 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jim Mason
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: EARL |
 |
|
From the minutes of the last meeting of the EDINBURGH AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
One of those present was Richard Jeffrey Managing Director EAL
Regarding EARL
"Rail: The Bill is to go before the Parliament on 30th October. EAL have
three major concerns, legal protection, absence of a clear financial case
and outstanding technical issues."
Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absence of "a clear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
Jim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joe Curry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:19:29 -0000, Jim Mason
<jim.mason (AT) spamtrappedonline (DOT) co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absence of "a clear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
|
EAL is Edinburgh Airport Limited..their lack of enthusiasm for EARL
is well known..
They obviously want revenue from car parking...will they get revenue
from trains?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
Jim Mason wrote:
| Quote: | From the minutes of the last meeting of the EDINBURGH AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
One of those present was Richard Jeffrey Managing Director EAL
Regarding EARL
"Rail: The Bill is to go before the Parliament on 30th October. EAL have
three major concerns, legal protection, absence of a clear financial case
and outstanding technical issues."
Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absence of "a clear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
|
"Technical Issues?" Let's start with the River Almond, Gogar Burn, and
old mine workings. All that shale you see surrounding Turnhouse didn't
come out of thin air you know ;-)
B
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Mason
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
In article <1138124113.468001.239580 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
| Quote: |
Jim Mason wrote:
From the minutes of the last meeting of the EDINBURGH AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
One of those present was Richard Jeffrey Managing Director EAL
Regarding EARL
"Rail: The Bill is to go before the Parliament on 30th October. EAL have
three major concerns, legal protection, absence of a clear financial case
and outstanding technical issues."
Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absence of "a clear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
"Technical Issues?" Let's start with the River Almond, Gogar Burn, and
old mine workings. All that shale you see surrounding Turnhouse didn't
come out of thin air you know 
|
It would appear EAL management do not see any increase in profits due to
extra passengers that would be transported to EDI if EARL ever happened. If
the management of the airport have serious reservations about this project
then I would think it is most likely never going to happen.
A quick calculation.
EARL is costed at £500M. A ticket is predicted to cost £7.50.
I make it that EARL will need to carry 66.67M passengers before it breaks
even.
No wonder EAL have reservations about it. Have the fools who are pursuing
this REALLY looked at the economics involved here?
Jim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Curry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:59:54 -0000, Jim Mason
<jim.mason (AT) spamtrappedonline (DOT) co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | If
the management of the airport have serious reservations about this project
then I would think it is most likely never going to happen.
|
Lost of car parking revenue is 'serious' reservations? Good
grief..time for another non-monopoly owner?
| Quote: | EARL is costed at £500M. A ticket is predicted to cost £7.50.
I make it that EARL will need to carry 66.67M passengers before it breaks
even.
|
Your calculations for the Erskine Bridge and M74 extension?
| Quote: | No wonder EAL have reservations about it. Have the fools who are pursuing
this REALLY looked at the economics involved here?
|
You for one, EARL isn't just an airport link, it's part of ongoing
improvements in the UK rail network
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
Jim Mason wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1138124113.468001.239580 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
Jim Mason wrote:
From the minutes of the last meeting of the EDINBURGH AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
One of those present was Richard Jeffrey Managing Director EAL
Regarding EARL
"Rail: The Bill is to go before the Parliament on 30th October. EAL have
three major concerns, legal protection, absence of a clear financial case
and outstanding technical issues."
Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absence of "aclear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
"Technical Issues?" Let's start with the River Almond, Gogar Burn, and
old mine workings. All that shale you see surrounding Turnhouse didn't
come out of thin air you know ;-)
It would appear EAL management do not see any increase in profits due to
extra passengers that would be transported to EDI if EARL ever happened. If
the management of the airport have serious reservations about this project
then I would think it is most likely never going to happen.
A quick calculation.
EARL is costed at £500M. A ticket is predicted to cost £7.50.
I make it that EARL will need to carry 66.67M passengers before it breaks
even.
