daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 4th, 2009, 07:52 PM   #601
jayOOfoshO
Registered User
 
jayOOfoshO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,746
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
Amtrak isn't a failure. It's problems stem from chronic underfunding by the federal government.

SNCF, RENFE, and Deutsche Bahn are all public rail operators that are well run and efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by link_road_17/7 View Post
IIRC, British Rail was one of the most efficient in Europe, pre-privatisation. Investment in the network in the early 90's (at over £1billion per year) was at its highest since 1960.

BR had already started to become business 'like', by charging premium prices for premium quality on market-priced routes, bringing in funds for future investment.
ok Amtrak may be a failure because it's not funded well, I'll give you that

But guys, the French, German and Swiss (RENFE, is that Swiss?) may be well run, but that doesn't mean things can't be done better, and by better I mean at no taxpayers' expense, with improved service quality, and even some healthy price competition

Like I said in my previous posts, I dream a government owned, maintained and expanded network, with a variety of carriers buying licenses to operate on this very network. Regional/local transport can well be taken care of by local governments and/or government owned operators, but in no way must a private operator compete with a public one.

Can't you see? Once the European network will be liberalized by the EU, it'll become just like the air transport industry, with the national carriers that will be privatized, at least partly, and will compete initially on the international routes, and then on all routes.
Liberalizing of the rail transport industry might turn out even more successful than in the case of the air transport industry, since you can virtually reach any little town in Europe on rail!
jayOOfoshO no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 4th, 2009, 09:44 PM   #602
wonwiin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 184
Likes (Received): 28

RENFE is spanish.

That said it does not look like many more railways will be privatized in Europe in the next years. But private companies are already existing.
wonwiin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 4th, 2009, 10:20 PM   #603
Oscuro_XS
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayOOfoshO View Post
ok Amtrak may be a failure because it's not funded well, I'll give you that

But guys, the French, German and Swiss (RENFE, is that Swiss?) may be well run, but that doesn't mean things can't be done better, and by better I mean at no taxpayers' expense, with improved service quality, and even some healthy price competition

Like I said in my previous posts, I dream a government owned, maintained and expanded network, with a variety of carriers buying licenses to operate on this very network. Regional/local transport can well be taken care of by local governments and/or government owned operators, but in no way must a private operator compete with a public one.

Can't you see? Once the European network will be liberalized by the EU, it'll become just like the air transport industry, with the national carriers that will be privatized, at least partly, and will compete initially on the international routes, and then on all routes.
Liberalizing of the rail transport industry might turn out even more successful than in the case of the air transport industry, since you can virtually reach any little town in Europe on rail!
That's the way Spanish Railways are going to be privatised. ADIF, a state-owned company owns nearly every railway track in Spain. Then, the company who wants to use the ADIF network has to pay according its usage. Now, only RENFE can run passenger trains, altough freight trains are already liberalized, but in the future everyone will be able to compete with RENFE.
RENFE will be privatized as well. But now, RENFE cannot receive money from the government but for local or regional services. Long distance must be profitable.
Oscuro_XS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2009, 02:11 AM   #604
Republica
BUND
 
Republica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,036
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayOOfoshO View Post
But guys, the French, German and Swiss (RENFE, is that Swiss?) may be well run, but that doesn't mean things can't be done better, and by better I mean at no taxpayers' expense, with improved service quality, and even some healthy price competition
The british network uses more taxpayers money now it is privatised than when it was government owned. Granted this is partly down to labour realising that the tories had deliberately run the network into the ground, but not totally.

Quote:
Like I said in my previous posts, I dream a government owned, maintained and expanded network, with a variety of carriers buying licenses to operate on this very network. Regional/local transport can well be taken care of by local governments and/or government owned operators, but in no way must a private operator compete with a public one.
This is the current state of the british network here pretty much. It isnt working great.

