Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
"Open Access" and regulation of railroad freight rates.
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Murphy Siding"] <P>[quote user="Lee Koch"]I just don't believe that there is a patent answer to this question, and you can't just compare what other countries have done with the North American freight market. Here in Germany, for example, we have the following situation: the former State owned and operated <FONT color=#ff0000>railroads were transformed into a private corporation under government ownership of the stock</FONT>. The rail reform divided the railroad into freight (Railion), passenger (DB-Regio, DB-Fernverkehr), and ROW (DB-Netz) entities, and it provided private railroads the chance to do business. The DB (former State Ry.) wants to make an IPO on the DAX to get investment capital. Sure, DB-Netz does a good job of maintaining the infrastructure, but only the parts that make good business sense and turn a profit. Every other railroad has to pay a premium price for trackage rights, no matter what the condition of the physical plant. How can you effectively compete against the owner of the right of way, especially when THEIR dispatchers will not give priority to any of your trains, while charging you too much for trackage rights, and hence preventing you from offering services at an attractive price. This is why Germany MUST have OA under independent control, similar to the way airports and harbors are operated. But in North America, railroads have historically relied on themselves, and each has its own ROW, making OA a moot point. Higher pricing for captive shippers is a historical fact of life, but competition from the trucking industry should provide enough market pricing controls to satisfy all but those shipping bulk commodities like coal.[/quote]</P> <P> Note to Dave(futuremodal): Open access in Germany isn't the hunk-dory answer either. It sure sounds to me, like the German Government is using federal dollars to support the system.</P> <P>[/quote]</P> <P>Note to Murph - If you will try and read carefully please, you will see that I have a <STRONG>negative view</STRONG> of the British version of OA. That's what "pulling an OJ" means - I believe that breaking up British Rail into 100+ separate companies was nuts. 4 or 5 would have sufficed. And <STRONG>franchising</STRONG>, while not true <EM>real time</EM> OA, is still perferable to long term integration, and would probably work even better here in the States for those marginal rail lines.</P> <P>And as Lee pointed out, for OA to work you need independence of infrastructure from transporter operations. I might add that <EM>utility regulation</EM> of the infrastructure would also suffice. But the current situation is still far better than if the German government had simply privatized into an integrated rail system like we have here in ex-British NA (you might like to note that the Mexican government still owns railroad ROW, even though it's rail transporter operations have been privatized). What you see happening in Germany, Italy, et al, is an actual <EM>shift </EM>of <STRONG>revenue share</STRONG> of traffic off highways to rail via these 3rd party freight companies, unlike NA where there has been <EM><STRONG>no shift</STRONG></EM> of revenue share from highways to rail.</P>
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy