True. "They don't." would be more accurate.No is not usually an appropriate answer to a question which starts with the word how.
Do you mean:As I've said above how is the cost actually recovered (I do have my theories).
No is not usually an appropriate answer to a question which starts with the word how.
True. "They don't." would be more accurate.
Yes, well spotted. I missed the word "how" somehow and read the question as "is the cost...".
I understood that the toc claimed from network rail and then it was up to you to claim the delay repay, thus whatever wasn’t claimed turned into a nice little earner for the toc?
Is this correct?
If the fault is their own, they could find themselves paying other train companies (passenger and freight) for the delays caused to them.If the fault is their own, they don't.
...train operators receive a “schedule 8” payment from Network Rail when something goes wrong with the infrastructure, such as a points failure. It is designed to compensate them for the impact of poor performance on their revenue. It is estimated that last year train operators picked up £107m from Network Rail for delays. But how much was paid out to the customers who were the victims of these problems? Just £26m. It means the train operating companies profited by some £81m because something went wrong....
I thought this might be of interest. Perhaps Admin can let us know if the article is accurate.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/31/train-companies-pocket-millions-delays
No it isn't. That might be the theory behind it and the way the industry likes to sell it but, as someone has already stated, the reality is delays can be a nice little earner for TOCs and some have based their bids on getting a big wad from Network Rail.As has already been stated, Delay Repay is NOT related to Schedule 8 performance regimes, which are about FUTURE revenue effect.
No it isn't. That might be the theory behind it and the way the industry likes to sell it but, as someone has already stated, the reality is delays can be a nice little earner for TOCs and some have based their bids on getting a big wad from Network Rail.
As much as that may be the case, it is still nothing to do with Delay Repay.No it isn't. That might be the theory behind it and the way the industry likes to sell it but, as someone has already stated, the reality is delays can be a nice little earner for TOCs and some have based their bids on getting a big wad from Network Rail.
I believe it was National Express. Wouldn't be the first poor bit of business planning on their part. Dare say it won't be the last either.Didnt an ECML operator (National express I think but may well be wrong) base their franchise bid on an expectation of section 8 payments from network rail, which didnt happen as NR got their act together, contributing to them giving the keys back?
I thought it was the second GNER franchise, but I could be wrong.I believe it was National Express. Wouldn't be the first poor bit of business planning on their part.
Wasn't that mostly because Sea Containers went belly up? Though the reduced delay payments didn't help.I thought it was the second GNER franchise, but I could be wrong.
...it's misleading; the difference is considered by the author to be "pocketed" by TOCs, but the author does not appear to be considering that delays cannot simply be "pocketed" as there may be additional costs to an operator, including (but not limited to):I thought this might be of interest. Perhaps Admin can let us know if the article is accurate.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/31/train-companies-pocket-millions-delays
That's where pretty much all income comes from, but it doesn't answer the specific question - how is the debit on the TOC's balance sheet balanced out. The answer that you've been given several times now is: it isn't.Financial outgoings of the railways, including delay repay and other compensation, are (obviously) paid from the income of the railways. The largest sources of income for passenger railways are the fares paid by passengers and the subsidy paid by taxpayers. This is the where the money used to pay delay repay compensation comes from.
That's where pretty much all income comes from, but it doesn't answer the specific question - how is the debit on the TOC's balance sheet balanced out. The answer that you've been given several times now is: it isn't.
Yes.With respect, how can it be balanced out except against income? Delay repay is a cost, just like buying fuel or paying staff salaries. Am I missing something here?
Yes.
Not all costs are balanced out. Sometimes they are just a cost.
It is next to impossible to run extra trains at short notice so that's a non-starter. Where MUs involved and the routes allow it, it may be possible to run longer trains than originally planned. And timetable padding isn't easy either if there are any key junctions involved. An extra minute's worth of padding can be the difference between getting or not getting a path, so it's a fight between TOCs (who would love as much as they can get) and NR (who want it kept to a minimum).They may also put in place measures to mitigate delay repay, such as having staff and trains on standby to step in and minimise delays when there are problems (which is also an extra cost to be paid for, but might save money overall if it reduces compensation paid out), or padding timetables to reduce the compensation paid (which is probably free).
Nobody is denying it has an effect. We're just trying to point out that the effect isn't that great in the scheme of things - the amounts involved in delay repay pale into insignificance compared to the Schedule 8 payments to/from NR.So I would expect delay repay to have an effect on the subsidy a TOC asks for, and the fares they set. Would anyone here not expect that?
At least one (and I think two) contributors to this thread do have access to that kind of information and have probably already told you as much as they can if they want to keep their jobs.We could have a more informed discussion if we knew how much money TOCs paid out in compensation every year. Does anyone have any relevant figures?
It is next to impossible to run extra trains at short notice so that's a non-starter. Where MUs involved and the routes allow it, it may be possible to run longer trains than originally planned. And timetable padding isn't easy either if there are any key junctions involved. An extra minute's worth of padding can be the difference between getting or not getting a path, so it's a fight between TOCs (who would love as much as they can get) and NR (who want it kept to a minimum).
Nobody is denying it has an effect.
We're just trying to point out that the effect isn't that great in the scheme of things - the amounts involved in delay repay pale into insignificance compared to the Schedule 8 payments to/from NR.
At least one (and I think two) contributors to this thread do have access to that kind of information and have probably already told you as much as they can if they want to keep their jobs.
Employers in just about any industry wouldn't take kindly to employees sharing details of the organisation's finances on an Internet forum in an uncontrolled manner.
It has an effect on the TOC's bottom line. It has no quantifiable effect on fares or subsidy. As you've been told several times, they don't balance off delay repay against anything, it is just an operating expense.With respect, many posts in this thread and the one that was split from it were denying exactly that. But I'm glad we now agree that delay repay and other compensation has an effect - how large or small we can't say without some numbers.
Schedule 8 payments basically result in money being moved around the industry, it's not (in most cases) new money. So again, has very little to no impact on fares or subsidy.And where do Schedule 8 payments from NR come from? That's obviously a rhetorical question - we all know they ultimately come from passengers' fares (via the TOCs, so in scope for this thread) and subsidy from taxpayers.
It has an effect on the TOC's bottom line. It has no quantifiable effect on fares or subsidy. As you've been told several times, they don't balance off delay repay against anything, it is just an operating expense.
Schedule 8 payments basically result in money being moved around the industry, it's not (in most cases) new money. So again, has very little to no impact on fares or subsidy.
If I have £10 in one pocket and £20 in the other, I've got £30. I still have £30 if I swap the pockets, and I still have £30 if I put it all in my wallet.