Quote:
Can't you see? Once the European network will be liberalized by the EU, it'll become just like the air transport industry, with the national carriers that will be privatized, at least partly, and will compete initially on the international routes, and then on all routes.
Liberalizing of the rail transport industry might turn out even more successful than in the case of the air transport industry, since you can virtually reach any little town in Europe on rail!
There is extremely limited scope for competition on railways, but in the air there is plenty of space for a new operator. Price and quality competition just doesnt work. Its a no brainer! Theres a reason that in the UK fares have to be kept low by government and in the air they tax the hell out of people.
__________________
Rant
Republica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2009, 12:10 PM   #605
jayOOfoshO
Registered User
 
jayOOfoshO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,746
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscuro_XS View Post
That's the way Spanish Railways are going to be privatised. ADIF, a state-owned company owns nearly every railway track in Spain. Then, the company who wants to use the ADIF network has to pay according its usage. Now, only RENFE can run passenger trains, altough freight trains are already liberalized, but in the future everyone will be able to compete with RENFE.
RENFE will be privatized as well. But now, RENFE cannot receive money from the government but for local or regional services. Long distance must be profitable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Republica View Post
The british network uses more taxpayers money now it is privatised than when it was government owned. Granted this is partly down to labour realising that the tories had deliberately run the network into the ground, but not totally.



This is the current state of the british network here pretty much. It isnt working great.



There is extremely limited scope for competition on railways, but in the air there is plenty of space for a new operator. Price and quality competition just doesnt work. Its a no brainer! Theres a reason that in the UK fares have to be kept low by government and in the air they tax the hell out of people.
Ok well maybe it ain't working gratly in the UK, but once the whole European market will be liberalized, then there will be much more room for competition and improved service
jayOOfoshO no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 5th, 2009, 10:26 PM   #606
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayOOfoshO View Post




Ok well maybe it ain't working gratly in the UK, but once the whole European market will be liberalized, then there will be much more room for competition and improved service
It will be interesting to see how it works. Certainly when private commuter trains face competition from the public Tube in London, the private train can be more competitive on price. Elsewhere on the route, the story is different.

The problem with trains in general though is - most lines already are at capacity. How do you facilitate competition?
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2009, 01:52 AM   #607
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

This "competition" theory goes out of the window when you consider that most people will only have one effective way of getting from A to B. How can competition exist without choice?
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2009, 04:14 AM   #608
london24/7
Registered User
 
london24/7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayOOfoshO View Post
ok Amtrak may be a failure because it's not funded well, I'll give you that

But guys, the French, German and Swiss (RENFE, is that Swiss?) may be well run, but that doesn't mean things can't be done better, and by better I mean at no taxpayers' expense, with improved service quality, and even some healthy price competition

Like I said in my previous posts, I dream a government owned, maintained and expanded network, with a variety of carriers buying licenses to operate on this very network. Regional/local transport can well be taken care of by local governments and/or government owned operators, but in no way must a private operator compete with a public one.

Can't you see? Once the European network will be liberalized by the EU, it'll become just like the air transport industry, with the national carriers that will be privatized, at least partly, and will compete initially on the international routes, and then on all routes.
Liberalizing of the rail transport industry might turn out even more successful than in the case of the air transport industry, since you can virtually reach any little town in Europe on rail!

you say your main reason you think privatization is great is because you 'hate large government monopolies'. Obviously the US worldview of 'government = bad' has affected you because who actually runs the railways makes no difference as long as they provide comprehensive and good service while costing a reasonable amount. If private is the answer then why haven't there been loads of companies clamoring to run trains on the UK network? The government has to pay them to, in fact it has to pay them SIX TIMES what it did in a nationalizes system for a slightly improved service! wow private companies are so efficient, not. If the government maintains the infrastructure and licenses operators, why doesn't the government just run the thing itself and reinvest any profit back into the network like SNCF does with profits from the TGV lines. DB is a very successful 100% government owned company. There is no reason to suppose private companies could make a 'better' service. They are interested in making the biggest profit and often that will be very different from providing the best service.
london24/7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2009, 01:24 AM   #609
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,448
Likes (Received): 62

Rail privatization is not a panacea. Publicly run networks are quite capable of doing a good job and providing quality service. Amtrak would be far worse if privatized, and would probably cease to exist in many parts of the country, which would NOT be good.

The value of an organization or service should not be determined by its profitability, but rather by how effectively it helps people and improves quality of life.

