FM
It was known in the 1993 Railways Act as the Peterborough Process. It was axed. The idea was that bidders would bid for slots every 8 weeks and the highest bidder would win.
The reason why it was axed was because:
a) The process would destroy the timetable, reduce the premia payable by the franchisee/ increase the subsidy payable to the franchisee; knacker the concept of interoperable ticketing; push freight further to the margins on the timetable than it already would be (monopoly track supplier + competitive OA freight operators = smaller bids for paths = pushed out of the way by richer passenger operators); be inefficient in terms of capital employed and in terms of demand management (sch 8 and 4 performance) etc etc etc.....
You just seem to fail to understand that freight would have no chance of even getting on the bid scale unless it was for freight only lines/ secondary mains. They would be pushed out by the passenger operators every time. You don't understand that freight (which are OA operators and NOT franchisees) and OA passenger run because they only pay MARGINAL COSTS toward the infrastructure owner - there is a hidden subsidy whcih is basically paid by the Franchised operators as a quid pro quo for dominating the timetable; and you also singularly fail to understand that if the freight operators bid on the basis of full slots and paying full cost basis there would be very very few freight operators left in the UK. And Europe. Why? Because it is cheaper by truck thats why.
I work in the Railway Industry within the UK and am in the process of a degree covering this subject. Blow off about OA operators in the states if you want, that is your country. Do NOT lecture me over why OA access is so superior to vertically integrated systems in the UK. - Especailly when we have had one sep infrastructure owner go bankrupt; a massive cost explosion from the bad old days of British Rail (an increase of subvention from roughly £1bn to 4.5bn per year) and the OA freight operators struggle to return barely 10% GROSS.
An example of the treacle surrounding Open Access Freight Operators:
New boys on the freight-block GB Railfreight and Freightliner Heavy Haul are causing regulatory headaches
Railtrack's decision to bootstrap competition to EWS in the in the provision of its infrastructure works trains has been taken up enthusiastically by heavy haul rail customers who also wanted better quality of service. And since works trains don't run 24/7 EWS now has serious competition.
Freightliner Heavy Haul(FHH) started operations under the existing Track Access Agreement (TAA) between Railtrack, now Network Rail, and Freightliner signed in March 2001. But following the acquisition of its own operating licence FHH is now seeking its own TAA .
As proposed, these access rights would cover the continuation of existing services, which FHH has been running on a spot bid basis. Some new rights are also being sought.
Despite much hype by the Office of the Rail Regulator, a model track access contract is not yet available. So FHH is using the Direct Rail Services access agreement, signed in January this year, as a template. In turn, the DRS agreement was based on that signed by EWS in May 2002.
Not easy
But it's not as easy as that. FHH's new five year TAA is due to start on June 14 2003 . But most of Freightliner Limited's existing rights which FHH intends to take over, expired on May 17 and the Regulator had to approve a supplemental agreement extending these rights to June 13. .
Also seeking its own TAA is GB Railfreight. This is taking even longer because of a dispute over compensation for disruption caused by work on Phase 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
GB Railfreight claims that Network Rail is unwilling to offer compensation for CTRL-associated disruption from possession overruns, adjacent network disruption or landslips. Since its services are ‘very likely' to be directly affected by Phase 2 works, GB and its customers risk being exposed to potentially severe disruption without any compensation.
Why the fuss? Well, CTRL protection is available to GB's competitors, creating an unlevel playing field. So, with its TAA otherwise tickety boo, GB is making a Section 17 Application to the Regulator seeking equal rights on CTRL compensation.
Why, you may be wondering, is Ford subjecting us to this regulatory wonkery? Well, the rail; freight industry is in a very interesting stage of development at the moment and access is a key issue. As Scottish coal demonstrates.
During its short life FHH has gone from nowhere to a claimed 25% of the UK coal-by-rail market in under four years at EWS' expense and is looking to keep on growing. Exhibit ‘A' in this success story is the handling of flows between Scotland and Yorkshire power stations.
Volume in this market is sensibly constant, since it is determined by the power stations' contracts. However the traffic originates from a large number of supply points: flow change weekly.
Some of the FHH business comes from new flows but much of it, naturally, will be traffic won from EWS. Thus RHH will need to use the same paths on the Glasgow and South Western route
But, according to informed sources, EWS is hanging onto what it sees as its paths – not surprisingly, you might think. There is a ‘use-it-or-lose-it' provision in the TAA, but this is quite easily circumvented by juggling train movements so that all paths are used often enough not to be lost.
RFHH reckon that there are eager potential customers needing to shift enough coal to fill 17-22 trains a week, but because of path constrains the company can handle only 10-15. In one week earlier this year RFHH had to turn away £70,000 of coal business because it didn't have the paths.
EWS is playing this competitive game with some skill. And before we go ‘aah' over the brave little newcomers being trampled on by the Maroon Machine we are talking about a competitive business where there is no duty to make things easy for your competitors.
Indeed, EWS has said that RFHH can of course use Anglo-Scots paths it does not does not need and that these will be available on a weekly basis. Trouble is that the planning of train movements in the coal spot market starts a week in advance.
Assume RFHH takes on a new flow and agrees the services with the customer. By the time EWS has finished its train plan and released the spare paths it is too late for FHH to juggle its traction and rolling stock fleet to carry the traffic. Result – an unhappy customer.
But surely, the wonderful contractual structure of the industry, largely devised by our Great Regulator, should cut through such knotty problems. Er, unfortunately not.
As stated the EWS TAA is ambiguous and thus open to interpretation, even though it was written by the Regulator under a Section 17 application. It seems it was not one of Tom Winsor's better efforts. The use-it-or-lose-it' provision has certainly proved inadequate and attempts to find out how it was intended to work in the case of coal path wars have drawn a blank.
Eventually ORR will have to make a decision on the TAA interpretation, since the RFHH Section 18 TAA is out to consultation. But that will take time.
So, to speed things up, Network Rail has offered EWS only 50% of its previous number of paths on Glasgow-South Western route in the Winter 2003 timetable. The other 50% will be available for any operator to bid for on a weekly spot basis.
This cunning plan is aimed at generating a protest from EWS which should go to the Timetable Disputes Resolution Committee. If Network Rail loses the decision it will appeal to the Regulator, thus obtaining a definitive decision on the issue. As we went to press EWS confirmed that it was in discussions with ORR and Network Rail over the issue.