No wonder EAL have reservations about it. Have the fools who are pursuing
this REALLY looked at the economics involved here?
|
IIRC the average salary at 'EARL' was in the region of £40k pa, so I
think that the only economics they're interested in are their own and
how long their own gravy train can keep on track before it hits the
buffers..
B
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
Jim Mason wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1138124113.468001.239580 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
Jim Mason wrote:
From the minutes of the last meeting of the EDINBURGH AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
One of those present was Richard Jeffrey Managing Director EAL
Regarding EARL
"Rail: The Bill is to go before the Parliament on 30th October. EAL have
three major concerns, legal protection, absence of a clear financial case
and outstanding technical issues."
Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absence of "aclear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
"Technical Issues?" Let's start with the River Almond, Gogar Burn, and
old mine workings. All that shale you see surrounding Turnhouse didn't
come out of thin air you know ;-)
It would appear EAL management do not see any increase in profits due to
extra passengers that would be transported to EDI if EARL ever happened. If
the management of the airport have serious reservations about this project
then I would think it is most likely never going to happen.
A quick calculation.
EARL is costed at £500M. A ticket is predicted to cost £7.50.
I make it that EARL will need to carry 66.67M passengers before it breaks
even.
No wonder EAL have reservations about it. Have the fools who are pursuing
this REALLY looked at the economics involved here?
|
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1237802004
B
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Mason
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
In article <1138126360.869496.48300 (AT) g44g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
| Quote: |
Jim Mason wrote:
In article <1138124113.468001.239580 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
Jim Mason wrote:
From the minutes of the last meeting of the EDINBURGH AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
One of those present was Richard Jeffrey Managing Director EAL
Regarding EARL
"Rail: The Bill is to go before the Parliament on 30th October. EALhave
three major concerns, legal protection, absence of a clear financial case
and outstanding technical issues."
Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absence of "a clear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
"Technical Issues?" Let's start with the River Almond, Gogar Burn, and
old mine workings. All that shale you see surrounding Turnhouse didn't
come out of thin air you know ;-)
It would appear EAL management do not see any increase in profits due to
extra passengers that would be transported to EDI if EARL ever happened.. If
the management of the airport have serious reservations about this project
then I would think it is most likely never going to happen.
A quick calculation.
EARL is costed at £500M. A ticket is predicted to cost £7.50.
I make it that EARL will need to carry 66.67M passengers before it breaks
even.
No wonder EAL have reservations about it. Have the fools who are pursuing
this REALLY looked at the economics involved here?
IIRC the average salary at 'EARL' was in the region of £40k pa, so I
think that the only economics they're interested in are their own and
how long their own gravy train can keep on track before it hits the
buffers..
|
Further to above 18% - 19% of passengers are predicted to be travelling to
EDI by EARL. Assuming EDI achieves the predicted 20M passengers then that
will be 3.8M a year travelling by EARL. It will take 17 years just to break
even on the initial outlay. In reality it would take much much longer than
than that because that is assuming 20M passengers when that is the best
possible figure EDI is predicted to achieve and by 2030.
Clearly the warning signs from Sydney should be heeded. Their airport link
went into the hands of the receivers in 2000. Interestingly the EARL
project quotes the Sydney scheme as one of the example of previous schemes
in their website. It really makes you wonder how much homework they have
put in if they quoting this as an example.
It actually beggars belief this scheme is being touted as being
`profitable`.
Clearly it would never be in our lifetime.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
Jim Mason wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1138126360.869496.48300 (AT) g44g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
Jim Mason wrote:
In article <1138124113.468001.239580 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
Jim Mason wrote:
From the minutes of the last meeting of the EDINBURGH AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
One of those present was Richard Jeffrey Managing Director EAL
Regarding EARL
"Rail: The Bill is to go before the Parliament on 30th October. EAL have
three major concerns, legal protection, absence of a clear financial case
and outstanding technical issues."
Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absence of "a clear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
"Technical Issues?" Let's start with the River Almond, Gogar Burn, and
old mine workings. All that shale you see surrounding Turnhouse didn't
come out of thin air you know ;-)
It would appear EAL management do not see any increase in profits dueto
extra passengers that would be transported to EDI if EARL ever happened. If
the management of the airport have serious reservations about this project
then I would think it is most likely never going to happen.
A quick calculation.
EARL is costed at £500M. A ticket is predicted to cost £7.50.
I make it that EARL will need to carry 66.67M passengers before it breaks
even.
No wonder EAL have reservations about it. Have the fools who are pursuing
this REALLY looked at the economics involved here?
IIRC the average salary at 'EARL' was in the region of £40k pa, so I
think that the only economics they're interested in are their own and
how long their own gravy train can keep on track before it hits the
buffers..
Further to above 18% - 19% of passengers are predicted to be travelling to
EDI by EARL. Assuming EDI achieves the predicted 20M passengers then that
will be 3.8M a year travelling by EARL. It will take 17 years just to break
even on the initial outlay. In reality it would take much much longer than
than that because that is assuming 20M passengers when that is the best
possible figure EDI is predicted to achieve and by 2030.
Clearly the warning signs from Sydney should be heeded. Their airport link
went into the hands of the receivers in 2000. Interestingly the EARL
project quotes the Sydney scheme as one of the example of previous schemes
in their website. It really makes you wonder how much homework they have
put in if they quoting this as an example.
It actually beggars belief this scheme is being touted as being
`profitable`.
Clearly it would never be in our lifetime.
|
But the £7.50 ticket wouldn't be all profit surely, Interest payments,
Staff Salaries, maintenance, insurance, rolling stock etc etc would all
take their cut out of that, so if any accountants out there would like
to hazard a guess as to what proportion of profit per £7.50 pax
journey EARL would 'earn' would they let us know?
B
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
B wrote:
| Quote: | Jim Mason wrote:
In article <1138124113.468001.239580 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
Jim Mason wrote:
From the minutes of the last meeting of the EDINBURGH AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
One of those present was Richard Jeffrey Managing Director EAL
Regarding EARL
"Rail: The Bill is to go before the Parliament on 30th October. EALhave
three major concerns, legal protection, absence of a clear financial case
and outstanding technical issues."
Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absence of "a clear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
"Technical Issues?" Let's start with the River Almond, Gogar Burn, and
old mine workings. All that shale you see surrounding Turnhouse didn't
come out of thin air you know ;-)
It would appear EAL management do not see any increase in profits due to
extra passengers that would be transported to EDI if EARL ever happened.. If
the management of the airport have serious reservations about this project
then I would think it is most likely never going to happen.
A quick calculation.
EARL is costed at £500M. A ticket is predicted to cost £7.50.
I make it that EARL will need to carry 66.67M passengers before it breaks
even.
No wonder EAL have reservations about it. Have the fools who are pursuing
this REALLY looked at the economics involved here?
IIRC the average salary at 'EARL' was in the region of £40k pa, so I
think that the only economics they're interested in are their own and
how long their own gravy train can keep on track before it hits the
buffers..
|
£45k it was, and it's 'TIE' http://www.tie.ltd.uk/
B
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Curry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:27:51 -0000, Jim Mason
<jim.mason (AT) spamtrappedonline (DOT) co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | It actually beggars belief this scheme is being touted as being
`profitable`.
Clearly it would never be in our lifetime.
|
Unbelievable hypocrisy..you believe the BAA-commissioned FOAI hype
because it promoted Abbotsinch and you refuse to believe
non-BAA-commissioned experts forecast on EARL's viability because it
promotes EDI?
I suggest you subscribe solely to alt.airports.uk.glasgow, the
subscribers desperately need all the pro-Abbotsinch hype they can
get...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Mason
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
In article <1138129204.206780.262810 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
| Quote: |
Jim Mason wrote:
In article <1138126360.869496.48300 (AT) g44g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
Jim Mason wrote:
In article <1138124113.468001.239580 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
Jim Mason wrote:
From the minutes of the last meeting of the EDINBURGH AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
One of those present was Richard Jeffrey Managing Director EAL
Regarding EARL
"Rail: The Bill is to go before the Parliament on 30th October.EAL have
three major concerns, legal protection, absence of a clear financial case
and outstanding technical issues."