We've seen how well de-regulation works in the U.S.- it was the reason for the collapse of the banking system last year. Only TRILLIONS of US tax dollars dollars and Euros saved it. That's usually what happens under privatization- the government has to come in and bail out the private operator that failed to provide a quality service or went bankrupt trying to do so.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2009, 01:26 AM   #610
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,448
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayOOfoshO View Post
But guys, the French, German and Swiss (RENFE, is that Swiss?) may be well run, but that doesn't mean things can't be done better, and by better I mean at no taxpayers' expense, with improved service quality, and even some healthy price competition
How would privatization make these agencies run any better? Can't these agencies find ways to improve themselves on their own, which they are constantly doing?
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2009, 01:32 PM   #611
jayOOfoshO
Registered User
 
jayOOfoshO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,746
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by london24/7 View Post
you say your main reason you think privatization is great is because you 'hate large government monopolies'. Obviously the US worldview of 'government = bad' has affected you because who actually runs the railways makes no difference as long as they provide comprehensive and good service while costing a reasonable amount. If private is the answer then why haven't there been loads of companies clamoring to run trains on the UK network? The government has to pay them to, in fact it has to pay them SIX TIMES what it did in a nationalizes system for a slightly improved service! wow private companies are so efficient, not. If the government maintains the infrastructure and licenses operators, why doesn't the government just run the thing itself and reinvest any profit back into the network like SNCF does with profits from the TGV lines. DB is a very successful 100% government owned company. There is no reason to suppose private companies could make a 'better' service. They are interested in making the biggest profit and often that will be very different from providing the best service.
Hey buddy you shouldn't be stereotypical about Americans. I lived in Italy for 15 years and I live in California now, which is not Oklahoma. So just because I advocate the liberalization and privatization of an industry doesn't mean I'm some Reagan/Private sector ultrafundamentalist.

I'm asking you to give me your perspective on how the liberalization/privatization has worked in the UK, and I'm hypothesizing a system equivalent to what Spain's will be in a few years, which seems to be different from what you guys have in the UK.

"Why does the government not run the whole thing itself, taking the profits?" It's an option, I never said it would be preposterous to do so. But why not try to liberalize the industry on those high speed - highly trafficked routes between large cities? I don't see what the problem in doing this would be, except maybe you don't like improved service and price competition?

I understand if you tell me this hasn't worked out in the UK since the government has to subsidize the industry, which I agree is BS. But what I'm advocating is a system similar to the Spanish one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
Rail privatization is not a panacea. Publicly run networks are quite capable of doing a good job and providing quality service. Amtrak would be far worse if privatized, and would probably cease to exist in many parts of the country, which would NOT be good.

The value of an organization or service should not be determined by its profitability, but rather by how effectively it helps people and improves quality of life.
Agreed. There would be no Amtrak if it weren't for the federal government, but what I'm advocating is not that the American rail industry be privatized tomorrow. That would be nuts.

What I am saying, is that the federal government should, as it seems like it wants to, build a serious high speed network. Once that's done, people learn to take the train again and the system consolidates overall, then I would argue why not liberalize and privatize the industry on these high speeds medium-long range routes?

As you may have noticed, I'm not just proposing privatization, but privatization and liberalization together! There's a huge difference.

As for the valuing the level of a service by how effectively it does good things, that'd be nice but how practically do you do that? By giving it in the hands of government? Are you really sure that's the best way to do it?
We live in a market economy, which means (if the market is well guarded) that it is the price and quality of service, not profitability as you say, that determines the value of an organization

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
We've seen how well de-regulation works in the U.S.- it was the reason for the collapse of the banking system last year. Only TRILLIONS of US tax dollars dollars and Euros saved it. That's usually what happens under privatization- the government has to come in and bail out the private operator that failed to provide a quality service or went bankrupt trying to do so.
For the record, the same type of financial mess happened in Europe as well, mostly in the UK. But that's not even the point. The point is that deregulation in the financial field has nothing to do with liberalization and privatization in the rail industry.
As for the second sentence, I don't think you're reasoning logically. Just because that has happened in the past in some cases, it doesn't mean that it is what "usually happens" as you say. Substantial progress has been achieved, for example, by privatizing and liberalizing (because again, you keep saying privatizing only, but that's not the same as privatizing and liberalizing at the same time) the TV media industry, telecoms, airlines, and so on.

You can't just say the market economy doesn't work because there have been some bailouts by governments, there are multiple factors involved. Indeed, the number one requirement in a market economy is clear and simple rules, and the whole financial mess was certainly not an example of this. This to say that the topic is a lot more complex than what you seem to think, and therefore the example of failure of the market because there has been a bailout recently is not really quite the strong argument as you may think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
How would privatization make these agencies run any better? Can't these agencies find ways to improve themselves on their own, which they are constantly doing?
What I am saying isn't that these businesses should be privatized and everything should remain the same. That is far from what I've said, you should read my previous posts.