Of course, another reason for this item was to remind you how labyrinthine the industry has become. And remember, all this treacle costs money and earns no revenue.
Source:
http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/INFORMED%20SOURCES%20ARCHIVE/INF%20SRCS%202003/Informed%20Sources%2006%202003%20p3.htm
MichaelSol wrote: greyhounds wrote: What FM doesn't get, and the Torries do (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) ... First time anyone's used it. It's spelled wrong.
greyhounds wrote: What FM doesn't get, and the Torries do (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) ...
What FM doesn't get, and the Torries do (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) ...
First time anyone's used it. It's spelled wrong.
I can't spell worth a hoot. Never could, never will.
It would drive my dear late mother nuts. She taught elementary (SP?) school in rural Illinois for 46 years. She spent a lot of time yelling at me because of my spelling. I couldn't do a thing about it. There's no logic to it, and I won't memorize the spelling of words I rarely use like "Torries".
I don't think it's any big deal, it's never been a real hinderance. And on formal docs I've now got a spell checker. It's just something to overcome, like my hearing loss.
Anyone who picks at it just doesn't have anything meaningful to say, which is typical for Michael Sol.
futuremodal wrote: cogload wrote: futuremodal wrote: cogload wrote: 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. 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 EU Directive 91/440 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. 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. 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. I find it refreshing being lectured by someone who lives 5000 miles away. C'mon, give us the official Government reference for slot bidding as being "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid". We're still waiting.
cogload wrote: futuremodal wrote: cogload wrote: 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. 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 EU Directive 91/440 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. 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. 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. I find it refreshing being lectured by someone who lives 5000 miles away.
futuremodal wrote: cogload wrote: 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. 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 EU Directive 91/440 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. 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. 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.
cogload wrote: 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.
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.
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 EU Directive 91/440 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.
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.
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.
I find it refreshing being lectured by someone who lives 5000 miles away.
C'mon, give us the official Government reference for slot bidding as being "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid". We're still waiting.
And I could say to Dave "still waiting" for a reply to my comment on the first page. Since Dave is so hung up on everybody answering every one of his questions, why shouldn't the same apply to him.
TomDiehl wrote:[ And I could say to Dave "still waiting" for a reply to my comment on the first page. Since Dave is so hung up on everybody answering every one of his questions, why shouldn't the same apply to him.
Because when Dave is challenged all he can do is either change the subject, or fall back to his insult defense.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 wrote: TomDiehl wrote:[ And I could say to Dave "still waiting" for a reply to my comment on the first page. Since Dave is so hung up on everybody answering every one of his questions, why shouldn't the same apply to him. Because when Dave is challenged all he can do is either change the subject, or fall back to his insult defense. Bert
Exactly what I found so humorous about him. Now we have another thing to laugh at.
greyhounds wrote: What FM doesn't get, and the Torries do (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) is that when you split the infrastructure and train operations you create a monopoly where there was none before. The infrastructure owner will have only one market, the train operators. The train operators will have only one supplier, the infrastructure owner. Only one supplier is, by definition, a monopoly. Monopolies use too few resources, they maximize their returns by restricting supply and driving up prices. That's not good for the people, and economies should be organized for the good of the people, not the good of one monopoly orgainization. (Government owned or privately owned, it makes absolutely no difference.) The Torries see that, the infrastructure controlling orgainization is not expanding capacity (it's using too few resources) and is causing problems for the population. Very typical of any monopoly. An integrated railroad (one that owns track and operates trains) is not a monopoly. This is not only true in the UK where distances are short, but in the US. The US General Accounting Office says the only 6% of US freight is captive. That means 94% is subject to effective competition. No monopoly here. When you split the train operations from track ownership, you make the track owner a monopoly. It has no competition. Only it can supply track capacity. It's best interest (whether it be government owned or privately owned) will be to restrict that capacity to drive up prices. On the other hand, an integrated company, one that owns the track and operates the trains, will see expanding track capacity as a way to increase returns in its competitive train operating environment. That's why the BNSF, operating in a competitive environment, is pouring money into track expansion while the monoploy track owner in the UK has no current expansion plans. FM just doesn't understand this. (Nor does he want to understand this.) He's wedded to his ideology of open access. And when the facts show that it doesn't work, he'll simply reject those facts.
What FM doesn't get, and the Torries do (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word) is that when you split the infrastructure and train operations you create a monopoly where there was none before. The infrastructure owner will have only one market, the train operators. The train operators will have only one supplier, the infrastructure owner. Only one supplier is, by definition, a monopoly.
Monopolies use too few resources, they maximize their returns by restricting supply and driving up prices. That's not good for the people, and economies should be organized for the good of the people, not the good of one monopoly orgainization. (Government owned or privately owned, it makes absolutely no difference.) The Torries see that, the infrastructure controlling orgainization is not expanding capacity (it's using too few resources) and is causing problems for the population. Very typical of any monopoly.
An integrated railroad (one that owns track and operates trains) is not a monopoly. This is not only true in the UK where distances are short, but in the US. The US General Accounting Office says the only 6% of US freight is captive. That means 94% is subject to effective competition. No monopoly here.
When you split the train operations from track ownership, you make the track owner a monopoly. It has no competition. Only it can supply track capacity. It's best interest (whether it be government owned or privately owned) will be to restrict that capacity to drive up prices.
On the other hand, an integrated company, one that owns the track and operates the trains, will see expanding track capacity as a way to increase returns in its competitive train operating environment. That's why the BNSF, operating in a competitive environment, is pouring money into track expansion while the monoploy track owner in the UK has no current expansion plans.
FM just doesn't understand this. (Nor does he want to understand this.) He's wedded to his ideology of open access. And when the facts show that it doesn't work, he'll simply reject those facts.
So, an integrated company that owns the exclusive rights to the track isn't a monopoly, but a non-integrated track owner is a monopoly?
Yet another logical contradiction from the usual suspects.
It is only a monopoly if the rail shipper has no other intramodal rail service providers to choose from. If he has more than one rail service provider to choose from, he is not subject to a monopoly.
And the effects of monopoly may or may not be engendered in either a nationalized system or privatized system, or in an integrated system or a separated system. It is concievable for a nationalized infrastructure entity to host multiple rail service providers in true open access mode, just as it is concievable for a privatized entity to franchise rail service rights exclusively as a de facto monopoly, with or without integration of operations. The British "Open Access" experience has devolved into something less than the open access credo by allowing exclusivity, and that is what is causing the problems with the system. If there is no intramodal competition, it ain't real open access.
futuremodal wrote: So, an integrated company that owns the exclusive rights to the track isn't a monopoly, but a non-integrated track owner is a monopoly?
