EUROPE | Eurostar and Inter-country Railways

[groentje]

Wat that since the privatisation? Or before? I recall some accidents in BR-times, also caused by badly maintained track infrastructure...
IMHO, the private companies just paid for the lack of investing even long before the privatisation.

[Slartibartfas]

Originally Posted by groentje

Wat that since the privatisation? Or before? I recall some accidents in BR-times, also caused by badly maintained track infrastructure...
IMHO, the private companies just paid for the lack of investing even long before the privatisation.

You can make up your own mind. But the British railinfrastructure might be the worst in whole Western Europe. Its extremely badly maintained, and the train service as such lacks personal and financial resources.

The Private companies did little to nothing to maintain the routes. And even while doing so little they went directly towards going bankrupt.

In fact without states support for the infrastructure (I doubt a states run company could have come more expensive), the whole British railinfrastructre would be bankrupt today.

[Minato ku]

The new HSR (Toulouse Bordeaux Paris) should be private.
It would open in 2016.

[JoKo65]

One of Germany's biggest private railway companies:

http://www.hgk.de/

There is an English version as well.

[sarflonlad]

In the UK privatisation of the train companies alongside the state owned rail maintenance company has lead to some improvements. We can't expect things to change overnight but the pace of is lacklustre.

A better way to "privatise" however would have been for the state to set routes, service frequencies and ticket pricing then award private companies on operational performance. This may soon be happening on London commuter rail.

[Vertigo]

Well the privatisation of Britains railways has been a complete mess from day one.

I beg to differ. While some things have gone terribly wrong (for instance the privitazation of infrastructure as well as some individuals getting huge amounts of money from management buy-outs), I think the process as a whole was quite succesfull. There has been a huge increase in train passengers after decades of continuous decline!

[Riise]

In the UK, I know the State owns the rail maintenance company (a crown company) and the train companies are private but I haven't been able to figure out who owns the rail itself. Are the rails state owned and for hire, or free usage?

[groentje]

I believe the rail infrastructure is state owned, with "slots" the different rail companies can pay for. That's the system in most European countries (European legislation), so I wouldn't know why it would be different in the UK.

[eusebius]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

I beg to differ. While some things have gone terribly wrong (for instance the privitazation of infrastructure as well as some individuals getting huge amounts of money from management buy-outs), I think the process as a whole was quite succesfull. There has been a huge increase in train passengers after decades of continuous decline!

True, yet this partly due to London's renaissance and population growth.

[Prestonian]

Originally Posted by groentje

I believe the rail infrastructure is state owned, with "slots" the different rail companies can pay for. That's the system in most European countries (European legislation), so I wouldn't know why it would be different in the UK.

If only it were that simple!


The tracks are owned by 'Network Rail' which is a company in its own right, separate in theory to government, but it has no shares and recieves a large part of its money from the government, so you can in effect say it is a government company that owns the tracks. Railtrack is the company that it replaced and that was a wholly private company (and was a bit of a failure).

As the quote says in theory all the train operators are private companies who pay Network Rail a rent for use of a 'slot' (or path) on the railways. Except it doesn't quite work like that because slots are bundled together into franchises which operators in turn bid for, for example to run all inter-city services on the West Coast Mainline. The franchise periods normally last about 10 years so although there is no on-rail, 'direct', competition there is the threat of competition as they can lose a franchise after 10 years.

However! (yes it gets more complicated) wheras the operators used to be able to decide largely what services to run on their franchise (after a minimum requirement was met) the department for transport (ie the government) now also specifies their entire timetable. This has caused some major problems.

In addition, some routes make a profit, and when bidding for a franchise the potential operators offer the government a 'premium' for the right to run that franchise. Of course an operator that has to pay a premium invariably has to cut back in the quality of service but for GNER (an operator on the east coast mainline) the premium they offered was too high and they have since had to hand the franchise back because they could no longer afford it!

On the other side of this are loss making routes, like many commuter routes, that require a subsidy. Operators win a loss making franchise largely on the basis of who will run it for the smallest subsidy.

To complicate things a little more the operators do not own the trains they use. The trains are owned by the Rolling-Stock Operating Companies (ROSCOS) who are mostly subsidiaries of banks. Operators lease the trains from the ROSCOS but can influence the rolling stock that is bought by the ROSCOS (by providing the demand). This was to reduce the 'sunk costs' that would be faced by an operator making it easier for new entrants to enter as they didn't have to have a fleet of trains first they could rent them.

