<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>

I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
Scandinavian passengers on the trains:

The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
upgrading more than 120 axel counters.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <uo0b56$d2c3$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:56:54 on Sun, 14 Jan
2024, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>
>I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>
>The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>upgrading more than 120 axel counters.

I knew a chap called Axel, but the count stopped at one.
--
Roland Perry

On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>
> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>
> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>
Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>
>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>
>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>
>Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.

It's capex, not opex, that's why.

In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>
>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>
>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>
>>Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>
>It's capex, not opex, that's why.

Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
[by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
certain number of years' opex.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 12:42:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
>Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
>><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>>
>>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>>
>>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>>
>>>Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>>investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>>likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>>
>>It's capex, not opex, that's why.
>
>Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
>[by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
>certain number of years' opex.

I suppose the key word is 'commitment', but the commitment was normally made by the DfT (in the form of Section 54
guarantees), not the TOC. Very few TOC owners stuck their necks out and acquired their own stock, or guaranteed the
leases themselves.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>>
>>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>>
>>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>>
>>> Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>> investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>> likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>>
>> It's capex, not opex, that's why.
>
> Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
> [by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
> certain number of years' opex.

Depends on the structure of the financing. My former employer, as with
many Universities, was always terrified of ongoing opex commitments.
Whenever possible on large procurements we’d pay N years maintenance up
front to turn it into capex.

The leader of our procurement team on the last project I worked on obtained
a certain budget for the project at the very highest levels of the
University. He was then informed part way through the process that, just
because the spend was budgeted for, that didn’t mean the money would
actually be available.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <htaaqidn89ganmlrt1p8dvliqgsieiraim@4ax.com>, at 13:04:44 on
Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 12:42:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
>>Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
>>><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>>>
>>>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>>>
>>>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>>>
>>>>Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>>>investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>>>likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>>>
>>>It's capex, not opex, that's why.
>>
>>Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
>>[by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
>>certain number of years' opex.
>
>I suppose the key word is 'commitment', but the commitment was normally
>made by the DfT (in the form of Section 54 guarantees),

That's a safety-net for the ROSCOs in the event that one TOC is replaced
by another.

>not the TOC. Very few TOC owners stuck their necks out and acquired
>their own stock,

Sure; that's what ROSCOs are for.

>or guaranteed the leases themselves.

While they were still solvent they did. Wasn't GNER's demise because
their parent company could no longer guarantee (amongst other things)
the leasing costs, for example.
--
Roland Perry

In message <uo3b8v$udnp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:17:19 on Mon, 15 Jan
2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>The leader of our procurement team on the last project I worked on obtained
>a certain budget for the project at the very highest levels of the
>University. He was then informed part way through the process that, just
>because the spend was budgeted for, that didn’t mean the money would
>actually be available.

A client I worked for briefly published a budget (mainly R&D) and then
turned round and said that just because my department had a budgeted
spend of X, didn't mean there were any funds available to spend. It was
in effect a PR stunt for a potential IPO.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:35:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <htaaqidn89ganmlrt1p8dvliqgsieiraim@4ax.com>, at 13:04:44 on
>Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 12:42:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
>>>Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
>>>><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>>>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>>>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>>>>investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>>>>likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>>>>
>>>>It's capex, not opex, that's why.
>>>
>>>Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
>>>[by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
>>>certain number of years' opex.
>>
>>I suppose the key word is 'commitment', but the commitment was normally
>>made by the DfT (in the form of Section 54 guarantees),
>
>That's a safety-net for the ROSCOs in the event that one TOC is replaced
>by another.

The ROSCO's won't buy the trains unless a lease for about half of their minimum expected life is guaranteed by the DfT
or some other government body. They might now demand more, following the various mass extinction events encouraged by
the DfT.

>
>>not the TOC. Very few TOC owners stuck their necks out and acquired
>>their own stock,
>
>Sure; that's what ROSCOs are for.

FirstGroup is the one exception.

>
>>or guaranteed the leases themselves.
>
>While they were still solvent they did. Wasn't GNER's demise because
>their parent company could no longer guarantee (amongst other things)
>the leasing costs, for example.