Can someone tell me why EAL would be saying there is an absenceof "a clear
financial case" for this project? And what are the outstanding technical
issues?
"Technical Issues?" Let's start with the River Almond, Gogar Burn, and
old mine workings. All that shale you see surrounding Turnhouse didn't
come out of thin air you know ;-)
It would appear EAL management do not see any increase in profits due to
extra passengers that would be transported to EDI if EARL ever happened. If
the management of the airport have serious reservations about this project
then I would think it is most likely never going to happen.
A quick calculation.
EARL is costed at £500M. A ticket is predicted to cost £7..50.
I make it that EARL will need to carry 66.67M passengers before it breaks
even.
No wonder EAL have reservations about it. Have the fools who are pursuing
this REALLY looked at the economics involved here?
IIRC the average salary at 'EARL' was in the region of £40k pa, so I
think that the only economics they're interested in are their own and
how long their own gravy train can keep on track before it hits the
buffers..
Further to above 18% - 19% of passengers are predicted to be travellingto
EDI by EARL. Assuming EDI achieves the predicted 20M passengers then that
will be 3.8M a year travelling by EARL. It will take 17 years just to break
even on the initial outlay. In reality it would take much much longer than
than that because that is assuming 20M passengers when that is the best
possible figure EDI is predicted to achieve and by 2030.
Clearly the warning signs from Sydney should be heeded. Their airport link
went into the hands of the receivers in 2000. Interestingly the EARL
project quotes the Sydney scheme as one of the example of previous schemes
in their website. It really makes you wonder how much homework they have
put in if they quoting this as an example.
It actually beggars belief this scheme is being touted as being
`profitable`.
Clearly it would never be in our lifetime.
But the £7.50 ticket wouldn't be all profit surely, Interest payments,
Staff Salaries, maintenance, insurance, rolling stock etc etc would all
take their cut out of that, so if any accountants out there would like
to hazard a guess as to what proportion of profit per £7.50 pax
journey EARL would 'earn' would they let us know?
|
Yes I was being simplistic assuming all of the £7.50 would be profit.
Clearly my estimate of profitability was way too optimistic. Most people
who subscribe to this group will never see this scheme making a profit in
their lifetime neither will their grandchildren in theirs.
BTW I make no predictions for the profitabilty of the proposed GLA link. At
least the authorities are honest about the fact it won't be profitable.
Jim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
| Quote: | Your calculations for the Erskine Bridge and M74 extension?
|
We talk EDI in here..
B
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Mason
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
In article <1138131216.526174.73650 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
[email]blimpie (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email] says...
| Quote: |
Your calculations for the Erskine Bridge and M74 extension?
We talk EDI in here..
|
The Erskine Bridge will make even less money soon. Tolls are proposed to be
dropped from it. Maybe it has like the Skye Bridge more than earned its
corn?
The M74 extension - unless it is a toll road - will never make a profit
because it isn't earning direct revenue. Though it will help the economy of
Scotland.
The proposed rail link to GLA will not make money either. On that basis it
is difficult to say there is a need for it but at least the scheme is
realistic if a tad overpriced at £100M.
The EARL scheme is touted as being the way to go because it will be
`profitable`. Can anybody seriously demonstrate to me how this can possibly
be the case just using the figures provided on their website and the
proposed £7.50 fare? If you can they predict a year when this will likely
to be? I will accept estimates of +/- 20 years.
Jim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Curry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:06 pm Post subject: Re: EARL |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:06:59 -0000, Jim Mason
<jim.mason (AT) spamtrappedonline (DOT) co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | BTW I make no predictions for the profitabilty of the proposed GLA link. At
least the authorities are honest about the fact it won't be profitable.
|
The authorities - ie financial experts - are predicting that EARL
will be viable.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