Yes, that's right.
futuremodal wrote: It is only a monopoly if the rail shipper has no other intramodal rail service providers to choose from. If he has more than one rail service provider to choose from, he is not subject to a monopoly. And the effects of monopoly may or may not be engendered in either a nationalized system or privatized system, or in an integrated system or a separated system. It is concievable for a nationalized infrastructure entity to host multiple rail service providers in true open access mode, just as it is concievable for a privatized entity to franchise rail service rights exclusively as a de facto monopoly, with or without integration of operations. The British "Open Access" experience has devolved into something less than the open access credo by allowing exclusivity, and that is what is causing the problems with the system. If there is no intramodal competition, it ain't real open access.
You keep misdefiining competition to fit your ideology.
Trains, trucks, barges, planes, ships and ox carts all produce the same things. They produce time and place utility. They move the freight to where it is needed when it is needed. They are different tools that do the same thing. It is of no never mind to the shippers and receivers which tool is used, they pick the one that offers them the best deal at any particular time. The tools are competitive. One may be freely substituted for the other.
You, for reasons of your ideology, deny this. Your ideology recognizes only intramodal competition and denies the existance of intermodal competition. This is silly. The US is awash in intermodal competition. That's why rail freight rates have gone down. They wouldn't have gone down if there was a railroad monopoly as you continue to foolishly claim. But again, that's a fact that refutes your ideology - so you just pretend it doesn't exist.
And pretending is for children.
cogload wrote: FM It was known in the 1993 Railways Act as the Peterborough Process. It was axed. The idea was that bidders would bid for slots every 8 weeks and the highest bidder would win. The reason why it was axed was because: a) The process would destroy the timetable, reduce the premia payable by the franchisee/ increase the subsidy payable to the franchisee; knacker the concept of interoperable ticketing; push freight further to the margins on the timetable than it already would be (monopoly track supplier + competitive OA freight operators = smaller bids for paths = pushed out of the way by richer passenger operators); be inefficient in terms of capital employed and in terms of demand management (sch 8 and 4 performance) etc etc etc..... You just seem to fail to understand that freight would have no chance of even getting on the bid scale unless it was for freight only lines/ secondary mains. They would be pushed out by the passenger operators every time. You don't understand that freight (which are OA operators and NOT franchisees) and OA passenger run because they only pay MARGINAL COSTS toward the infrastructure owner - there is a hidden subsidy whcih is basically paid by the Franchised operators as a quid pro quo for dominating the timetable; and you also singularly fail to understand that if the freight operators bid on the basis of full slots and paying full cost basis there would be very very few freight operators left in the UK. And Europe. Why? Because it is cheaper by truck thats why. I work in the Railway Industry within the UK and am in the process of a degree covering this subject. Blow off about OA operators in the states if you want, that is your country. Do NOT lecture me over why OA access is so superior to vertically integrated systems in the UK. - Especailly when we have had one sep infrastructure owner go bankrupt; a massive cost explosion from the bad old days of British Rail (an increase of subvention from roughly £1bn to 4.5bn per year) and the OA freight operators struggle to return barely 10% GROSS.
There, was that so hard? Now I'll tell you where you're wrong.
I notice you make no mention of relative freight rates. You seem to infer that trucking is less costly than using rail to move bulk commodities. With petrol prices that hover around $6 US equivalent, British truckers are paying twice the cost of fuel as US truckers. Meanwhile, much of the British railway network is electrified, so there is another advantage of British rail over US rail networks. What you seem to be missing is that there is a greater cost margin to move a container by truck in Britian than to do the same by truck in the US compared to the respective rail offerings. Those greater differentials represent a larger piece of the pie for revenue sharing with rail service providers than we have in the US. Yet, intermodal is continuing to grow on US railroads, so somehow, in spite of the relative cost disadvantages US railroads have vs over the road truckers, they're still getting the natural shift from road to rail, because the trucking companies will make more money if the ship their trailers and containers by rail than by over the road. The US railroads are getting a share of that savings, and everyone wins.
Yet, your country is so saturated with passenger trains that there is no room for freight, even with the higher profit potential? Then it all gets back to the choices I layed out for the Europeans - either go back to nationalization and mostly passenger trains, or stick to your guns and force passengers and freight to pay fully allocated costs of providing rail services under privatization with intramodal competition - at full allocation passenger numbers will drop as they shift to road in reaction to fare increases, while freight will have enough margin left over to stick with rails. It is natural economic law - freight moves better in bulk, passengers move better with individualized choices. But because of your addiction to subsidy and overt control over the citizenry, you seem to have it backwards, with freight moving by road at a larger percentage while passengers move by rail in larger percentages.
Now, for some real irony in you POV - if you opt for privatized integrated railways, you will be in a worse fix than you are now. Because without intramodal competition to keep things honest, the naturalized monopolies inherent in integration will disregard the lesser revenue providers in favor of the most optimized revenue producers - and them ain't passengers. Freight has the value-added component, people do not. Commerce has a better tax return base than people's incomes. Without that value-added component, it is impossible for a private railroad to make any money without a subsequent subsidy. So in effect, you're minimizing the aspects that have greater tax revenue potential in favor of the aspects with the more, shall we say, "reluctant" tax revenue potential. We're slowly learning that in the States, and it has an analogous meaning for your situation. If the tax base you use to subsidize the rail service providers is related to user fees, then you're not maximizing that potential if you give preference to passengers over rail. If on the other hand it is from more general tax collections, then the misoptimization has less impact. But you'd still be subsidizing private monopolies (who will still charge higher fares than the nationalized integrated railroad of yore) to keep that passenger preference, and your roads will still be clogged with freight that should be on rails by all normal economic measurements.
How does that make you feel? Not too optimistic now, are we?
