UK government to sell Eurostar stake before general election

[oyster]

sparkythecat said:

P-Jay said:

If they sell for £300m (which they wont) we'll kiss goodbye to £7.5m a year of profits it generates........

Eurostar generated £52.3million in profits in 2012 and £54million last year. source
As the UK government is a 40% shareholder, then surely we'll be kissing goodbye to a lot more than the £7.5 million that you suggest?

The dividend to the UK government was £7.5m a year.

[king arthur]

legzr1 said:

And when everything with any value is sold and debt elsewhere remains?

You sound like someone who would keep £1000 in a savings account when you have a credit card balance of £10,000.

Sell the stake and do something useful with the proceeds like building some houses, is what I say.

[The Don of Croy]

Listening to the reaction on the Radio 4 news, it was interesting to hear from a union spokesperson (negative - 'failed privatisation policy' etc etc) but no word from a representative of the customers (the ones who actually use it and pay for the pleasure).

No matter - it's a rail service (not infrastructure - the Canadian pension schemes have that for now) which is perhaps in better hands elsewhere, before the competition arrives...

Or should we insist HMG operates rail, air, ferry and road services too? Oh, and hovercraft.

[Bluebarge]

legzr1 said:

And when everything with any value is sold and debt elsewhere remains?

print money or issue new debt.

[Mr Whippy]

The Don of Croy said:

Listening to the reaction on the Radio 4 news, it was interesting to hear from a union spokesperson (negative - 'failed privatisation policy' etc etc) but no word from a representative of the customers (the ones who actually use it and pay for the pleasure).

No matter - it's a rail service (not infrastructure - the Canadian pension schemes have that for now) which is perhaps in better hands elsewhere, before the competition arrives...

Or should we insist HMG operates rail, air, ferry and road services too? Oh, and hovercraft.

If some other private company can come open new airports, tunnels, railways or whatever else without being forced to give up by planning regs, then yes, HMG should operate these if there is no room for competition.


All putting these businesses into private hands does is allow profiteering because there is little or no competition, and never will be.


So, privatise the Eurostar, and allow anyone to build railways and stations in the SE where they want... or don't privatise it. To do anything else is just shafting the UK public.

Dave

[Bluebarge]

Mr Whippy said:

If some other private company can come open new airports, tunnels, railways or whatever else without being forced to give up by planning regs, then yes, HMG should operate these if there is no room for competition.


All putting these businesses into private hands does is allow profiteering because there is little or no competition, and never will be.


So, privatise the Eurostar, and allow anyone to build railways and stations in the SE where they want... or don't privatise it. To do anything else is just shafting the UK public.

Dave

Erm, what?

We are talking about privatising a rail operating company. It owns trains which it runs on tracks that belong to someone else. Nothing to do with the type of infrastructure you are talking about and absolutely no need for HMG to operate this type of business. Besides, they'll need some new rolling stock soon - that won't do much for the dividend.

[Mr Whippy]

Bluebarge said:

Mr Whippy said:

If some other private company can come open new airports, tunnels, railways or whatever else without being forced to give up by planning regs, then yes, HMG should operate these if there is no room for competition.


All putting these businesses into private hands does is allow profiteering because there is little or no competition, and never will be.


So, privatise the Eurostar, and allow anyone to build railways and stations in the SE where they want... or don't privatise it. To do anything else is just shafting the UK public.

Dave

Erm, what?

We are talking about privatising a rail operating company. It owns trains which it runs on tracks that belong to someone else. Nothing to do with the type of infrastructure you are talking about and absolutely no need for HMG to operate this type of business. Besides, they'll need some new rolling stock soon - that won't do much for the dividend.

So I'm assuming there is free extra capacity for another operator to run another train service on those lines and compete with Eurostar?

I'm all for capitalism but is having Eurostar owned by society via the government so bad vs owned by society via shareholders instead?

And if the argument is that competition is good, sell it off, then where is the competition going to come from to make Eurostar better value for society?

Dave

[legzr1]

Just to add: few (if any) TOCs own the rolling stock - that's where leasing companies come in.

[Hackney]

So the job of selling off Eurostar to the lowest bidder will be put in the hands of Vince Cable's Shareholder Exec unit run by Mark Russell.

The same Mark Russell who is non-exec director of Eurostar.

The Shareholder Exec - after the Royal Mail "success" will again use UBS for the sake.

I'm sure it'll all be done in the best interest of the British taxpayer

[legzr1]

Hackney said:

So the job of selling off Eurostar to the lowest bidder will be put in the hands of Vince Cable's Shareholder Exec unit run by Mark Russell.

The same Mark Russell who is non-exec director of Eurostar.

The Shareholder Exec - after the Royal Mail "success" will again use UBS for the sake.

I'm sure it'll all be done in the best interest of the British taxpayer

I'd like to think that after the last balls-up they'd be a little more cautious.