No, its commitment was to the DfT, not the ROSCOs.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uo3b8v$udnp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:17:19 on Mon, 15 Jan
> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> The leader of our procurement team on the last project I worked on obtained
>> a certain budget for the project at the very highest levels of the
>> University. He was then informed part way through the process that, just
>> because the spend was budgeted for, that didn’t mean the money would
>> actually be available.
>
> A client I worked for briefly published a budget (mainly R&D) and then
> turned round and said that just because my department had a budgeted
> spend of X, didn't mean there were any funds available to spend. It was
> in effect a PR stunt for a potential IPO.

I don’t think the University of Edinburgh is likely to be making an IPO any
time soon, BICVWBW.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <n1iaqi9f50ldpvkipj9f97rtmnui7hkugg@4ax.com>, at 15:03:04 on
Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:35:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <htaaqidn89ganmlrt1p8dvliqgsieiraim@4ax.com>, at 13:04:44 on
>>Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 12:42:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
>>>>Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
>>>>><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>>>>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>>>>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>>>>>investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>>>>>likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's capex, not opex, that's why.
>>>>
>>>>Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
>>>>[by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
>>>>certain number of years' opex.
>>>
>>>I suppose the key word is 'commitment', but the commitment was normally
>>>made by the DfT (in the form of Section 54 guarantees),
>>
>>That's a safety-net for the ROSCOs in the event that one TOC is replaced
>>by another.
>
>The ROSCO's won't buy the trains unless a lease for about half of their
>minimum expected life is guaranteed by the DfT or some other government
>body. They might now demand more, following the various mass extinction
>events encouraged by the DfT.

That's one of the (surely predictable) perils of privatising train
leasing.

>>>not the TOC. Very few TOC owners stuck their necks out and acquired
>>>their own stock,
>>
>>Sure; that's what ROSCOs are for.
>
>FirstGroup is the one exception.

Perhaps for just their Open Access services, which are outside the
franchising framework?

But even then, their stock gets recycled, for example the Hull Trains
Pioneers got cascaded to become [more] EMT Meridians. Did a ROSCO take
them under its wing, or was EMT paying leasing fees to First Group?

>>>or guaranteed the leases themselves.
>>
>>While they were still solvent they did. Wasn't GNER's demise because
>>their parent company could no longer guarantee (amongst other things)
>>the leasing costs, for example.
>
>No, its commitment was to the DfT, not the ROSCOs.

Yes, its commitment was to the DfT who could then use it to guarantee
amongst other things payments to ROSCOs.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <n1iaqi9f50ldpvkipj9f97rtmnui7hkugg@4ax.com>, at 15:03:04 on
> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:35:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <htaaqidn89ganmlrt1p8dvliqgsieiraim@4ax.com>, at 13:04:44 on
>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 12:42:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
>>>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>>>>>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>>>>>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>>>>>> investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>>>>>> likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's capex, not opex, that's why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
>>>>> [by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
>>>>> certain number of years' opex.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose the key word is 'commitment', but the commitment was normally
>>>> made by the DfT (in the form of Section 54 guarantees),
>>>
>>> That's a safety-net for the ROSCOs in the event that one TOC is replaced
>>> by another.
>>
>> The ROSCO's won't buy the trains unless a lease for about half of their
>> minimum expected life is guaranteed by the DfT or some other government
>> body. They might now demand more, following the various mass extinction
>> events encouraged by the DfT.
>
> That's one of the (surely predictable) perils of privatising train
> leasing.
>
>>>> not the TOC. Very few TOC owners stuck their necks out and acquired
>>>> their own stock,
>>>
>>> Sure; that's what ROSCOs are for.
>>
>> FirstGroup is the one exception.
>
> Perhaps for just their Open Access services, which are outside the
> franchising framework?

No, not for their open access operations. Those trains are financed by
Angel and Beacon.