What I have said, concerning to SNFC, DB and other European operators, is that we are, exactly as it happened in the 90's with the air travel industry, coming closer to the EU liberalizing the industry. What this means is that the TGV will be able to continue its routes that currently end in Turin and Milan to maybe Venice, Trieste, or who knows even Rome and Naples, competing against Trenitalia.

Now, at the same time, new private operators will be allowed to enter the market. Which means we will have private enterprises that will compete with state owned ones, which is going to mean that the EU, exactly as it happened with the air industry in the late 90's and early 2000's, will require state owned carriers to become largely private held in order to avoid any conflicts of interest and advantages to local national operators.

By consequence, Europe will have (on the highly trafficked corridors, at least) multiple operators competing in terms of prices and quality service. How is that bad?

How is all this bad?

The whole point about the liberalization and privatization of the industry is to let the carriers compete for traffic while they pay licenses to the states, incomes which will be spent on maintaining and expanding the network and relative infrastructure. Sure you could have large state owned operators do this, but you wouldn't have a competitive system which drives the carriers to improve themselves. Instead, you would to leave the task of improving service and prices to each European government. Are you sure you would really choose the latter? Because I don't think European governments, with the exception of Denmark and Sweden, maybe, can be trusted so much on this.
jayOOfoshO no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2009, 11:19 PM   #612
london24/7
Registered User
 
london24/7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayOOfoshO View Post
Hey buddy you shouldn't be stereotypical about Americans. I lived in Italy for 15 years and I live in California now, which is not Oklahoma. So just because I advocate the liberalization and privatization of an industry doesn't mean I'm some Reagan/Private sector ultrafundamentalist.

I'm asking you to give me your perspective on how the liberalization/privatization has worked in the UK, and I'm hypothesizing a system equivalent to what Spain's will be in a few years, which seems to be different from what you guys have in the UK.

"Why does the government not run the whole thing itself, taking the profits?" It's an option, I never said it would be preposterous to do so. But why not try to liberalize the industry on those high speed - highly trafficked routes between large cities? I don't see what the problem in doing this would be, except maybe you don't like improved service and price competition?

I understand if you tell me this hasn't worked out in the UK since the government has to subsidize the industry, which I agree is BS. But what I'm advocating is a system similar to the Spanish one.




Agreed. There would be no Amtrak if it weren't for the federal government, but what I'm advocating is not that the American rail industry be privatized tomorrow. That would be nuts.

What I am saying, is that the federal government should, as it seems like it wants to, build a serious high speed network. Once that's done, people learn to take the train again and the system consolidates overall, then I would argue why not liberalize and privatize the industry on these high speeds medium-long range routes?

As you may have noticed, I'm not just proposing privatization, but privatization and liberalization together! There's a huge difference.

As for the valuing the level of a service by how effectively it does good things, that'd be nice but how practically do you do that? By giving it in the hands of government? Are you really sure that's the best way to do it?
We live in a market economy, which means (if the market is well guarded) that it is the price and quality of service, not profitability as you say, that determines the value of an organization



For the record, the same type of financial mess happened in Europe as well, mostly in the UK. But that's not even the point. The point is that deregulation in the financial field has nothing to do with liberalization and privatization in the rail industry.
As for the second sentence, I don't think you're reasoning logically. Just because that has happened in the past in some cases, it doesn't mean that it is what "usually happens" as you say. Substantial progress has been achieved, for example, by privatizing and liberalizing (because again, you keep saying privatizing only, but that's not the same as privatizing and liberalizing at the same time) the TV media industry, telecoms, airlines, and so on.

You can't just say the market economy doesn't work because there have been some bailouts by governments, there are multiple factors involved. Indeed, the number one requirement in a market economy is clear and simple rules, and the whole financial mess was certainly not an example of this. This to say that the topic is a lot more complex than what you seem to think, and therefore the example of failure of the market because there has been a bailout recently is not really quite the strong argument as you may think.



What I am saying isn't that these businesses should be privatized and everything should remain the same. That is far from what I've said, you should read my previous posts.

