No Deutsche state profits from Arriva and Dutch state prop up rail in Scotland

[randyrippley]

If you are a government what does it matter how much tax you pay in your own country?

matters a lot if you're paying tax - or a percentage of revenue - in another country

 

[The Ham]

matters a lot if you're paying tax - or a percentage of revenue - in another country

The point was that the company would move it's profits to a third country to avoid paying tax, the point I was making was that you'd just move it to your own country.

 

[randyrippley]

The point was that the company would move it's profits to a third country to avoid paying tax, the point I was making was that you'd just move it to your own country.

not if you were trying to maximise subsidy payments
or put money in back pockets

 

[AlterEgo]

not if you were trying to maximise subsidy payments
or put money in back pockets

Just so we have this clear - you think the Dutch State Railways, owned by the Dutch state, will be hiding its own money in the Cayman Islands.

Do we have that right?

 

[B&I]

"Anything is better than BR" was the mantra in 1993 when the process started.

'Mantra' implies religious, or quasi-religious belief, rather than rational thought and planning

 

[laseandre]

'Mantra' implies religious, or quasi-religious belief, rather than rational thought and planning

Are you trying to say the Tory obsession with privatisation was in any way rational? They'd have sold off fresh air if they thought they could've gotten away with it!

 

[B&I]

Are you trying to say the Tory obsession with privatisation was in any way rational? They'd have sold off fresh air if they thought they could've gotten away with it!

I thought I was implying the very opposite

 

[Chris M]

I am 'agnostic' about whether public or private operation is better - public operation can easily become inefficient, and is liable to greater political 'meddling', but private operation means the flow of a certain percentage of fares and subsidy to investors rather than to the operation and upgrade of the railway, plus there is the ever-present risk (which has been realised in a number of situations) of 'rip-off' fares, reducing the social utility and environmental benefit of the railways.

I find it wrong, however, that some supporters of the privatised railway conflate the success and growth of the railways over the past 20 years or so with its privatisation - as if the way the private operators ran the railway was entirely the cause. In reality, I think the fact is that the governmental purse strings have opened far more for the privatised railway than they did for a long time - if ever during BR. And increasing house prices etc. has seen commuting become ever more prevalent. Both of these are, IMO, much greater factors in the increase in revenues and usage.

That said, I similarly find it wrong how some supporters of re-nationalisation suggest that everything will be better merely through the fact that it is then publicly operated. I think the question of who manages the railway is much less important than the circumstances - financial, social, political etc. - in which it is managed.

The current structure of the railways in the UK is a mix of public and private sector, and the relative proportions of each and detail of where the boundary lies is fuzzy and has not remained constant. It's therefore incorrect to use the current set-up (as a whole) as an argument for or against either state ownership/operation or private sector ownership/operation.

 

[gsnedders]

There's also international accounting to be borne in mind. If the continental state railways are always losing money from their UK operatons it does beg the question why they are here. Charity perhaps?

Many of them are losing their monopolies in their home countries; you can view it both as gaining experience in the commercial realm and as a move to diversify in case they lose marketshare in their home country.

 

[FordFocus]

Surely Chiltern must be doing OK as they're a London commuter railway?

(sorry for the late post)

If you have a look at Companies House it appears they've posted a loss in many recent years. I guess this is awaiting the delayed Oxford upgrade. In theory profits should be forthcoming but increased track charges may hit them. A direct award is proposed.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

(sorry for the late post)

If you have a look at Companies House it appears they've posted a loss in many recent years. I guess this is awaiting the delayed Oxford upgrade. In theory profits should be forthcoming but increased track charges may hit them. A direct award is proposed.

Oxford has done really well for Chiltern in terms of patronage , (but then it leads to higher costs for operations) - as mentioned before , the slowing of commuter flows into London (a good bit of which is LUL Oyester driven on the Amersham route) , plus intense competition for the bargain basement West Midlands traffics , makes it challenging.

I only use them off peak - and am always impressed , particularly with the Oxford route - by far the most civilised way of getting there IMHO.....

 

[FordFocus]

The Bicester Village contra-peak flows are doing well I believe. Plenty of overseas visitors with money to spend on designer goods. The next stage for Chiltern is additional capacity in any potential direct award.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Don't forget that these corporations are state owned and are not owned by individuals. What would be the point?

Arriva have form in cooking their books to show a loss, with the loss only arising because of huge "management fees" being shipped off to Germany. Look at the finances of Arriva North East, for example.

No idea whether that's happened this time, but taking profit and loss accounts at face value is simplistic, shall we say.