>
> But even then, their stock gets recycled, for example the Hull Trains
> Pioneers got cascaded to become [more] EMT Meridians. Did a ROSCO take
> them under its wing, or was EMT paying leasing fees to First Group?
>
>>>> or guaranteed the leases themselves.
>>>
>>> While they were still solvent they did. Wasn't GNER's demise because
>>> their parent company could no longer guarantee (amongst other things)
>>> the leasing costs, for example.
>>
>> No, its commitment was to the DfT, not the ROSCOs.
>
> Yes, its commitment was to the DfT who could then use it to guarantee
> amongst other things payments to ROSCOs.

That's not the reason for Section 54 guarantees.

In message <64OpN.2340$wDMd.2033@fx07.ams1>, at 10:35:46 on Wed, 17 Jan
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <n1iaqi9f50ldpvkipj9f97rtmnui7hkugg@4ax.com>, at 15:03:04 on
>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:35:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <htaaqidn89ganmlrt1p8dvliqgsieiraim@4ax.com>, at 13:04:44 on
>>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 12:42:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
>>>>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>>>>>>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>>>>>>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>>>>>>> investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>>>>>>> likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's capex, not opex, that's why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
>>>>>> [by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
>>>>>> certain number of years' opex.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose the key word is 'commitment', but the commitment was normally
>>>>> made by the DfT (in the form of Section 54 guarantees),
>>>>
>>>> That's a safety-net for the ROSCOs in the event that one TOC is replaced
>>>> by another.
>>>
>>> The ROSCO's won't buy the trains unless a lease for about half of their
>>> minimum expected life is guaranteed by the DfT or some other government
>>> body. They might now demand more, following the various mass extinction
>>> events encouraged by the DfT.
>>
>> That's one of the (surely predictable) perils of privatising train
>> leasing.
>>
>>>>> not the TOC. Very few TOC owners stuck their necks out and acquired
>>>>> their own stock,
>>>>
>>>> Sure; that's what ROSCOs are for.
>>>
>>> FirstGroup is the one exception.
>>
>> Perhaps for just their Open Access services, which are outside the
>> franchising framework?
>
>No, not for their open access operations. Those trains are financed by
>Angel and Beacon.

Which services, then?

>> But even then, their stock gets recycled, for example the Hull Trains
>> Pioneers got cascaded to become [more] EMT Meridians. Did a ROSCO take
>> them under its wing, or was EMT paying leasing fees to First Group?
>>
>>>>> or guaranteed the leases themselves.
>>>>
>>>> While they were still solvent they did. Wasn't GNER's demise because
>>>> their parent company could no longer guarantee (amongst other things)
>>>> the leasing costs, for example.
>>>
>>> No, its commitment was to the DfT, not the ROSCOs.
>>
>> Yes, its commitment was to the DfT who could then use it to guarantee
>> amongst other things payments to ROSCOs.
>
>That's not the reason for Section 54 guarantees.

What is the reason then?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <64OpN.2340$wDMd.2033@fx07.ams1>, at 10:35:46 on Wed, 17 Jan
> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <n1iaqi9f50ldpvkipj9f97rtmnui7hkugg@4ax.com>, at 15:03:04 on
>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:35:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <htaaqidn89ganmlrt1p8dvliqgsieiraim@4ax.com>, at 13:04:44 on
>>>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 12:42:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
>>>>>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>>>>>>>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>>>>>>>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>>>>>>>> investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>>>>>>>> likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's capex, not opex, that's why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
>>>>>>> [by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
>>>>>>> certain number of years' opex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose the key word is 'commitment', but the commitment was normally
>>>>>> made by the DfT (in the form of Section 54 guarantees),
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a safety-net for the ROSCOs in the event that one TOC is replaced
>>>>> by another.
>>>>
>>>> The ROSCO's won't buy the trains unless a lease for about half of their
>>>> minimum expected life is guaranteed by the DfT or some other government
>>>> body. They might now demand more, following the various mass extinction
>>>> events encouraged by the DfT.
>>>
>>> That's one of the (surely predictable) perils of privatising train
>>> leasing.
>>>
>>>>>> not the TOC. Very few TOC owners stuck their necks out and acquired
>>>>>> their own stock,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure; that's what ROSCOs are for.
>>>>
>>>> FirstGroup is the one exception.
>>>
>>> Perhaps for just their Open Access services, which are outside the
>>> franchising framework?
>>
>> No, not for their open access operations. Those trains are financed by
>> Angel and Beacon.
>
> Which services, then?