Back to the Peterborough process. You seem to be of the mindset that slot bidding negates scheduling, and running a scheduled railroad is paramount for a passenger dominated system. I agree that keeping to a tight schedule is key for running passenger operations. So why not let out the slots via the schedule? It shouldn't be that hard, since it is easier for freight to conform to scheduling than it is for passengers to conform to on-call departure/arrivals. Do your passenger trains even approach max train length in conformity to the track layout? Probably not, most passenger trains don't even come close to maxing out length. So why not bid out the always available slot behind each passenger train and run it as an extra, if not a de facto mixed with the passenger train? You'd be suprised what freight forwarders will conform to to get the goods from Point A to Point B in the most reliable manner and the least amount of cost. All it takes is coordination adjacent to the passenger station at the freight's destination. And freight doesn't have to be boxcars and tanker cars, it can be exclusively trailers and containers. I know, I know, clearances on most lines are not fit for double stacks, let alone TOFC, but those are minor inconvienences. Single stack is still more efficient than one container per lorrie, and lorrie's can still ride low in well type cars, enough so to make clearances.
The point is, there are ways of fitting in the logical opportunities to move freight via intramodal competition, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I am glad to hear you are delving into academia. You will learn something at University that y
futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote: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. 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?
beaulieu wrote: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.
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.
The problem with slot bidding is that the freight operators will lose out, they have no ability under European conditions to out bid the passenger operators. According to the report produced by the McKinsey Group on behalf or CER, The freight operators will have to cut costs by 30 to 40 percent just to hold on to their current market share. To understand better what is going to happen imagine that the US just allowed Mexican truckers to operate in the US. There is a similar situation in Europe right now. The entry of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Baltic Republics into the EU means that the much lower paid drivers can operate anywhere in the EU. Further, take for example the Netherlands, they have more miles of barge-navigable waterways than they have route miles of railroads. The railroads have a few things going for them. First they haven't been terribly efficient in the past so they can improve that. Second the government in the old EU are concerned about the effects on the environment and about the uncertainty of future oil supplies, so they are willing to invest , at least to a degree, in assisting the conversion from road to rail. Third the People of Switzerland voted to do what it takes to get the trucks off their highways and the pollution they cause out of their valleys. They have set a high tax on trucks operating in and across Switzerland, and they are using the money to effectively eliminate the Alps as a barrier to North-South railfreight transport.
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.
The franchise is a contract that normally provides the franchisor with the right to terminate the agreement if the franchisee fails badly enough. The Brits terminated the contract of Connex, for the Southeastern Network, for not living up to the terms of the contract.
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.
That is how it works in Britain, and in those European countries that are "Open". For freight operators the franchise is a "License". It shows that the company has the necessary skills and knowledge to safely operate trains on a countries rail network. It also shows that they have a bond or insurance coverage for the type of service they intend to provide.
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.
I notice you make no mention of relative freight rates. You seem to infer that trucking is less costly than using rail to move bulk commodities. With petrol prices that hover around $6 US equivalent, British truckers are paying twice the cost of fuel as US truckers. Meanwhile, much of the British railway network is electrified, so there is another advantage of British rail over US rail networks.
No, much of the British system is NOT electrified. Try again.
What you seem to be missing is that there is a greater cost margin to move a container by truck in Britian than to do the same by truck in the US compared to the respective rail offerings. Those greater differentials represent a larger piece of the pie for revenue sharing with rail service providers than we have in the US. Yet, intermodal is continuing to grow on US railroads, so somehow, in spite of the relative cost disadvantages US railroads have vs over the road truckers, they're still getting the natural shift from road to rail, because the trucking companies will make more money if the ship their trailers and containers by rail than by over the road. The US railroads are getting a share of that savings, and everyone wins.
Possibly because the distances in the US are greater than they are within the United Kingdom? That bit hasn't registered has it obviously. If you count transhipment then there will be a big swing back to the lorry, even with the "greater cost margin". Therefore in many cases it is cheaper by road and within the logisitics industry there are greater margins than shifting your container onto the railway. That is not univeraslly true of course because as you point out there a number of instances where the reverse is true. So say From Southampton to the north of England where the traffic is containers/ swapbodiesn and where EWS and Freightliner offer a service. Say 10 trains per day. Now that route uses 3 main lines which carry rather more passengers and greater revenue than say 25 containers per train = 250 containers And as the majority of the population of England alone lives in the South East and the major container ports are only 50-odd miles away it doesn't really add; although there is one flow from Thamesport from North London.
Yet, your country is so saturated with passenger trains that there is no room for freight, even with the higher profit potential?
Where is the higher profit potential? Where? Bulk Commodities where there is intramodal (i.e. more than one operator) competition had seen rates fall to pretty low levels and as a result they have very small margins. Indeed, a lot of bulk freight projects have govt help in the form of Track Access grants or help to build the requisite infrastructure as otherwise it would go by road. Again the centres of production are few, we import a lot in this country being mainly service based and the centres of consumption are in US terms relatively close together. So there is little scope to make mega bucks. This can be seen in the margins of the railfreight operators and why they haven't all been floated on the stockmarket. And why CN is still trying to sell its share in EWS and no one is buying. Btw the most profitable railway in the Uk is an entirely passenger one which charges very very high fares. Many operators are now paying premiums (in the case of GNER £1.2bn over 10 years) for the right to operate. EWS made a profit of around £50m on a t/over of £500m + if memory serves me. Which one, by definition is more profitable?
Then it all gets back to the choices I layed out for the Europeans - either go back to nationalization and mostly passenger trains, or stick to your guns and force passengers and freight to pay fully allocated costs of providing rail services under privatization with intramodal competition - at full allocation passenger numbers will drop as they shift to road in reaction to fare increases, while freight will have enough margin left over to stick with rails.
The choice which you have so condescendingly layed out has been rejected by the voters so ask yourself why? This aint Hicksville, blah blah where the nearest town is over 1000miles away to spread the gene pool. The entire point is that to avoid congestion in a very urban country which the UK, Belgium, Denmark, Netherland(s) are (to name a few) priority is given to the passenger train. Therefore the social and economic costs involved in congestion such as time allocation, pollution, accidents etc etc etc are recognised in terms of subsidy where applicable paid to the train operators. There is no requirement for passenger train operators to be fully nationalised. In theory they are not in the UK. Like a lot of industries and like the (private) buses central and local government has made a decision on the timetable it wants and contracts an operator to run that timetable in the form of a franchise. Now, under the nationalised BR passenger trains actually made some cash (not all) and freight was mostly dumped (except bulk where super profits were made on some captive flows)because it never made a return. So, no freight will not have enough margin - unless perhaps the freight operators own thier own rails........
It is natural economic law - freight moves better in bulk, passengers move better with individualized choices. But because of your addiction to subsidy and overt control over the citizenry, you seem to have it backwards, with freight moving by road at a larger percentage while passengers move by rail in larger percentages.
