Trouble in open access paradise?

[n012944]

 It seems when someone doesn't agree with you, you resort to personal attacks, much like FM. 

Bert, this is an outright lie on your part.  I have never attacked anyone simply because there is disagreement. 

I think there might be a couple of people who dissagree with that statement.

 

Bert

[owlsroost]

but as Maggie was selling off all of the family silver anyway she decided that BR would go the same way

Actually it was John Major who decided to privatise BR - Maggie put it in the 'too difficult'/not worth the hassle' category.

Tony

[jeaton]

The following appeared in The National Corridors Initiative E-zine for July 31.

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df07312006.shtml#German

German TV:

British privatization model costs English
taxpayers $780 million/year for just one
route in national system

By David Beale
NCI European Correspondent

According to Bahn TV [Germany], the British Rail system privatization undertaken by the Conservative Government of John Major a decade ago cost the British taxpayers three times as much public funding during the seven years after full privatization as the preceding seven years with the government-owned, fully-integrated British Rail corporation.

Bahn TV stated that a group of long distance routes formerly operated by BR Intercity and which is today operated by Virgin Trains (http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/) requires an annual operating subsidy from the British government of £400 million (US$ 780 million). A decade ago, according to Bahn TV, those same routes generated a small operating profit for British Rail.

Bahn TV added, that a similar plan to the British concept of complete separation of the track/infrastructure from operations here in Germany has been recently taken off the table and will not be pursued. Deutsche Bahn as well as several rail labor unions have been against this proposal for years.

Bahn TV’s news anchor, Monika Jones, wound up the story regarding the now-shelved plan to remove track / infrastructure from operations within Germany, as executed in Britain, as similar to dividing a restaurant from its kitchen into separate business units with separate management and “expecting the restaurant to still function”.

I can't verify the accuracy of any of the statements reported.  Perhaps our European friends can add more.

[Hugh Jampton]

If you'll beg my pardon, it just seems to me (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that you Brits made things much more complex than need be, e.g. the initial breakup of BR into 100 or so entities.  Wouldn't things have been a lot more simplified if you had either reverted back to the original four integrated private rail operators e.g pre-nationalization, or (in compliance with the EU directive) at least kept the entire infrastructure under public control and just let out the train operations to private entities in true open access mode? 

    The operators don't have to bid for a TAA - the TAA gives you the right to access the tracks in return for payment to Network Rail, but getting paths on a particular route is a separate (no payment) bidding process managed by Network Rail. It's overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, to which an operator can appeal if it thinks it's not being fairly treated in the process.

So is the process of obtaining paths done by lottery, or does the ORR use a subjective analysis to determine who gets what?

The railway had to be split between operations and infrastructure as per the EU directive. The crux of it is, the EU directs and the member countries must impliment those directives in their own laws. So we had no real say in it.
yes, they did go over the top by privatising it all into so many different companies, but that was the best way to get the most money out of it all (the EU directive only specified that the accounting had to be seperated, but as Maggie was selling off all of the family silver anyway she decided that BR would go the same way).
Once Railtrack went bust it was taken over by Network Rail which is a private company limited by guarantee (effectivly a government owned not for profit company). Since then they have cancelled the maintenance contracts and taken it back in house, and now signalling design is also to be taken back.

The timetabling process is controlled by the ORR and each year all the TOCs put their requirements into them. They have loads of heated meetings and in the end the ORR makes the final decision based on what's best for the railway and the country as a whole. The way the access agreements were drawn up the marginal cost per path for the franchisees is vitrually nil (this was originally done to incentivise the operators to run more trains) But it backfired on them when the operators took advantage of this offer and used up all of the available capacity, in some cases as much as 95%.

[Anonymous]

If you'll beg my pardon, it just seems to me (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that you Brits made things much more complex than need be, e.g. the initial breakup of BR into 100 or so entities.  Wouldn't things have been a lot more simplified if you had either reverted back to the original four integrated private rail operators e.g pre-nationalization, or (in compliance with the EU directive) at least kept the entire infrastructure under public control and just let out the train operations to private entities in true open access mode? 

