Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="beaulieu"]Dave, I am going to break this up to simply things. [quote user="futuremodal"]  For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding.[/quote] Dave can you explain to me how your slot bidding would work? The situation right now is that the freight companies say that they can barely afford the cost of their slot fees right now. How would they be able to offer more money for a slot in a bidding process?[/quote] I'm not sure why everyone is so stuck on this particular statement.  The term "slot bidding" is simply an acknowledgement of ascribing to market forces to determine buyers.  Putting aside for the moment the passenger subsidies and British system of taxing roads beyond that needed for road expenditures, if indeed the passenger operators could outbid potential freight operators, then so be it.  What's the problem?  Freight can just as easily move during the night, and can I assume that's where the open slots would be for the freight operators to make their move?  I also reject the notion that only passenger operators can run passenger trains, and only freight operators can operate freight trains.  Again, putting aside the legal directives, why from a practical standpoint can't the freight operators also participate in running passenger trains, and vis versa?  An OA company should not be limited in what it can haul.  Let the market determine what the bidders can haul.  In the US of yore, freight cross subsidized the passenger trains, so why can't UK passenger operators add freight to their repetoire?  At least freight stands a chance of not having to be cross subsidized by those *profitable* UK passenger trains. [quote][quote]I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures.[/quote] They are only profitable, because they are like US Class I railroads, a monopoly provider, they do have limited competition in a small number of markets, and even with that, only two are making money.[/quote] Exoneration. [quote][quote] I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads. It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable".  Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion.  Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation.  After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.[/quote] You won't. And inspite of what has been said, there are no profitable passenger operations unless they are a total monopoly. The examples cited do not have to cover the cost of their infrastructure. In otherwords all they have to pay for is their own costs, plus maintain the infrastructure. Under those circumstances they can be said to be making money. If they had to build any new capacity they cannot do it. Period.[/quote] Then we agree to disagree on a semantic interpretation. [quote][quote]That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition.  Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up.  They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door.  In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model.  Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA. [/quote] Repeat after me EWS is not franchised, they are an OA Operator, again and again until it sinks in.[/quote] From the Wikipedia entry on British Rail privatization:  "Freight Train Operators: Despite going to the expense of setting up separate management structures for the three parts of the trainload freight sector, on <A title="February 24" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_24">24 February</A> <A title=1996 href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996">1996</A> all three units were sold to North & South Railways", a subsidiary of the <A title="United States" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States">American</A> <A title="Wisconsin Central" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Central">Wisconsin Central</A> Railroad, which soon renamed the operation <A title=EWS href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWS">English, Welsh and Scottish Railway</A>. EWS also acquired <A title="Rail Express Systems" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Express_Systems">Rail Express Systems</A>, <A title="Railfreight Distribution" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railfreight_Distribution">Railfreight Distribution</A> (the last part of the nationalised railway to be sold, after Labour had been elected) and <A title="National Power" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Power">National Power</A>'s railfreight operation. Current freight train operators other than EWS include <A title=Freightliner href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freightliner">Freightliner</A> (purchased by a management buyout) and two 'open access' freight operators: <A title="Direct Rail Services" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Rail_Services">Direct Rail Services</A> and <A title="GB Railfreight" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_Railfreight">GB Railfreight</A>." From this decription, it makes it appear that EWS and Freightliner are not open access operators, since the online encyclopedia goes to the length of describing the other two freight operators as being "open access".  The inference from this and this thread is that EWS and FHH were franchisee's, while DRS and GBR were the OA operators.  Since you have deemed this as incorrect, we'll just go with your interpretation from here on out that all freight operators are OA operators. BTW - wouldn't you consider the TAA as a sort of franchise agreement?  And don't the OA operators have to bid for a TAA? [quote] The other OA Operators are stealing business from EWS because it is bigger  and more established and so has slightly higher costs.[/quote] "Stealing" business from EWS?  Don't tell me you've worked for them too?  And being bigger, wouldn't they have more spread for their fixed cost allotment?[quote] Some business it lost because other companies undercut it. In other cases the customer went out of business. The steel mill at Llanwern is mostly closed except for one small part. A couple of coal fired power stations closed or converted to Gas, etc. The only market growing is imported containers, the very same market that you say US railroads don't make much money on.[/quote] No, what I've maintained is that the margins on intermodal are lower than the margins on grain and coal.  The situation with US intermodal is further clouded by differential pricing and subsequent cross subsidies of captive rate payers paying well over 180% R/VC are de facto funding import intermodal which is often below the 180% R/VC standard.  Can't we assume that as of right now Britain doesn't have this particular US-style problem? [quote]  The OA Operators are nowhere near where they could think about building any trackage. Neither are the customers in most cases will to pay for a simple siding.[/quote] Why would the OA operators pay for trackage?  I thought that was the job for the infrastructure operator.  The statement as you put forth seems more apt for a description of an integrated system.
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