Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
The Liverpool City Region financed them this way because it was cheaper. Governments being able to borrow more cheaply than the private sector and no need to make a juicy margin either. They are a dedicated fleet for the region so can't easily be used outside it regardless of ownership.
|
On the contrary - their tailoring to the Merseyrail network is a direct result of their ownership by Merseytravel. It is unlikely they would have been built in a way that more or less prevents them ever being used anywhere else had the usual financing and leasing from one of the main RoSCos been used.
Buying outright is obviously cheaper than leasing in the long run but comes with its own complications, like needing a lot more money up front. Some difficult discussions have been held in Liverpool in recent years, not least of which was tackling a pretty militant local branch of the RMT, which didn’t want to lose control of opening and closing the train doors (a surprising feature of the 507s and 508s in use on Merseyside is that the passenger door controls are blanked off - they are all opened and closed by the on-board guard at every station). Merseytravel insisted at the outset that if it was to find the new trains the wage bill needed to come down, in part by ending the antiquated practice of having a guard on every train.
There are sources directly confirming concerns from within Merseytravel about RoSCo-owned trains eventually being leased elsewhere as one of the motives for direct ownership. When I have time I’ll dig one out.