What I have said, concerning to SNFC, DB and other European operators, is that we are, exactly as it happened in the 90's with the air travel industry, coming closer to the EU liberalizing the industry. What this means is that the TGV will be able to continue its routes that currently end in Turin and Milan to maybe Venice, Trieste, or who knows even Rome and Naples, competing against Trenitalia.

Now, at the same time, new private operators will be allowed to enter the market. Which means we will have private enterprises that will compete with state owned ones, which is going to mean that the EU, exactly as it happened with the air industry in the late 90's and early 2000's, will require state owned carriers to become largely private held in order to avoid any conflicts of interest and advantages to local national operators.

By consequence, Europe will have (on the highly trafficked corridors, at least) multiple operators competing in terms of prices and quality service. How is that bad?

How is all this bad?

The whole point about the liberalization and privatization of the industry is to let the carriers compete for traffic while they pay licenses to the states, incomes which will be spent on maintaining and expanding the network and relative infrastructure. Sure you could have large state owned operators do this, but you wouldn't have a competitive system which drives the carriers to improve themselves. Instead, you would to leave the task of improving service and prices to each European government. Are you sure you would really choose the latter? Because I don't think European governments, with the exception of Denmark and Sweden, maybe, can be trusted so much on this.

Well frankly it is ridiculous to say that some governments can be 'trusted' more than others to run/operate the network, and i don't know why you have chosen those scandanavian countries, for instance our government infrastructure owner Network Rail (UK) works far better than the private predeccesor, and the french government is obviously perfectly capable of operating infrastructure and i know you think the french are always on strike but seriously its like once a year, the rest of the time it works great. Also i notice you have left Desutch Bundesbahn off the list, which i believe is currently third or forth largest logistics company in the world, that is a 100% GOVERNMENT OWNED company makin millions of euros it can spend on unprofitable but neccesary rail services.

But this is quite besides the point because you think that both deregulation and privatization should be pursued. Deregulation, or the relaxing of rules on who can run services. has resulted in the low cost flight industry and could potentially result in new cheaper services on the HS lines (which I don't think companies could do cheaper than SNCF/AVE etc but they are welcome to try), in fact this is already happening in 2011 i think when the european rail traffic directive comes into effect). Most seem to be agreed that deregulation may be a good thing.

But you go on to say that state companies should be privatized. Why? There's no need for it! If other companies think they can run a profitable service to compete with the state then they can try. But why would the state pay companies to run unprofitable services, that is to pay for the running costs and then ALSO pay for that company to make a profit! There is no reason to think it would be cheaper because there is no market operating! Private companies produce cheaper things in a competitve environment. Why would a contractor be any cheaper than the government where there is no market? And, if the state can run profitable services, why shouldn't it be allowed to do so and cross subsidise it's unprofitable services? If you say that the profitable HS operations should be privatized then you are privatizing the profit but nationalizing the cost of the unprofitable but socially neccesary services.

So perhaps i was stereotyping but you seem to think that private companies paid by the state would run things better when they are not competing with anyone. They are guaranteed a profit by the state - why would they need to become more efficient? That is the "private is best" dogma that i am talking about.
london24/7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2009, 06:35 PM   #613
jayOOfoshO
Registered User
 
jayOOfoshO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,746
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by london24/7 View Post
Well frankly it is ridiculous to say that some governments can be 'trusted' more than others to run/operate the network, and i don't know why you have chosen those scandanavian countries, for instance our government infrastructure owner Network Rail (UK) works far better than the private predeccesor, and the french government is obviously perfectly capable of operating infrastructure and i know you think the french are always on strike but seriously its like once a year, the rest of the time it works great. Also i notice you have left Desutch Bundesbahn off the list, which i believe is currently third or forth largest logistics company in the world, that is a 100% GOVERNMENT OWNED company makin millions of euros it can spend on unprofitable but neccesary rail services.

But this is quite besides the point because you think that both deregulation and privatization should be pursued. Deregulation, or the relaxing of rules on who can run services. has resulted in the low cost flight industry and could potentially result in new cheaper services on the HS lines (which I don't think companies could do cheaper than SNCF/AVE etc but they are welcome to try), in fact this is already happening in 2011 i think when the european rail traffic directive comes into effect). Most seem to be agreed that deregulation may be a good thing.

