Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="beaulieu"] FM doesn't have a clue when he suggests slot bidding. The answer is to have enough capacity for both freight and passengers. In the British case I think they need to renationalize passenger services, the networks are broken by the current franchising model. The Swiss system is what needs to be strived for. I do beleive that it is possible to franchise out some passenger services. It does seem to be working in Germany. But the contracts must be sensible, performance must be clearly specified, and their performance must be measured. Letting the franchise bidders propose services without consideration and coordination with the other franchises is ridiculous. [/quote] I would venture that you don't have a clue about how to go about meeting the demands of having "enough capacity for both freight and passengers" or how to make franchisers responsible for your performance specs.  At least you didn't offer any proposed solutions to the inherent ineffeciencies of franchising.  How do you propose to make franchisers coordinate with one another?  What aspect outside of subjective government regulation would inspire them to optimize performance? The only solution that works is the free market/intramodal competition model.  Slot bidding is more inline with that end than either franchising, integrated monopolization, and of course re-nationalization.  You don't like pure slot bidding?  How about preference based slot bidding?  Certain train types are given priority over others - passenger, intermodal, manifest, drags - then slot usage allotment is based on established prioritization.  That way you don't have the gravel hauler outbidding the intermodal for that crucial time slot.  The point is, there is always a workable solution for integrating a theoretical construct into a real world situation.  It's called using your collective brain power. Again, franchising's only advantage over an integrated monopoly or a government-run train service is that the franchiser can eventually have his contract terminated and awarded to other franchise bidders if the clients are not satisfied with the performance.  But there is obviously a time penalty from the moment rail users find out things aren't so grand to the moment the contract is up for renewal, so they just have to wait a spell until that day comes (and that usually involves some significant monetary losses during the wait).  Under a model that promotes real time intramodal competition, if you don't like the service of one rail service provider, you can call up another the next day, just like trucking.  Under an integrated monopoly or a nationalized rail network, you're just stuck with the bad service indefinitely. There are, what, four current freight service providers that have franchises with the infrastructure operator?  Then the Brits could do something as simple as this:  Keep the franchises as they are, but allow any dissatisfied rail shipper of one franchise to solicit service from one of the other freight service providers. However, although that might provide some intrastate relief, when France finally allows current European rail freight service providers access to their rail network then the Brits are going to have to see if a continental freight service provider should be allowed access onto British rails.  Hopefully, having some common freight service providers across all the EU nations will finally come into play, and the benefits of the EU rail directive can finally be met.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag