Thanks. That's the total income. The test as I understand it is whether the majority of their costs are covered by the revenue generated. The accounts appear to show an operating loss of £221,673,000 for 2018/19, so it is hard to see how the test was satisfied.
Yes, my bad. I had been mixing this up with something else I was looking at recently.
It didn't pass the test in 2018/19, but that FY also included a £180k charge relating to the termination of the franchise. If we knock that off the losses, alongside the impairment of assets recorded due to the termination of the franchise (£71k), we get a "pseudo-profit" ~£29k.
I'm not an accountant nor do I work for the ONS, and I'm sure you can't just "ignore" these things, but if we're comparing finances of running (and not losing) the franchise, I think this makes sense personally?
With that £29k ""profit"", we can see the total costs are around £710k, meaning pax income covers ~51.9% of costs. In 2017/18, total costs would be ~£617k and non-franchise income was ~£344k, meaning ~55.7% of costs were covered.