Overt control of the citizenry?. You're having a herbal aintyer? I make a choice when travelling to see my family - train, bus or car. All three are subsidised to a degree by the taxpayer. Cars are subsidised because the road space on which I travel is in a sense a free good. If I travel by bus, I catch a local (operated thru CCC by contract by Western Greyhound) to the nearest local major bus station using, yes a free good. And trains are subsidised by the taxpayer. So yes, in that case we are all addicted to subsidy. If the free market ruled, then I would hate to see what condition my local road network would be in; but look on the bright side there will be 25 motorways between London and Birmingham. Are passengers moving by rail in larger percentages a bad thing? Freight is subsidised as well as I have explained ad infinitum, but the penny doesn't seem to be dropping does it?
Now, for some real irony in you POV - if you opt for privatized integrated railways, you will be in a worse fix than you are now. Because without intramodal competition to keep things honest, the naturalized monopolies inherent in integration will disregard the lesser revenue providers in favor of the most optimized revenue producers - and them ain't passengers.
Fail to see the irony. Intergated operations cost less to run that OA operations. FACT. Maybe not in the states; but we are talking about over here aren't we? See above many many times. And incidentally, the franchises are let for a term of years to a set formuale and only a small basket of fares are regulated, and yes to meet those franchise payments the franchisees yes - target the optimized revenue providers. There is a quite legitimate fear that if the railway is reintergrated then some OA freight companies may get a raw deal - however there is a Rail Regulator and a weight of law on thier side.
Freight has the value-added component, people do not. Commerce has a better tax return base than people's incomes.
what is the "value added component" if it isn't economic to transport freigh
Cogload,
Kinda makes you want to wash your hands afterward, dosent it?
23 17 46 11
edblysard wrote: Cogload, Kinda makes you want to wash your hands afterward, dosent it?
Oh come on Ed, that's what makes Dave so FUNNY. The way he opens his mouth to change feet.
jeaton wrote: This universe is populated by geniuses and the mere suggestion that any of their ideas is stupid will cause an onslaught of insults that would make a right wing talk show host stand up and salute.
This universe is populated by geniuses and the mere suggestion that any of their ideas is stupid will cause an onslaught of insults that would make a right wing talk show host stand up and salute.
And we do have some of those. Of late, however, they have seemed to be reducing the onslaught. Maybe Bergie got to them.
When I had the opportunity to have dinner with TRAINS magazine group that was at Gorge Rail 06, I got the distinct impression that they were not to happy with the tone of things in certain discussions by certain folks. The direct remark was made that "they" were keeping tabs on it.
kenneo wrote: jeaton wrote: This universe is populated by geniuses and the mere suggestion that any of their ideas is stupid will cause an onslaught of insults that would make a right wing talk show host stand up and salute. And we do have some of those. Of late, however, they have seemed to be reducing the onslaught. Maybe Bergie got to them. When I had the opportunity to have dinner with TRAINS magazine group that was at Gorge Rail 06, I got the distinct impression that they were not to happy with the tone of things in certain discussions by certain folks. The direct remark was made that "they" were keeping tabs on it.
I sure hope they don't get kicked off the forum. It would be like the class clown getting sent to the principal's office. The entertainment factor would take a hard hit.
chad thomas wrote: kenneo wrote: jeaton wrote: This universe is populated by geniuses and the mere suggestion that any of their ideas is stupid will cause an onslaught of insults that would make a right wing talk show host stand up and salute. And we do have some of those. Of late, however, they have seemed to be reducing the onslaught. Maybe Bergie got to them. When I had the opportunity to have dinner with TRAINS magazine group that was at Gorge Rail 06, I got the distinct impression that they were not to happy with the tone of things in certain discussions by certain folks. The direct remark was made that "they" were keeping tabs on it. I sure hope they don't get kicked off the forum. It would be like the class clown getting sent to the principal's office. The entertainment factor would take a hard hit.
The entertainment factor would be only one thing that would take a hit. We would also lose the variety of opinion and information that these discussions provide - and that would be a real loss.
I, personally, absolutely hate the invectives that get thrown around sometimes. We can have our discussions - and even severe disagreements - and yet be civil about it. "You" have your ideas and "I" have mine. It's alright with "me" if "you" don't accept "mine", and it should be alright with "you" if "I" don't accept "yours". And if "I" can't handle that, "I'd" better learn how, fast. Discuss all you want. State your "facts" all you want. Keep a "civil keyboard" attached to your e-mail.
This particular thread has given me a really improved understanding of how the railway system operates in GB. Even when some either refuse to understand or simply are not able to understand, the knowledgable responses from others educate us. And that is just one of the purposes of these forums.
You may have noticed that the format I try to use is "Look, I don't understand yada-yada. Here is how I do understand it. Yada yada. Please explain this to me." I have been wrong before, and I will be wrong again. I have been corrected by others on this Forum. I fully expect that to happen - again.
Cog,
I will venture that if you look at a mirror, you'll see a brick wall staring back. You are dead set in avering that hauling passengers makes money for rail while hauling freight does not. I'm sorry, but this runs against every accepted theory of transportation economics. However, you did let the cat out of the bag by acknowledging that the whole system is subsidized, passsengers included.
Question: If hauling passengers by rail makes money, why the subsidy?
Question: What type of "subsidy" is used to fund roads and rails? If it is fuel taxes and lorrie fees that pay for roads, then that is not a subsidy, but a user fee. A subsidy occurs when the beneficiary gets an earmark that was collected outside the actions of the said beneficiary.
Over here, fuel taxes are around 40 cents at the federal level, and range from 12 cents to 40 cents at the state level, so total fuel taxes are usually no more than 20 to 25% of the market price of the fuel. Over there, it is my understanding that fuel taxes are 100% or more of the market price of fuel. Indeed, fuel taxes are used for generating revenue to your general funds, right? So no matter how you slice it, 100% of your road expenditures come from fuel taxes.
Now, stay with me on this. I am assuming that the railroad subsidies also come from the fuel taxes. That's subsidies for both the infrastructure entity and the 25 or so operating companies. So what you guys have done is to tax the nominal road users onto the passenger trains, and in doing so you have ostensibly crowded out the freight users from using rail effectively. So your freight moves by the less efficient mode than that predicated for moving freight in greater than lorrie-load quantities, and your citizenry moves by the less individualized mode that that predicated for individual freedoms, and apparently you have not found a way or a will to fit the one into the other for the economic benefit of your society.