    The operators don't have to bid for a TAA - the TAA gives you the right to access the tracks in return for payment to Network Rail, but getting paths on a particular route is a separate (no payment) bidding process managed by Network Rail. It's overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, to which an operator can appeal if it thinks it's not being fairly treated in the process.

So is the process of obtaining paths done by lottery, or does the ORR use a subjective analysis to determine who gets what?

[Anonymous]

 It seems when someone doesn't agree with you, you resort to personal attacks, much like FM. 

Bert, this is an outright lie on your part.  I have never attacked anyone simply because there is disagreement.  I have responded to personal attacks on me in kind at times.  You on the other hand seem to do nothing but engage in personal attacks, as witnessed in the above lie you have posted.

[Hugh Jampton]

I had a look round the facilities at the Hupac terminal in Domodossola a couple of years ago and I was most impressed. They got a good operation and I hope they make a go of it.

[martin.knoepfel]

I might add an opinion from a different, but European, perspectice.

Recently, the general-manager of Hupac, a large Swiss freight-operator (containers and trailers only) wrote on his experience with open-acces. Hupac owns some engines, but they are by far not numerous enough to pull its trains. so, for most of their trains, they rely on railroads, mostly the former government-owned railroads. IIRC, last year, Hupac put the traction of their trains to an open bidding-process. They soon noted how the railroads attitudes changed. The former government-owned railroads suddenly realized, there is a customer they might lose to another operator. Finally, they got the big-share of the new hauling-contracts. Details of the new contracts were not published, of course.

By a strange coincidence, on-time-performance of the Trenitalias freight-trains on the Italian-Austrian Brenner-Route improved significantly, after a new OA operator competed with Trenitalia, the freight-division of Italy's former government-owned railroad.

Here in Switzerland, one can see new products (trains for containers and trailers) appearing on the market. Some disappear again after a short period, but some remain. This leads me to the conclusion that the market works. Whether you are for or against OA, seems to have to do with your perspective. The question is whether you are on the side of the large group of customers (shippers) or on the side of the minority of producers. That's always the case if it is about free market vs. protection. You can substitute railroads for imported cars, or selling electricity, telecom-services or natural gas.

[owlsroost]

I also reject the notion that only passenger operators can run passenger trains, and only freight operators can operate freight trains.  Again, putting aside the legal directives, why from a practical standpoint can't the freight operators also participate in running passenger trains, and vis versa?  An OA company should not be limited in what it can haul. In the US of yore, freight cross subsidized the passenger trains, so why can't UK passenger operators add freight to their repetoire?

There is nothing to stop them, and it has happened - GB Railfreight (GBRf) was originally started up by GB Railways which also ran a passenger franchise. GB Railways was recently bought by First Group (a large bus and passenger franchise operator), so First is in both the passenger and freight business. It also owns Hull Trains (ex-GB Railways), the first OA passenger operator in the UK.

EWS has a nationwide passenger operating licence (and a small fleet of 125mph  diesel locos), but it's only ever used it to haul charter and other special passenger trains as far as I'm aware.

From this decription, it makes it appear that EWS and Freightliner are not open access operators, since the online encyclopedia goes to the length of describing the other two freight operators as being "open access".  The inference from this and this thread is that EWS and FHH were franchisee's, while DRS and GBR were the OA operators.  Since you have deemed this as incorrect, we'll just go with your interpretation from here on out that all freight operators are OA operators.

BTW - wouldn't you consider the TAA as a sort of franchise agreement?  And don't the OA operators have to bid for a TAA?

Beaulieu is correct - all rail freight operators in the UK operate under OA arrangments. The constituent parts of EWS and Freightliner were ex-BR freight operations, so they inherited the timetable slots, customer contracts etc (as you would expect when buying a business as a 'going concern') but after the sale they became OA operators.

DRS, GBRf and (most recently) Fastline were started from the ground up, but DRS and Fastline were kick-started with existing business from their parent companies, and GBRf started up with a large contract for engineering train haulage from Railtrack/Network Rail - so they were all helped into the business by much larger companies. There hasn't yet been a true 'ground up' freight operator start-up in the UK since privatisation - does that suggest anything about the profits (or not) to be made hauling rail freight here ?

