Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="cogload"] For OA to work as intended, it would be better for Britain and the rest of the EU if they reject the franchise model and instead go with the slot bidding model.  This allows multiple entities to compete head to head, and allows the free market aspects of competition to spark the fight for innovation and better customer service.  Of course, under free market oversight, the freight entities would be able to outbid the passenger entities, and that might be the one area where Europeans may feel enmity for OA.  Taking freight off the roads is probably less important for the average European voter than keeping the public passenger trains running as expected.  They consider the passenger train a God-given right the way Americans consider the automobile a God-given right, right? Slot bidding. This was proposed in the UK and then thrown out as a) unworkable, b) inefficient and c) stupid. [/quote] Your source, especially for that "stupid" designation?  Which political party was behind that bit of analysis?  The Standing In The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid party?  (From the Blackadder III series[;)]) Slot bidding is the only free market approach that makes sense.  Franchising is just backdoor integration.  The thought behind both IO's and Franchise operators is that only one train operating entity can possibly utilize a particular stretch of track effectively for a particular commodity, because only one train can run on single track at one time, and said crews need to be trained to run those sections.  However, having multiple users does not inhibit effective use of single track, as US trackage rights agreements atest.  It is quite easy to allow multiple train operators to use the same sections of track to haul the same basic commodities from the same basic locales. The bottom line is this:  If you want railroad rates to be market based, you need to have multiple competitors bidding for the same commodities.  That is what slot bidding accomplishes.  Apparently, you're saying the British politicos did not consider market based rates as the primary reason for privatization, rather just a simplistic notion that privatization is better than nationalization.  From what I've read about the European rail situation, the only reason for embracing track and train separation was to allow private train operators to cover the whole European rail system under <A class=new title="EU Directive 91/440" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EU_Directive_91/440&action=edit">EU Directive 91/440</A>   Hey, if you're gonna have a common currency and such, better have a common basis for train operations.  And of course, this directive for commonality of train operating services across Europe is why the idiotic idea of integrating British rail operations under a vertical private umbrella just won't work toward achieving the EU directive.  How can you have each nation endorsing US-style private integration and still achieve the cross border fluidity as desired by the directive?  You can't.  The IO operator from Britian will have to hand off or transload to the French IO at the French border station, who will have to hand off or transload to the Belgian IO at that border, and so on, and so on.  You will not have the British IO crossing over uninterrupted to France and continuing down French rails, will you?  An unaffilated private 3rd party carrier can do that.  A privatized IO affiliated with a particular nation cannot. [quote]Still, it did take them some time for that particular penny to drop.  I suggest FM that you brush up on your Britsh Politics and read the 1993 Railways Act. Then look at the current situation before spouting forth. [/quote] I suggest you go back and read the findings of the Adam Smith think tank and it's eventual influence on European rail privatization before spouting hither.  I suspect you are a renationalization advocate, but will differ on that until you can give us more background on your political wish list. The way I see it, Europeans have to choose between prioritizing a saturated rail passenger network, or prioritizing a desire to get freight off the roads and onto rails.  If it's the former, go back to nationalization and forget privatization.  If it's the latter, develop a true private OA network with intramodal competition for providing rail services, e.g. slot bidding, none of this lazy backdoor integration called franchising. But if rail users in Europe, both passengers and freighters, would rather bend over and get jacked in the crack, by all means go for Mr. Grayling's suggestion for a private US-style integrated rail 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