So what would happen if you guys decided to end all subsidies for rail, and only tax road fuel for use in the maintenance and development of your road system, like we do here in the States? I think we both know what would happen - more people would opt to drive than to take the train as pump prices more closely reflect the market price of the fuel, and conversely more freight would opt for rail transport even over short haul distances over 300 km as those avenues open up.
Why wouldn't that be a good thing? I have a hunch what your reply will be, but still............
BTW - haven't you guys heard of bi-modal lorries? Very low modal transfer costs, well adapted to short haul freight corridors. I would think such technology would have taken off even more so over there than here in the States, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Possibly because you've clogged your raillines with the less than optimal load factor inherent in passenger rail.
BTW2 - If real time intramodal competition was deem "unworkable, inefficent, and stupid" according to the Ministry of Running Out of Negative Adjectives For Things We Haven't Even Tried Yet, what do you call the last decade or so of trying to change a nationalized integrated rail system into a privatized overly separated but exclusively franchised rail system? You dogged the system you didn't even try, yet the one you guys did try wasn't exactly proof otherwise, was it? Now you want to go to a privatized integrated rail system, one I bet will continue to drain the fuel tax fund for even more subsidies just so you guys can pay monopoly rail rates.
The whole point of open access is to get that intramodal competition, yet you guys seemingly went out of your way just to prevent such intramodal competition, so it wasn't really open access, was it? I guess Jay needs to change the title of the thread to "Trouble in less than open access paradise".
HA!
Not quite.
Maybe in the future.
futuremodal wrote:Question: If hauling passengers by rail makes money, why the subsidy?
Because no commuter operation "makes" money. Cogload is talking about two of the three Intercity services. GNER which operates over the East Coast Mainline makes the most money. Great Western makes a little money. None of the more numerous commuter operations make money. The third Intercity operation would have made money except that the upgrade of the West Coast mainline was botched and instead of being fit for 140 mph, only 125 mph is possible. Because of this, the carrying capacity of the trains is lower and revenue generated is also lower, so West Coast loses money.
Question: What type of "subsidy" is used to fund roads and rails? If it is fuel taxes and lorrie fees that pay for roads, then that is not a subsidy, but a user fee. A subsidy occurs when the beneficiary gets an earmark that was collected outside the actions of the said beneficiary. Over here, fuel taxes are around 40 cents at the federal level, and range from 12 cents to 40 cents at the state level, so total fuel taxes are usually no more than 20 to 25% of the market price of the fuel. Over there, it is my understanding that fuel taxes are 100% or more of the market price of fuel. Indeed, fuel taxes are used for generating revenue to your general funds, right? So no matter how you slice it, 100% of your road expenditures come from fuel taxes.
Of course it is hard to say exactly where any particular money comes from, They have a lot less vehicles and travel a lot less miles (kilometers) than we do on a per capita basis.
No freight would not opt for rail. Do you see any noticeable amount of freight move less than 200 miles by rail in the US, only commodities like Iron Ore and the like. The only positive from the freight perspective would be the highways would be total gridlock. Of course nothing could get from the rail terminal to the factory so there would be no need to ship anything by rail. Speaking of which do you really want to see several thousand more Britons die each year in highway accidents. Not to mention all the additional injuries and the expenses that arrise from that?
Why wouldn't that be a good thing? I have a hunch what your reply will be, but still............ BTW - haven't you guys heard of bi-modal lorries? Very low modal transfer costs, well adapted to short haul freight corridors. I would think such technology would have taken off even more so over there than here in the States, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Possibly because you've clogged your raillines with the less than optimal load factor inherent in passenger rail.
They have tried roadrailers over there already too.
The problem with Intramodal competion for passenger services in Britain is that with that much traffic they can't afford the capacity to allow the trains to run as empty as they would while trying to steal passenger from each other.
futuremodal wrote: Cog, I will venture that if you look at a mirror, you'll see a brick wall staring back. You are dead set in avering that hauling passengers makes money for rail while hauling freight does not. I'm sorry, but this runs against every accepted theory of transportation economics. However, you did let the cat out of the bag by acknowledging that the whole system is subsidized, passsengers included. Question: If hauling passengers by rail makes money, why the subsidy? Question: What type of "subsidy" is used to fund roads and rails? If it is fuel taxes and lorrie fees that pay for roads, then that is not a subsidy, but a user fee. A subsidy occurs when the beneficiary gets an earmark that was collected outside the actions of the said beneficiary. Over here, fuel taxes are around 40 cents at the federal level, and range from 12 cents to 40 cents at the state level, so total fuel taxes are usually no more than 20 to 25% of the market price of the fuel. Over there, it is my understanding that fuel taxes are 100% or more of the market price of fuel. Indeed, fuel taxes are used for generating revenue to your general funds, right? So no matter how you slice it, 100% of your road expenditures come from fuel taxes. Now, stay with me on this. I am assuming that the railroad subsidies also come from the fuel taxes. That's subsidies for both the infrastructure entity and the 25 or so operating companies. So what you guys have done is to tax the nominal road users onto the passenger trains, and in doing so you have ostensibly crowded out the freight users from using rail effectively. So your freight moves by the less efficient mode than that predicated for moving freight in greater than lorrie-load quantities, and your citizenry moves by the less individualized mode that that predicated for individual freedoms, and apparently you have not found a way or a will to fit the one into the other for the economic benefit of your society. So what would happen if you guys decided to end all subsidies for rail, and only tax road fuel for use in the maintenance and development of your road system, like we do here in the States? I think we both know what would happen - more people would opt to drive than to take the train as pump prices more closely reflect the market price of the fuel, and conversely more freight would opt for rail transport even over short haul distances over 300 km as those avenues open up. Why wouldn't that be a good thing? I have a hunch what your reply will be, but still............ BTW - haven't you guys heard of bi-modal lorries? Very low modal transfer costs, well adapted to short haul freight corridors. I would think such technology would have taken off even more so over there than here in the States, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Possibly because you've clogged your raillines with the less than optimal load factor inherent in passenger rail. BTW2 - If real time intramodal competition was deem "unworkable, inefficent, and stupid" according to the Ministry of Running Out of Negative Adjectives For Things We Haven't Even Tried Yet, what do you call the last decade or so of trying to change a nationalized integrated rail system into a privatized overly separated but exclusively franchised rail system? You dogged the system you didn't even try, yet the one you guys did try wasn't exactly proof otherwise, was it? Now you want to go to a privatized integrated rail system, one I bet will continue to drain the fuel tax fund for even more subsidies just so you guys can pay monopoly rail rates. The whole point of open access is to get that intramodal competition, yet you guys seemingly went out of your way just to prevent such intramodal competition, so it wasn't really open access, was it? I guess Jay needs to change the title of the thread to "Trouble in less than open access paradise".