The operators don't have to bid for a TAA - the TAA gives you the right to access the tracks in return for payment to Network Rail, but getting paths on a particular route is a separate (no payment) bidding process managed by Network Rail. It's overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, to which an operator can appeal if it thinks it's not being fairly treated in the process.

Tony

[n012944]

"Wow, wrong again. Quite a record. But you do underscore the record of another troll, who justifies that killing, 10,000 greyhounds in the most recent headline, but no, I did not post the original link attaching an alleged railroader to a horrendous industry of butchery and deceit, it's your usual "careful" attention to detail and fact."

You might not have posted the original link, but you found a follow up

Posted by Mr Sol in a different thread

"Interesting. A letter just two and one-half years ago ... Strawbridge accused of "spreading industry propaganda" ... can't imagine ...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/19/HO113090.DTL

"Greyhound lovers need no help from racing spokesman

Editor -- Regarding Eileen Mitchell's articles describing her rescued greyhound's lovely antics ("How do I love thee?" Dog's Life, Nov. 8), it never ceases to amaze me the lengths that the racing industry spokesperson, Ken Strawbridge, will go to in order to spread industry propaganda at the expense of hardworking greyhound advocates; advocates who have been instrumental in uncovering greyhound abuses and deaths for the last two decades.

As I read proclamations from Mr. Strawbridge of how humane the greyhound racing industry is, one question comes to mind: Mr. Strawbridge, why are you, and your industry, completely out of touch with the abuses and deaths uncovered by the Greyhound Protection League if your industry is effectively self-policing? And at what point do the number of greyhound deaths no longer fit your definition of "isolated," a popular industry term so often quoted by you and your like in the media?

If your industry was truly humane, Mr. Strawbridge, then it would be your industry uncovering all these abuses and not the mother of two with a full- time job that lives in a nonracing state, and other such hardworking volunteers.

The industry will do itself a favor by acknowledging and encouraging the hard work of outsiders who have for years exposed greyhound cruelty and fought to bring the perpetrators to justice, instead of attempting to publicly humiliate them. But that would require a sense of humanity. "

Sounds like the rail industry comments as well. Maybe arbfbe deserves the apology ... "

 

This is talking about greyhound deaths in a MILW thread.  Now I admit that I am not the expert that you claim to be on the MILW, but I have never heard anything about that railroad being involved with anything to do with greyhound racing, so I don't understand the point of it being brought up.  It seems when someone doesn't agree with you, you resort to personal attacks, much like FM.  Now please stop the attacks and get back to the open access talk, if you haven't driven everyone off this thread.

 

Bert

[Murphy Siding]

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.

 

Posted on 7/23/2006 on this thread, page 2 if you would like to look for yourself.  Now could we please get back to the open access discussion?

 

Bert

      At the risk of sounding *smarmy*, just let me  say ()!!

[n012944]

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.

 

Posted on 7/23/2006 on this thread, page 2 if you would like to look for yourself.  Now could we please get back to the open access discussion?

 

Bert

[MichaelSol]

but I have seen you point out spelling mistakes to other people, ...

Where?

When?

[MichaelSol]

n012944:

Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. 

Yes, very ingnorant.

Sorry I made a mistake with my typing/spelling, hope that pointing it out makes you feel better about yourself.  If that is the only thing you came back with I guess this discussion is over, thank you for wasting everyone's time.

Bert

Well, when you start calling people names and "ingnorant" you create for yourself the irony of your own presentation of facts, and call into question your own credentials.

 

No it just shows that my typing skills are not the best, but I have seen you point out spelling mistakes to other people, so I guess it makes you feel better about yourself to point out other peoples mistakes. Now that we are past that, what is your purpose here Michael?  It seems in many threads you start posting about stuff that has no meanings to the thread at hand to try to make a person look bad.  I recall reading a MILW thread, where you posted a link about the killing of greyhound puppies, now in a open access thread you bring up a post about the PCE.  Seems to be some people would label you a troll for doing such things.

