Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Murphy Siding"]   My perception, is that you appear foolish in this particualar discussion.  But, that's just me.(shrugs).     [/quote] I appear foolish?!  For engaging in debate?  For questioning ideas that have been taken for granted by others? 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. 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. 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. 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. Problems in "open access" paradise?  More like problems with people like you just being able to understand the subcontext of what is being debated here.  But, hey, that's just my opinion.[2c]
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