But you go on to say that state companies should be privatized. Why? There's no need for it! If other companies think they can run a profitable service to compete with the state then they can try. But why would the state pay companies to run unprofitable services, that is to pay for the running costs and then ALSO pay for that company to make a profit! There is no reason to think it would be cheaper because there is no market operating! Private companies produce cheaper things in a competitve environment. Why would a contractor be any cheaper than the government where there is no market? And, if the state can run profitable services, why shouldn't it be allowed to do so and cross subsidise it's unprofitable services? If you say that the profitable HS operations should be privatized then you are privatizing the profit but nationalizing the cost of the unprofitable but socially neccesary services.

So perhaps i was stereotyping but you seem to think that private companies paid by the state would run things better when they are not competing with anyone. They are guaranteed a profit by the state - why would they need to become more efficient? That is the "private is best" dogma that i am talking about.
Dude I'm right into finals so I don't have much time to argue and I hope we'll be able to continue this conversation when I'm done next week but let me just make a few points:

- You continue to imply that because I'm an American I believe that all government is bad. That is not what I said. I said that I don't trust any government to run an industry better than a well regulated and competitive market can. I am not innately suspicious of governments and I don't keep a gun in my closet in case the Queen wants to take over... but I do believe that governments and bureaucratic entities are in a wide majority of cases not incentivated to work at top level because of the fact that they are bureaucracies that are not bound to meet their objectives of price and service quality as any privately held business entity that seeks to make a profit.
You went on to say that I believe the French are always on strike, and that just shows your prejudice against us Americans as people that don't know anything and make judgments solely based on stereotype (as in this case "the French didn't help us in the war in Iraq so they're bad" kind of thing...). Stop being prejudicial, you clearly have a superiority complex and therefore you think all Americans are dumb, but really it is you who, by judging us in such prejudicial manner, show lack of judgement and ignorance. PLEASE no more implicit "Americans don't know anything".

- On the point that DB and SNFC (I'm pretty sure I mentioned DB in my previous post somewhere by the way, but I might be wrong, but that really is irrelevant to the point I was trying to get across) are run efficiently, I do not disagree on that, just like I didn't agree that Amtrak should be privatized tomorrow.
I do not fail to see the necessity of Amtrak of being public owned, or the efficiencies of DB and SNFC. But what I am saying is that I believe things could be done even better

- You mention all these well run government companies as demonstration that state ownership in the industry is good: I'd like to point out to you that there are failure stories as well, such as Trenitalia or even the same Amtrak (though I do not say, like I explained already, that it should be privatized tomorrow).

- I'm glad you agree with me on what you call deregulation (you do, right? I didn't quite understand if you did), which really seems to be equivalent to what I call liberalization, or the allowing private firms to enter the market. Now for the record, liberalization and deregulation are not the same. I do not normally advocate deregulation in this industry - because the best market is the one with rules - although I think in the meaning of changing the rules to allow private businesses in the industry, then I may accept the term. But deregulation usually means canceling some rules to allow businesses (not necessarily private ones) to operate more freely, which is not necessarily good, since rules are needed so corporations don't just do what they want. Rules are necessary for a well operative market economy.

- Anyways, you go on to ask why I believe that state companies should be privatized: the reason, as I explained previously, is that under my ideal model of rail transport industry (equivalent to the one that some said will be employed in Spain soon) there is no reason for a private company to exist since the market can very well take care of this.
The second reason, also a EU antitrust policy in the field of air transport and telecom (first two examples that come to mind) I believe, is that when the private sector can take care of a given industry because the right conditions are set, the presence of a state owned operator represents a threat to the private sector for the very reason that the state company has a political advantage.
Now, I must say (although I'd like to keep the conversation shorter and I apologize for the quantity of stuff I'm writing) that if this last point is heavily true under the optic of single national economies, it becomes vitally true under the optic of a liberalized European market (and as I understood you seem to like liberalization - which you call deregulation as I have explained in one of the above points). Why? Because once previously (state controlled) national markets that are divided and independent from one another (SNFC mainly operates in France only, so does DB and everybody else) such as the ones of rail transport in each European country are liberalized by the EU and turned into a common european market, then the large presence of the various governments in the equity of each previously national carrier (DB, SNFC etc...) represents a huge conflict of interest as these will have a clear home advantage. In other words, the French government would be confronted with a huge conflict of interest in owning a competitor of a carrier in turn also owned by a state that would have as well a conflict of interest in its home market.
This point, my friend, is not only something I believe, but it is something that the EU believes and it's the reason why the EU turned these concepts into anti-trust laws which are today enforced. Remember Alitalia being obligated by the EU to become privately owned by a certain deadline under the pressure of other European countries? Remember British Airways knocking on the door of the EU's Supreme Court to ask that the Italians should stop enjoying state subsidies and other sorts of help that went against the principles of fair market competition and EU antitrust laws?
These are again the first examples that come to my mind, but there are obviously many more.