Bert

Wow, wrong again. Quite a record. But you do underscore the record of another troll, who justifies that killing, 10,000 greyhounds in the most recent headline, but no, I did not post the original link attaching an alleged railroader to a horrendous industry of butchery and deceit, it's your usual "careful" attention to detail and fact.

So, since you're wrong on your facts once again, what's your purpose here? Just "ingnorant"? Or careless?

Or as you demonstrated on the Milwaukee threads. A troll arguing contrary to established and documented facts because you think you know more than everyone else?

And that was the question here: what makes you think you know the difference between "England" and the PNW?

After all, you lectured someone else that there was a difference, but you seem mysteriously unable to articulate what that difference is.

Who do you think you are?

 

[n012944]

n012944:

Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. 

Yes, very ingnorant.

Sorry I made a mistake with my typing/spelling, hope that pointing it out makes you feel better about yourself.  If that is the only thing you came back with I guess this discussion is over, thank you for wasting everyone's time.

Bert

Well, when you start calling people names and "ingnorant" you create for yourself the irony of your own presentation of facts, and call into question your own credentials.

 

No it just shows that my typing skills are not the best, but I have seen you point out spelling mistakes to other people, so I guess it makes you feel better about yourself to point out other peoples mistakes. Now that we are past that, what is your purpose here Michael?  It seems in many threads you start posting about stuff that has no meanings to the thread at hand to try to make a person look bad.  I recall reading a MILW thread, where you posted a link about the killing of greyhound puppies, now in a open access thread you bring up a post about the PCE.  Seems to be some people would label you a troll for doing such things.

 

Bert

[Anonymous]

  And understanding a sarcastic reply doesn't seem to be one of your talents either. 

Dave - You do not seem to understand that these types of personal attacks make you about as welcome as a social disease.

Bob, you do not seem to comprehend the extent of your own hypocrasy.  You guys are like Hezebollah, you initiate the attack, then when the victim of the attack strikes back in a calculated, almost polite manner, you all whine and scream about how you are the victims.

I tried to inject a little humor into the debate by acknowledging the *compliment* put forth by Chessiewitch, e.g. being called a "technocrat".  Chessiewitch then proceeds to call me a pro-China communist for all intents and purposes.

Nah, no personal attacks there, huh Bob?

So I give Chessiewitch the benefit of the doubt that he didn't understand that the initial reply was sarcastic, and call that to his attention.  The alternative would be to acknowledge that Chessiewitch knowingly used the reply in a false manner for the purposes of slander, and I for one am not going to call him out on that just yet.

[MichaelSol]

n012944:

Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. 

Yes, very ingnorant.

Sorry I made a mistake with my typing/spelling, hope that pointing it out makes you feel better about yourself.  If that is the only thing you came back with I guess this discussion is over, thank you for wasting everyone's time.

Bert

Well, when you start calling people names and "ingnorant" you create for yourself the irony of your own presentation of facts, and call into question your own credentials.

Particularly from what appears to me from other threads to be your own astonishing ignorance of "facts" even as you pretend knowledge on the subjects:

Originally posted by n012944
... The only reason the PCE was built was because when the Hill lines bought the Burlington, the MILW lost a lot of interchange traffic at the Twin Cites.

Yeah, expert. Absolutely false. Remember the answer to that one, from none other than James J. Hill himself?

The irony was just too good to pass up, but especially in the context of your post on another thread today, just "wasting everyone's time".

Its the government's job and responsibility to make your life better, not yours, right?

Ed

That seems to be his position in life.

Bert

Yeah, you don't mind wasting people's time at all.

[n012944]

n012944:

Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. 

Yes, very ingnorant.

Sorry I made a mistake with my typing/spelling, hope that pointing it out makes you feel better about yourself.  If that is the only thing you came back with I guess this discussion is over, thank you for wasting everyone's time.

 

Bert

 

 

[MichaelSol]

n012944:

Very ingnorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you. 

Yes, very ingnorant.

[n012944]

no12944:  What else can I do for you Michael?  Do you yet have any information to add on the British open access model, or will you continue to waste everyones time on this thread? 

You can explain what you know about England that permitted you to make the comparison with the PNW, as I have asked you to do repeatedly. You made the comment, back it up.