Slaps forehead many times. Right; for the final time.
1) there are passenger operations which pay PREMIUMs to the Treasury for operating. One is GNER which will pay the govt £1.2bn over 10years, the other is GW which will pay £1.3bn over the same time. If these horrible passenger trains did not make cash then would they be paying premiums? Er no. Also Heathrow Express (15miles, 100MPH very very high fares) also makes cash, thats probabley because there is a very captive market. But hey. And that is a private company and not a franchisee of the govt.
The freight operators which run in this country do make profit; however they are helped by paying basically marginal costs toward infrastructure and various govt grants which acknowledges the societal benefit in getting heavy lorries off the roads. There are bulk hauls WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO INTRAMODAL COMPETITION ON AN OPEN ACCESS BASIS which in the times of BR were subject to super profiteering by the operator. One problem with OA is with competitive bidding for contract, the price of the slot bid for will fall to move the goods in theory if there are a choice of rails - when there is a a monopoly supplier of rails that doesn't quite add up. Therefore regulation.
I do not know what the annual budget for roads is in purely care and maintain or for adding infrastructure. Taxation is, as a general rule not hypothecated in the UK. I pay may VAT on goods, or pay my income taxes part of that maybe allocated to the road network. When I fill my car up with petrol part of that may be allocated to buying tanks. However there are external prices to pay for travelling on the road in terms of time, accidents (appx £500K is spent each time there is a fatality on the road in the Uk - there were 3500 last year), congestion and pollution to name some. If subsidies were ended for the railway system we would be left with very little railway (probabley about 1k if that) - google the Serpell Report if you wish which would result in yes - a lot more people travelling by car. Now why would society find itself willing to pay a price to stop that - possibly because in terms of congestion, pollution and the like. In a small, very very crowded Island which this is there isn't the land available to build 16lane motorways either. So, as a balance there is a degree of "subsidy" toward public transport which recognises this and gives the consumer a choice of travel; which in your hypothetical world would not exist.
A Piggyback trial was run; but for reasons unknown it was cancelled and no more came of it. Perhaps Axle loadings were too heavy for most lines or there was a problem with clearances I do not know. It has been tried and discarded at present but may make a return. And, if we only charged fuel prices to a C/M on the roads for car users; then the same for lorries as well wouldn't the real cost of using a lorry come down? That is the logical extension of your argument. And as the major centres of consumption for a mostly service based economy are within 100 -150 miles of the major ports then the railways would be even more pushed out then they are at present.
Real time intramodal competition is happening. Way back at the beginning of this thread I stated that the idea about bidding for slots on the railway was dismissed not the idea of intramodal competition. The idea for slot bidding to the highes
beaulieu and cogland,
Thanks for the detailed information. I apologize for having to take the devil's advocate way of inducing the necessary responses, but often that is the only way to find out what people really think, not just the pat answers inherent under the ego's conscience control.
Two things I'd like to add - I have in the past made the statement that, although "no current passenger system makes a profit" (not my words but a popular belief put forth by rail advocates), I still believe that a profit making passenger rail operation is possible under one of two scenarios. One is in tour trains, the other is in the ability to get the passengers from their driveway to their destination in a faster, more comfortable, and more convenient (e.g. let 'em take their autos with them, etc.) way than is currently available with driving, taking the bus, or flying. Under these auspices, I reject the notion of taxing people out of their cars to force them to use rail, which seems to be the major reason for such high patronization of European passenger trains. If the driveway to destination factor is met in each of the three subcatagories, you don't have to tax people out of their cars, they will use the rails by choice. Because the Europeans tax their road fuels at a rate higher than that necessary to maintain the road systems, this causes a market skewing that makes it seem as if a rail passenger service might be making a profit, but I will not count such as an example of profitable passenger rail service. Keep your road taxes at the user fee level and no more, and we'll see if your passenger trains actually are profitable.
Secondly, freight can move by rail in short haul corridors if the only alternative to the single railroad is trucks and there is enough freight available at each cycle completion to form a decent minimal consist. It is universal that over the road truck rates will be above the corresponding average rail rate. Just price at a rate below that of the truck rates, and it's yours. The key is to minimize any carload shunting, sticking to mini-unit trains unbroken at either end. Works for aggregates, grains, containers, truck trailers, etc. Yes, this applies only to corridors where there is but one rail service provider, e.g. no intramodal competition. But, that's for another topic...........
Dear FM,
Cogload's already explained that Motoring Taxes in the UK are not "hypothecated" (back in the days when I was a student, the phrase then in vogue for such was "assigned taxation"), i.e. the Tax Revenue the Govt raises through Motoring Taxes is not handed back to be spent on New Road Schemes, nor maintaining existing roads. Our Motoring Taxes are examplesof "Excise Taxes", which the Government is free to spend/invest on whatever it wishes, e.g. Healthcare, Education, Iraq, the 2012 Olympic Games, etc.
Our Road Taxes might seem rather high by US levels, but have to be seen in the context of the whole range of Company and Personal Taxation.
Hwyl,
Martin
Limitedclear wrote: futuremodal wrote: mudchicken wrote: Context, FM - Context. (new forum, same pedantic snob act; you remain clueless....) Grow up. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! FM, crying like his ol' self, eh MC... But we can't expect an uneducated non-railroader like FM to understand much, can we??? LC WONDERFUL!! Finally a breath of fresh air!!, and nobody has turned this into a "THREAD For...." Nothing like a little fresh vitriol in the morning! Welcome back, Bomb throwers Anonymous
futuremodal wrote: mudchicken wrote: Context, FM - Context. (new forum, same pedantic snob act; you remain clueless....) Grow up.
mudchicken wrote: Context, FM - Context. (new forum, same pedantic snob act; you remain clueless....)
Context, FM - Context. (new forum, same pedantic snob act; you remain clueless....)
Grow up.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
FM, crying like his ol' self, eh MC...
But we can't expect an uneducated non-railroader like FM to understand much, can we???