Fingers crossed...

[Megaflow]

Mr Whippy said:

So I'm assuming there is free extra capacity for another operator to run another train service on those lines and compete with Eurostar?

I'm all for capitalism but is having Eurostar owned by society via the government so bad vs owned by society via shareholders instead?

And if the argument is that competition is good, sell it off, then where is the competition going to come from to make Eurostar better value for society?

Dave

Eurotunnel (the car transporter), cross channel ferries, budget airlines, etc.

[maffski]

Mr Whippy said:

So I'm assuming there is free extra capacity for another operator to run another train service on those lines and compete with Eurostar?

I'm all for capitalism but is having Eurostar owned by society via the government so bad vs owned by society via shareholders instead?

And if the argument is that competition is good, sell it off, then where is the competition going to come from to make Eurostar better value for society?

Dave

There is capacity. Deutsche Bahn have applied been granted a license to run through the tunnel. The trains they are going to use have been tested and the designs approved. The route from London to Frankfurt is currently planed to start in 2016.

This is the train in question: http://youtu.be/WpzUbj09mi4

[KarlMac]

legzr1 said:

Just to add: few (if any) TOCs own the rolling stock - that's where leasing companies come in.

For now. Manufacturers are skipping the ROSCOs and trying to get TOCs to buy new trains when the current lot are due for scrapping.

[Mr Whippy]

Megaflow said:

Mr Whippy said:

So I'm assuming there is free extra capacity for another operator to run another train service on those lines and compete with Eurostar?

I'm all for capitalism but is having Eurostar owned by society via the government so bad vs owned by society via shareholders instead?

And if the argument is that competition is good, sell it off, then where is the competition going to come from to make Eurostar better value for society?

Dave

Eurotunnel (the car transporter), cross channel ferries, budget airlines, etc.

While I kinda agree they all get you to Europe, they are all quite a bit different as inter-competing modes of transport go.


But as the poster above notes, there is extra capacity for a like for like competitor on the route so that is a good thing.

Why we need to privatise is another thing though.

Dave

[Prawnboy]

As it's a 40% stake isn't this effectively a privatised company anyway?

I am ready for the same story as the underselling of Royal Mail, BA, Rolls Royce, etc

must try and buy some shares this time.

[greygoose]

Prawnboy said:

As it's a 40% stake isn't this effectively a privatised company anyway?

I think the other 60% is owned by SNCF and the Belgian railways.

[legzr1]

KarlMac said:

For now. Manufacturers are skipping the ROSCOs and trying to get TOCs to buy new trains when the current lot are due for scrapping.

I'd heard the rumours but nothing definite.

If it does happen I wonder what excuse the TOCs are going to think up for some of the disgusting units currently in use.

[Mr Whippy]

Prawnboy said:

must try and buy some shares this time.

I was thinking the same, but this might not be such an obvious buy?!

Of course if it's really undervalued then ok. But if they are about to face competition with a new operator, a slowing global/euro economy so less travel, and possibly UKIP/Euro referendum slowing down Euro integration... maybe it won't be doing quite as well as we'd hope in the coming decade?


I dunno. Not everything that glitters is gold.

[KarlMac]

legzr1 said:

KarlMac said:

For now. Manufacturers are skipping the ROSCOs and trying to get TOCs to buy new trains when the current lot are due for scrapping.

I'd heard the rumours but nothing definite.

If it does happen I wonder what excuse the TOCs are going to think up for some of the disgusting units currently in use.

I've seen some plans of the refreshes/upgrades proposed for the current fleet and the interiors should look OK. The outside will still look like rattly shoe boxes though.

Traditionally older stock is sent north for scottish and trans-pennine routes, with new carriages deployed down south.

[98elise]

Mr Whippy said:

The Don of Croy said:

Listening to the reaction on the Radio 4 news, it was interesting to hear from a union spokesperson (negative - 'failed privatisation policy' etc etc) but no word from a representative of the customers (the ones who actually use it and pay for the pleasure).

No matter - it's a rail service (not infrastructure - the Canadian pension schemes have that for now) which is perhaps in better hands elsewhere, before the competition arrives...

Or should we insist HMG operates rail, air, ferry and road services too? Oh, and hovercraft.

If some other private company can come open new airports, tunnels, railways or whatever else without being forced to give up by planning regs, then yes, HMG should operate these if there is no room for competition.


All putting these businesses into private hands does is allow profiteering because there is little or no competition, and never will be.


So, privatise the Eurostar, and allow anyone to build railways and stations in the SE where they want... or don't privatise it. To do anything else is just shafting the UK public.

Dave

The government should not be running railways. Just looking at the Eurostar example, they built a temporary terminal at Waterloo with a planned lifespan of just 10 years. Rather than build something to suit a temporary station they built a very nice top spec terminal....which is now just rotting away. Very easy to do when you're spending someone else's money.

No business would have done that.