GWR

>
>>> But even then, their stock gets recycled, for example the Hull Trains
>>> Pioneers got cascaded to become [more] EMT Meridians. Did a ROSCO take
>>> them under its wing, or was EMT paying leasing fees to First Group?
>>>
>>>>>> or guaranteed the leases themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> While they were still solvent they did. Wasn't GNER's demise because
>>>>> their parent company could no longer guarantee (amongst other things)
>>>>> the leasing costs, for example.
>>>>
>>>> No, its commitment was to the DfT, not the ROSCOs.
>>>
>>> Yes, its commitment was to the DfT who could then use it to guarantee
>>> amongst other things payments to ROSCOs.
>>
>> That's not the reason for Section 54 guarantees.
>
> What is the reason then?

Surely even you can figure it out?

In message <N8AsN.16036$x4Zc.7018@fx10.ams1>, at 21:12:13 on Thu, 25 Jan
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <64OpN.2340$wDMd.2033@fx07.ams1>, at 10:35:46 on Wed, 17 Jan
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <n1iaqi9f50ldpvkipj9f97rtmnui7hkugg@4ax.com>, at 15:03:04 on
>>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:35:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <htaaqidn89ganmlrt1p8dvliqgsieiraim@4ax.com>, at 13:04:44 on
>>>>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 12:42:57 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>><roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <gd9aqihakd32k7qe604gumh8mndgnbtt5t@4ax.com>, at 12:32:15 on
>>>>>>>> Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:14:51 +0000, Coffee
>>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2024 09:56, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67958967>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I note it involves fitting devices to count the number of male
>>>>>>>>>>> Scandinavian passengers on the trains:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The work, which has been taking place in stages since 2017, includes
>>>>>>>>>>> upgrading more than 120 axel counters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do they call the replacement of obsolete or worn out equipment as
>>>>>>>>>> investment? I'm not even sure as it counts as an improvement as it's
>>>>>>>>>> likely to be replaced in even less time than what it's replacement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's capex, not opex, that's why.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although signing a lease for a new fleet of trains is usually described
>>>>>>>> [by the TOC] as "investment", when it's really just a commitment to a
>>>>>>>> certain number of years' opex.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose the key word is 'commitment', but the commitment was normally
>>>>>>> made by the DfT (in the form of Section 54 guarantees),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a safety-net for the ROSCOs in the event that one TOC is replaced
>>>>>> by another.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ROSCO's won't buy the trains unless a lease for about half of their
>>>>> minimum expected life is guaranteed by the DfT or some other government
>>>>> body. They might now demand more, following the various mass extinction
>>>>> events encouraged by the DfT.
>>>>
>>>> That's one of the (surely predictable) perils of privatising train
>>>> leasing.
>>>>
>>>>>>> not the TOC. Very few TOC owners stuck their necks out and acquired
>>>>>>> their own stock,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure; that's what ROSCOs are for.
>>>>>
>>>>> FirstGroup is the one exception.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps for just their Open Access services, which are outside the
>>>> franchising framework?
>>>
>>> No, not for their open access operations. Those trains are financed by
>>> Angel and Beacon.
>>
>> Which services, then?
>
>GWR
>
>>
>>>> But even then, their stock gets recycled, for example the Hull Trains
>>>> Pioneers got cascaded to become [more] EMT Meridians. Did a ROSCO take
>>>> them under its wing, or was EMT paying leasing fees to First Group?
>>>>
>>>>>>> or guaranteed the leases themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While they were still solvent they did. Wasn't GNER's demise because
>>>>>> their parent company could no longer guarantee (amongst other things)
>>>>>> the leasing costs, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, its commitment was to the DfT, not the ROSCOs.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, its commitment was to the DfT who could then use it to guarantee
>>>> amongst other things payments to ROSCOs.
>>>
>>> That's not the reason for Section 54 guarantees.
>>
>> What is the reason then?
>
>Surely even you can figure it out?

Enigmatic as ever, which probably means you don't know the reason.
--
Roland Perry