LC
WONDERFUL!! Finally a breath of fresh air!!, and nobody has turned this into a "THREAD For...." Nothing like a little fresh vitriol in the morning! Welcome back, Bomb throwers Anonymous
mhurley87f wrote: Dear FM, Cogload's already explained that Motoring Taxes in the UK are not "hypothecated" (back in the days when I was a student, the phrase then in vogue for such was "assigned taxation"), i.e. the Tax Revenue the Govt raises through Motoring Taxes is not handed back to be spent on New Road Schemes, nor maintaining existing roads. Our Motoring Taxes are examplesof "Excise Taxes", which the Government is free to spend/invest on whatever it wishes, e.g. Healthcare, Education, Iraq, the 2012 Olympic Games, etc. Our Road Taxes might seem rather high by US levels, but have to be seen in the context of the whole range of Company and Personal Taxation. Hwyl, Martin
Martin, it doesn't matter if the road taxes are disected and a portion directly redistributed to road expenditures, or if all goes into a general fund and are then apportioned to whatever social need arises, the fact remains that the British government collects more from road taxes than are redistributed back for road expenditures. This is key to understanding why it is irrational for anyone to suggest that any private passenger rail service is "profitable" when for all intents and purposes nominal road users are being taxed off the roads and onto mostly subsidized rail lines. Further, with such tax-induced social behaviour programs there is always an unintended consequence of such deliberate market skewing, and one of the facets of consequence is the stated fact by Cogland that there simply just isn't any room on British rails for any significant increases in freight transportation due to it's being saturated by passenger trains. He speaks of the externalities of individual road usage as a salient reason for policies that encourage passenger rail usage, but when there are more trucks/lorries on the roads than would otherwise exist due to this deliberate market skewing, you are getting some unintended externalities that exacerbate rather than alleve the goal of reducing the impact of auto-based externalities.
Trucks pollute more than autos. Trucks are more likely to cause traffic jams than autos. Trucks take up more road space than autos. Accidents involving trucks causes geometrically greater damages than auto on auto accidents. Trucks cause more road damage than autos, regardless if they run light or heavy. Etc., etc., etc. Ergo, you are better off substituting rails for highways when it comes to moving freight, even if it means more autos on the roads than are there currently.
Anyone read the latest TRAINS newswire? There's an item regarding New Zealand's OA operator and a subsequent end to one of NZ's oldest passenger rail operations.....
http://www.trains.com/trn/print.aspx?c=a&id=625
Here's the question: How does NZ's system differentiate from Britian's rail system? Is it possible NZ is closer to the theoretical OA model, and that is the reason that passenger services are ending, e.g. here freight is squeezing out passenger?
Memo to Murphy: You should start a New Zealand rail operations thread.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Ooooooooooooooooo! That's the best critique you can muster...
Sounds like someone is pounding on the table...
futuremodal wrote: mhurley87f wrote: Dear FM, Cogload's already explained that Motoring Taxes in the UK are not "hypothecated" (back in the days when I was a student, the phrase then in vogue for such was "assigned taxation"), i.e. the Tax Revenue the Govt raises through Motoring Taxes is not handed back to be spent on New Road Schemes, nor maintaining existing roads. Our Motoring Taxes are examplesof "Excise Taxes", which the Government is free to spend/invest on whatever it wishes, e.g. Healthcare, Education, Iraq, the 2012 Olympic Games, etc. Our Road Taxes might seem rather high by US levels, but have to be seen in the context of the whole range of Company and Personal Taxation. Hwyl, Martin Martin, it doesn't matter if the road taxes are disected and a portion directly redistributed to road expenditures, or if all goes into a general fund and are then apportioned to whatever social need arises, the fact remains that the British government collects more from road taxes than are redistributed back for road expenditures. This is key to understanding why it is irrational for anyone to suggest that any private passenger rail service is "profitable" when for all intents and purposes nominal road users are being taxed off the roads and onto mostly subsidized rail lines. Further, with such tax-induced social behaviour programs there is always an unintended consequence of such deliberate market skewing, and one of the facets of consequence is the stated fact by Cogland that there simply just isn't any room on British rails for any significant increases in freight transportation due to it's being saturated by passenger trains. He speaks of the externalities of individual road usage as a salient reason for policies that encourage passenger rail usage, but when there are more trucks/lorries on the roads than would otherwise exist due to this deliberate market skewing, you are getting some unintended externalities that exacerbate rather than alleve the goal of reducing the impact of auto-based externalities. Trucks pollute more than autos. Trucks are more likely to cause traffic jams than autos. Trucks take up more road space than autos. Accidents involving trucks causes geometrically greater damages than auto on auto accidents. Trucks cause more road damage than autos, regardless if they run light or heavy. Etc., etc., etc. Ergo, you are better off substituting rails for highways when it comes to moving freight, even if it means more autos on the roads than are there currently.
Dave,
Who said "Road Spending is lower than Motoring Taxes" in the UK??
It's a popular mantra chanted by the RAC / AA / Assocn of British Drivers / Daily Mail and other nutters. That may well be the case in some years, but definitely not the case in all years, especially back in the seventies and early eighties when spending on new motorways was used to boost an economy feared to be flagging, and co-incidentally seen as a good vote booster.
Motoring Taxes, like Tobacco and Alcohol Taxes, have always been popular with UK Govts as the cost of collection is very modest in relation to their yields.
My daily round trip to work is 42 miles, and in the great scheme of things, I don't see the price of petrol £0.99 or so per litre (say £4.50 or so per gallon), and I would burn about a gallon a day, as something to get hung up on, seeing as oil is expensive to find, extract, transport, refine, distribute, and any profit has to fund finding the next oilfields.
What I do find unfair is that the price of my tipple at my local Rugby Club is hovering near to £16.00 per gallon - around four times the price of petrol for something as homespun as fermented barley, water, and some hops to add a taste!!
futuremodal wrote: Anyone read the latest TRAINS newswire? There's an item regarding New Zealand's OA operator and a subsequent end to one of NZ's oldest passenger rail operations..... http://www.trains.com/trn/print.aspx?c=a&id=625 Here's the question: How does NZ's system differentiate from Britian's rail system? Is it possible NZ is closer to the theoretical OA model, and that is the reason that passenger services are ending, e.g. here freight is squeezing out passenger? Memo to Murphy: You should start a New Zealand rail operations thread.
Its said nothing of lack of capacity in the newswire, to me it sounds like they are getting rid of a money losing operation, much like the US railroads did hear before Amtrak. I think that NZ OA model vs Englands OA model has nothing to do with it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.