 

Why should I?  You have been asked many times to explain what you did at the MILW road, but you never seem to answer that.  Very ignorant, but that is what I have come to expect of you.  As for the comparison, I read books, and I watch TV all of which tells me that the PNW and any other part of America, is very different from England.  Common sensce would tell most people that they are very different, but I guess that is too much for you to understand.  Once again my point was, it doesn't matter if FM lives in Idaho or Washington, it still does not matter when it comes to Englands operation.

Bert

[bobwilcox]

  And understanding a sarcastic reply doesn't seem to be one of your talents either. 

Dave - You do not seem to understand that these types of personal attacks make you about as welcome as a social disease.

[Anonymous]

It realy didn't.

 It's mostly a shameless plug for the movie but also a viewpoint of the threads past and present.

Some things never change...

[selector]

Some of you are all a bunch of blow-hard pricks. 

 5, maybe 6 (7,8,9...) of you think you own the forums and the fodder will folow. You have a right to your opinion but don't try to force it onto others just because you were the dweeb in high school that couldn't get lucky let alone get a passing glance by the lunch lady and grew up to be some malcontented  miscreant lepink of the workforce with a dream of something better but in reality only have  a basement hobby that you are ashamed to admit.

Instead of thinking you know everything maybe try listening and learning new things.

This forum will never change... there will always be ed's, fm's, bnsf's, and stupid scissor runners.

Look for my movie coming soon to theaters near you!

 

I am trying to understand how this contributed anything useful to the discussion.

[Anonymous]

I figured that was one of yer kins. You Texans have a way with them there funky sayin's.

Course you-all are kinda strange down there anyway- queers an steers and all.

[edblysard]

Runswithscissors...try knives, they cut better and deeper....

You kin to Footinmouth?

Ed

[Anonymous]

Some of you are all a bunch of blow-hard pricks. 

 5, maybe 6 (7,8,9...) of you think you own the forums and the fodder will folow. You have a right to your opinion but don't try to force it onto others just because you were the dweeb in high school that couldn't get lucky let alone get a passing glance by the lunch lady and grew up to be some malcontented  miscreant lepink of the workforce with a dream of something better but in reality only have  a basement hobby that you are ashamed to admit.

Instead of thinking you know everything maybe try listening and learning new things.

This forum will never change... there will always be ed's, fm's, bnsf's, and stupid scissor runners.

Look for my movie coming soon to theaters near you!

 

[Anonymous]

FM reminds me of a technocrat, the world would run so much better if we left it to the engineers and got rid of the political process.

Wow, that's the bestest compliment I've recieved on this thread!

Getting rid of the political process is a prospect much too frightening for me to consider.  The existing political process in the United States may be slow, cumbersome, occasionally illogical and sometimes even corrupt, but it sure beats the alternatives.

If FM considers getting rid of the political process to be advantageous, and his response implies that he does, he is more dangerous in that regard than anything he may spout about OA.

Last I checked, China was more up your political alley, e.g. left of center.  And understanding a sarcastic reply doesn't seem to be one of your talents either.  And I mean that in the politest possible way I can muster.

[bobwilcox]

FM reminds me of a technocrat, the world would run so much better if we left it to the engineers and got rid of the political process.

Wow, that's the bestest compliment I've recieved on this thread!

Wow!.  Don't waste anytime but grab the next flight for Beijing.  You would be a perfect fit for their command economy!

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM reminds me of a technocrat, the world would run so much better if we left it to the engineers and got rid of the political process.

Wow, that's the bestest compliment I've recieved on this thread!

Getting rid of the political process is a prospect much too frightening for me to consider.  The existing political process in the United States may be slow, cumbersome, occasionally illogical and sometimes even corrupt, but it sure beats the alternatives.

If FM considers getting rid of the political process to be advantageous, and his response implies that he does, he is more dangerous in that regard than anything he may spout about OA.

[MichaelSol]

no12944:  What else can I do for you Michael?  Do you yet have any information to add on the British open access model, or will you continue to waste everyones time on this thread? 

You can explain what you know about England that permitted you to make the comparison with the PNW, as I have asked you to do repeatedly. You made the comment, back it up.