On top of all the franchises there are 'open access' operators who don't have a franchise but bid for spare paths to run extra services in competition with the franchise holder. In practice I think there is only one such licence granted.

So generally, it is way too complicated and the government, though saying it wants private involvement, interferes way too much with the private companies and greatly reduce their ability to innovate and cut costs like they are supposed to. The railways today are said to be under more day to day control of the central government than in the days of British rail.

===

I do, surprisingly, support privatisation, at least of the operations. The private operators are much better at publicising the railways (Virgin especially) and they innovate much more quickly than a rigid state monopoly would. They also, despite what i think many would tell you, try to offer a better level of customer serivce. Many of the operators problems are not of their own doing (short trains are often because the govt won't let them run longer ones or will not pay the extra cost in subsidy nor let them put up fares). I imagine things like internet ticketing, wireless internet and onboard shops with a range of things from food to books would have taken much longer to happen under British Rail. Problem today is that the government is interfering so much that they cannot do all these things anymore.

The separation of track and operations seems, though, to have been a mistake. What I think may happen in the future is the track will come under control partly of the main operator/franchisee of the route so that they will be accountable for any mistakes and face disruption to their business if they do a bad job.

There is also no strategic vision for the railways anymore. The private operators, through the franchise bidding system, are encouraged to be cheap and unambitious. They are merely hired labour to run the trains.

Overall, a mixed picture, some clear signs of the private sector doing things right, raising passenger numbers, improving rolling stock (witness the performance of the virgin pendolino in the recent crash) and taking on new routes. But also problems of responsibility and accountability being unclear and too complicated.

[DiggerD21]

The Deutsche Bahn AG (or its various sub-companies) closed some rail-lines and other companies often reopened them. Since then the punctuality, quality and ultimately the ridership of these lines rose, making them a success story.

[Salif]

Does anyone have a list of platform heights for different European countries?

I think the Belgian standard is 760mm and the French is just over 500mm (could be wrong).

[Nefast]

I don't know whether the standard platform height in Belgium is exactly 760mm. But you're probably right. However, most (older) stations in Belgium do have a lower platform height. Some stations even have both low and higher platforms. The low platforms are actually too low to step comfortably in the train, especially for older people. The high platforms are excellent, they allow you to step into train easily without requiring that one has to lift himself up to get on.
Fortunately, when a Belgian station undergoes modernisation, the platform height is usually raised as well.

[Minato ku]

Originally Posted by Salif

Does anyone have a list of platform heights for different European countries?

I think the Belgian standard is 760mm and the French is just over 500mm (could be wrong).

In France it depend the station.
Some have 500mm
Some have 1m.

[Euklidisk]

There is two standard heights set by European Union: 550 mm and 760 mm. 550 is common in France, Southern Europe and Scandinavia. 760 in Germany.

[Irish Blood English Heart]

All platforms are high (I think 760mm) in the UK, only curved stations have gaps, due to disability laws. In Eastern Europe most stations have very old fashioned ground level platforms.

[Rebasepoiss]

Originally Posted by Irish Blood English Heart

All platforms are high (I think 760mm) in the UK, only curved stations have gaps, due to disability laws. In Eastern Europe most stations have very old fashioned ground level platforms.

Yes, most EE countries have very low platforms, but then again there are also very high platforms(around 1m):

[Momo1435]

source: news.bbc.co.uk

Eurotunnel 'saved' by investors

Eurotunnel has won shareholder approval to slash the company's huge debts in a rescue plan that will secure the future of the troubled company.

The French financial regulator said 87% of investors backed the proposals which will cut debts from £6bn (8.9bn euros) to £2.84bn and create a new firm.

"Eurotunnel has been saved," group chief executive Jacques Gounon said.
» continue reading


Let's hope that this has saved Eurotunnel for a long time, it would have been strange if the tunnel would have closed down because of the bankruptcy. Such a big project just has to continue operating with all the investments in the tunnel, the CTRL and the LGV Nord.

[jkjkjk]

Why close it down? Tunnel itself is in profit (in 2006 in £ millions - revenue 568, operating costs 223), "just" profit is not enough to pay debts from construction.

[Nephasto]

Chill... nobody is going to close it.