TOCs appear very profitable, yet the overall cost
to the taxpayer (and the fare paying passengers) is colossal.

The railway is broke, and there is no-one with the courage to fix it.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:b1lpd4ppgbmpgdh5nt9l7410plh21jgsd5@4ax.com...
> "Capt. Deltic"  wrote:
>>
>>On 25 Sep, 12:27, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>> Mwmbwls  wrote:
>>>
>>> <all snipped>
>>>
>>> You asked "What's the ORR ever done for us?"
>>>
>>> Well, it has done an awful lot. Specifically, it has set the budget
>>> for investment in the infrastructure at a very high level, partly as a
>>> response to Railtrack PLC's woefully inadequate spending, and partly
>>> as a response to a perceived lack of investment over the preceding
>>> decades under BR.
>>>
>>> On the one hand, the ORR's actions are leading us towards a railway
>>> with a very modern infrastructure. On the other hand, the ORR has
>>> given us an extremely expensive railway, which requires massive and
>>> unprecedented funding from the taxpayer. The cost of all the
>>> infrastructure renewal is such that the proportion of the costs of the
>>> railway paid for through fares has reached an all-time low. And that
>>> is despite above-inflation increases in fares - some being a very long
>>> way beyond the inflation rate.
>>>
>>> BR was strictly cash limited and therefore had to be very cautious
>>> about investment in infrastructure. The result was a railway that
>>> delivered a great deal at very low cost to passengers and the
>>> taxpayer.
>>>
>>> We now have a railway that delivers more than BR, but at a massively
>>> higher cost to both passengers and taxpayers.
>>>
>>> That's what the ORR has done for us. Whether what it has done is good
>>> or bad depends very much on your point of view. But as for value for
>>> money, well, it isn't. That went out of the window in 1996.
>>
>>
>>Note Tony's perceptive insertion of 'perceived'.before lack of
>>investment aka the decades of underinvestment beloved of politicians..
>
>
> Thanks Roger, I'm glad someone spotted that.
>
>
>>In the latest ORR document they point out that Network Rail is having
>>to fund a 'bow wave' of track  renewals caused by BR's high level of
>>renewals in the late 1970s early 1980s.  In the most intensive years
>>BR renewed 3% of the network - Network Rail is working on the basis of
>>2.7% a year - an assumed life of 37 years.
>>
>>And the railway says it needs twice as much money (farebox plus
>>subsidy) as it received 20 years ago, even though train miles have
>>gone up by only 35%.
>
>
> And to think privatisation was justified on the basis that the private
> sector would be more efficient!  ;-)
>
> As time goes on, it becomes even clearer that the Sectorised BR was a
> paragon of efficiency, needing very low levels of public subsidy while
> delivering a high quality service at very reasonable fares.
>
> One reason for this was that, in the 1980s, BR implemented many of the
> suggestions for efficiency improvements that formed the main part of
> the Serpell Report.
>
> Serpell has been vilified for years by railway enthusiasts who have
> never read his report, or have only read the part that contained
> options for savings by making further closures over and above those
> recommended by Beeching.  But the Serpell Committee's main work was in
> researching what and how BR operated and identifying where money could
> be saved.
>
> It is quite clear from the Serpell Report that the Committee had
> little or no enthusiasm for further closures.  Their Report made it
> clear that any cuts would have to be disproportionately large in
> comparison to the savings that would accrue.
>
> Instead, the Committee concentrated on what they always saw as their
> primary task; helping make BR more efficient.  As a result, with some
> very able BR managers in place, the 1980s were a time when BR showed
> real excellence, with the InterCity Sector making a good profit under
> John Prideaux (despite carrying far more than its fair share of
> infrastructure costs) and Network SouthEast approaching break-even
> under Chris Green.
>
> For all this to have been shattered into many small pieces and
> franchised out to bus companies is an enduring tragedy for which we
> will be paying dearly for the foreseeable future.  That's because
> neither of the main political parties has the slightest idea how to
> put right what the Tories broke in the 1990s.
>
> Now, every single TOC needs a subsidy.  The headline "premium
> payments" of some franchises are negated by the level of subsidy paid
> directly by the Treasury to Network Rail in order to subsidise track
> access charges.  The TOCs appear very profitable, yet the overall cost
> to the taxpayer (and the fare paying passengers) is colossal.
>
> The railway is broke, and there is no-one with the courage to fix it.
>
As I understand it the banks were approached to help the Privatisation, they 
advised that strict limits had to be imposed on all areas although those who 
own rolling stock should be highly paid and near totally protected with no 
limit on what they charge. No one seems to have noticed that the banks owned 
the rolling stock. They now cream off most of the 'investment'
All is not lost however; there is a leaked Government dossier that claims 
these people can order a lunch in 45 minutes and plans to bomb far away tax 
havens are under review.

Mike

"Mike Smith" <mike@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>As I understand it the banks were approached to help the Privatisation, they 
>advised that strict limits had to be imposed on all areas although those who 
>own rolling stock should be highly paid and near totally protected with no 
>limit on what they charge. No one seems to have noticed that the banks owned 
>the rolling stock. 


That's true - except they didn't own the ROSCOs at the time, but
bought them soon after privatisation.


>They now cream off most of the 'investment'
>All is not lost however; there is a leaked Government dossier that claims 
>these people can order a lunch in 45 minutes and plans to bomb far away tax 
>havens are under review.


LOL!!