- Now let me point out to you that I believe carriers should NOT be privatized like in England where subsidies are given out to those very private and previously state owned businesses. But that is something I have already said in all my previous posts and it is the very reason why, after hearing these stories from you Britts, I formulated my model (equivalent to the Spanish one and very dissimilar to the British one).
You complained about the fact that in England there is no market and this is therefore why the state (against your will) is forced to subsidize. But if you will read my posts again, you will see that under my model conditions are very different and there in fact is a market environment in which the state doesn't have to intervene (we're talking as service provider) and private competitors will be able to fight it out.
And I know you think:

Quote:
If you say that the profitable HS operations should be privatized then you are privatizing the profit but nationalizing the cost of the unprofitable but socially neccesary services.
... but in this analysis you maintain this top down point of view that completely ignores the benefits of the presence of a competitive market for consumers, who are the real winners in terms of price and quality service. There is nothing wrong with some companies making profits, as long as this takes place under a competitive market.

Quote:
So perhaps i was stereotyping but you seem to think that private companies paid by the state would run things better when they are not competing with anyone. They are guaranteed a profit by the state - why would they need to become more efficient? That is the "private is best" dogma that i am talking about.
No this is the opposite of what I'm saying! I'm not saying that there should be any type of subsidies! This is why I formed the model that has been said by our Spanish friend to be equivalent to that of Spain.

I know this is sort of what happened in Britain, but allow me to say once more it is not what I propose and it is not a policy that complies with the fundamentals of a free market economy. Subsidies are used to correct an imperfect market situation by moving the supply curve to one side or the other of the graph, at the cost of the entire community. But subsidies were never by me advocated nor proposed.

Now, for the final sentence about the private is best dogma, I think you're again generalizing. I never said all private is better than all state owned.
There are key industries that must be held under the control of Congress (or Parliament...). Others must sometimes be helped, like the one of green tech deployment and research for example, because although a subsidy costs money to the community, it is a future investment that allows the costs of polluting the planet to be lowered.
But when it comes to rail transport, I should say private (but liberalized by private, not just private alone!!!) is best most times, especially in Europe.
jayOOfoshO no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2009, 01:16 AM   #614
sotavento
Registered user
 
sotavento's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,419
Likes (Received): 322

London-Birmingham = 6tph
London-Reading-Didcot-Oxford-Banbury-LeamingtonSpa-Solihull-Birmingham = 3tph
London-Watford-MiltonKeines-Rugby-Coventry-Birmingham = 3tph
London-Bristol-Cardiff = 3tph
London-Reading-Didcot-Swindon-Chippenham-Bath-Bristol = 3tph
Bristol-...-Birmingham-...-Derby-...-Sheffield-...-Leeds = 3tph
Bristol-...-Birmingham-...-Crewe-...-Liverpool/Manchestger = (3/3)tph
London-...-Rugby-...-Crewe-Liverpool = 6tph (2/3 direct?)
London-...-Rugby-...-Crewe-Manchester = 6tph(2/3 direct?)
...
.
.

It will cost to get back "up to standars".
__________________
"O País perdeu a inteligência e a consciência moral. Ninguém se respeita nem crê na honestidade dos homens públicos. O povo está na miséria. Os serviços públicos vão abandonados. A mocidade arrasta-se das mesas das secretarias para as mesas dos cafés. A ruína económica cresce o comércio definha, a indústria enfraquece. O salário diminui. O Estado é considerado um ladrão e tratado como um inimigo.
Neste salve-se quem puder a burguesia proprietária de casas explora o aluguel. A agiotagem explora o juro…"”
— Eça
sotavento no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2009, 07:22 PM   #615
Manchester Planner
Chief Bureaucrat
 
Manchester Planner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,831
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotavento View Post
London-Birmingham = 6tph
London-Reading-Didcot-Oxford-Banbury-LeamingtonSpa-Solihull-Birmingham = 3tph
London-Watford-MiltonKeines-Rugby-Coventry-Birmingham = 3tph
London-Bristol-Cardiff = 3tph
London-Reading-Didcot-Swindon-Chippenham-Bath-Bristol = 3tph
Bristol-...-Birmingham-...-Derby-...-Sheffield-...-Leeds = 3tph
Bristol-...-Birmingham-...-Crewe-...-Liverpool/Manchestger = (3/3)tph
London-...-Rugby-...-Crewe-Liverpool = 6tph (2/3 direct?)
London-...-Rugby-...-Crewe-Manchester = 6tph(2/3 direct?)
...
.
.

It will cost to get back "up to standars".
Sorry, but what exactly is wrong with those figures you've just presented? Are you suggesting that trains aren't frequent enough?

I mean, take London-Manchester for instance - it's 3 trains per hour each way direct. That's plenty! It's an inter-city route, not a tram line!
Manchester Planner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2009, 03:14 PM   #616
Republica
BUND
 
Republica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,036
Likes (Received): 3

I think sotavento is misunderstood on here very often because he doesnt have the required communication skills in english to convey the complex subtleties of the language that he wants to.

I think it may have been sarcasm (the above post).

Too often its impossible to tell whether he is being positive or negative because all his stuff is written in the negative way. When giving a compliment he uses sarcasm I think.
__________________
Rant
Republica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 04:04 AM   #617
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

The English Language is a bitch.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 07:33 PM   #618
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Rail is a natural monopoly as such their are three options...

"private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, or government operation."

"In natural monopolies, competition is wasteful, and will tend to be eliminated by competitive forces (leading to a private monopoly or oligopoly). A public sector monopoly can be held to account via democratically-elected governments, in a way in which a private monopoly cannot. (A private monopoly may be subject to regulation, but this may be an inefficient way of securing the public interest.)"

As passenger rail is essentially a public service then it's obvious government operation is the most desirable as in theory all profits should/can/will be re-invested into making that service better and as mentioned in the quote there is (the illusion of) accountability

It is completely different to air travel!!

Last edited by bigbossman; June 13th, 2009 at 07:39 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 11:57 PM   #619
jayOOfoshO
Registered User
 
jayOOfoshO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,746
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Rail is a natural monopoly as such their are three options...

"private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, or government operation."

"In natural monopolies, competition is wasteful, and will tend to be eliminated by competitive forces (leading to a private monopoly or oligopoly). A public sector monopoly can be held to account via democratically-elected governments, in a way in which a private monopoly cannot. (A private monopoly may be subject to regulation, but this may be an inefficient way of securing the public interest.)"

As passenger rail is essentially a public service then it's obvious government operation is the most desirable as in theory all profits should/can/will be re-invested into making that service better and as mentioned in the quote there is (the illusion of) accountability

It is completely different to air travel!!
Thanks for refreshing me on microeconomics, I hadn't seen the term ever since freshman year.

Anyways let me ask you this: who says that the rail industry is a natural monopoly?

I believe that high speed routes are not. Sure, all other routes are, but the important ones, say for example between Frankfurt and Berlin, or Paris and Lion, or I could even add San Diego and Sacramento, these are all routes where there could be plenty of competition.
jayOOfoshO no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2009, 12:37 AM   #620
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Rail is a natural monopoly imho because of the barriers to entry and the inefficiency of extra infrastructure costs. Rail unlike air travel is turn up and go. With air travel you tend to compare prices and book in advance because of the distances involved minutes make less of a difference. You can argue the same for long distance rail travel however the key difference is that in air travel journeys on one plane tend to be point-to-point and aren't oversubscribed.

The way it would work on Long distance rail can't be point-to-point, it'd have to be something like company A offers London to Frankfurt via Brussels and company B offers London to Amsterdam via Brussels and company C offers Amsterdam to Paris via Brussels. They compete over certain sections and offer unique services, but at the same time don't inefficiently duplicate the whole route, it's inefficient because unless there the demand is more than what they can colelctively supply they are overprividing and wasting capacity. And if it was oversubscribed they'd have a virtual duopoly in which they can effectively abuse the market.

EDIT: The problem is basically where there aren't two separate routes between the same destination. For example the channel tunnel effectively curtails the sort of competiton you are talking about between (only) London and Brussels. That's what i mean by natural monopoly...

Last edited by bigbossman; June 14th, 2009 at 12:50 AM.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
rail, railways

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium