Trouble in open access paradise?

[Anonymous]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe.

My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand.  Other than that, you can disagree with me 100% of the time and get nothing more negative than a terse rebuttal.

And no, I didn't care for Spiro Agnew either.

Wow...all that self loathing, reaching for a religious context...quick get out the DSM V...

We'll be back for a diagnosis shortly with Dr S. Freud...

FOFLMAO...

FM you just kill me...LOLOLOLOLOL...LC

And right on cue, the verbal diarrhetic LC provides a perfect example of what I just referenced.

[Anonymous]

Dave, I am going to break this up to simply things.

  For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding.

Dave can you explain to me how your slot bidding would work? The situation right now is that the freight companies say that they can barely afford the cost of their slot fees right now. How would they be able to offer more money for a slot in a bidding process?

I'm not sure why everyone is so stuck on this particular statement.  The term "slot bidding" is simply an acknowledgement of ascribing to market forces to determine buyers.  Putting aside for the moment the passenger subsidies and British system of taxing roads beyond that needed for road expenditures, if indeed the passenger operators could outbid potential freight operators, then so be it.  What's the problem?  Freight can just as easily move during the night, and can I assume that's where the open slots would be for the freight operators to make their move?  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.  Let the market determine what the bidders 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?  At least freight stands a chance of not having to be cross subsidized by those *profitable* UK passenger trains.

I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures.

They are only profitable, because they are like US Class I railroads, a monopoly provider, they do have limited competition in a small number of markets, and even with that, only two are making money.

Exoneration.

I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads.

It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable".  Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion.  Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation.  After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.

You won't. And inspite of what has been said, there are no profitable passenger operations unless they are a total monopoly. The examples cited do not have to cover the cost of their infrastructure. In otherwords all they have to pay for is their own costs, plus maintain the infrastructure. Under those circumstances they can be said to be making money. If they had to build any new capacity they cannot do it. Period.

Then we agree to disagree on a semantic interpretation.

That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition.  Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up.  They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door.  In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model.  Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA.

Repeat after me EWS is not franchised, they are an OA Operator, again and again until it sinks in.

From the Wikipedia entry on British Rail privatization:  "Freight Train Operators: Despite going to the expense of setting up separate management structures for the three parts of the trainload freight sector, on 24 February 1996 all three units were sold to North & South Railways", a subsidiary of the American Wisconsin Central Railroad, which soon renamed the operation English, Welsh and Scottish Railway. EWS also acquired Rail Express Systems, Railfreight Distribution (the last part of the nationalised railway to be sold, after Labour had been elected) and National Power's railfreight operation. Current freight train operators other than EWS include Freightliner (purchased by a management buyout) and two 'open access' freight operators: Direct Rail Services and GB Railfreight."

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

[n012944]

n012944:

Again apples to oranges.  Anything about Englands railroad operation yet?  How about open access?  Nothing as usual, spell check away.

Bert

"Funny" as you would say, it wasn't "apples and oranges" when you tried to make it the issue contending that by way of comparison there was "nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.".

So, how does "downtown Seattle" compare with "England" with its statistically lower population density? How does the PNW urban corridor compare to "England" with England's lower population density? What was your point?

I am sure many readers are curious as to your position on this. I am since I don't know anything about England except the statistical data. You have suggested you do -- "nothing even close to England".  Well, what is that? You obviously pretend to know what that is. Please, what is "close to England"? Why isn't the PNW urban corridor "close to England" due to its similar or greater population density ?

After all, it is your specifically stated contention, not mine or anyone else's. Take credit. You said it.

And be specific.

 

 

Again apples to oranges. That was my point.  You implyied that since FM lives in Washington state, instead of Idaho as stated, and since there is an urban corridor in Washington state, he would know what he was talking about with Englands open access issues.  My point is that it doesn't matter what state he lives in, it is apples to oranges.  He could live in the midwest, the south or even the northeast and it would still not matter.  Is the price of fuel around six dollars a gallon in the PNW as it is in England?  No.  Does the city of Seattle charge you to drive you car into town as does London?  No.  So regardless of were in the PNW he lives, the point is moot as it is different than England.  Do you need me to draw you a picture?  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? 

 

Bert

[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!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Actually, it seems to be questionable whether FM has any experience with how things work on this side of the Atlantic, either.  He has held that his model of "Open Access" will solve all sorts of economic problems beyond grain rates.  He also believes that his model can be imposed on American railroading simply by regulatory order, ignoring the roles of the legislature and the judiciary in any such procedure.  Those who have pointed out the existence of various legal processes and the Constitution of the United States as barriers to his theories have been subjected to various forms of abuse just short of character assassination.

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.

[MichaelSol]

n012944:

Again apples to oranges.  Anything about Englands railroad operation yet?  How about open access?  Nothing as usual, spell check away.

Bert

"Funny" as you would say, it wasn't "apples and oranges" when you tried to make it the issue contending that by way of comparison there was "nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.".

So, how does "downtown Seattle" compare with "England" with its statistically lower population density? How does the PNW urban corridor compare to "England" with England's lower population density? What was your point?

I am sure many readers are curious as to your position on this. I am since I don't know anything about England except the statistical data. You have suggested you do -- "nothing even close to England".  Well, what is that? You obviously pretend to know what that is. Please, what is "close to England"? Why isn't the PNW urban corridor "close to England" due to its similar or greater population density ?

After all, it is your specifically stated contention, not mine or anyone else's. Take credit. You said it.

And be specific.

 

[n012944]

You brought up the whole PNW issue with: 

"I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas"

Implying that since FM lives in Washington, and it does have urbanized areas, he might know something about England and its operation.  Now Michael, do you have anything to post about Englands operation?  Anything about open access? Or are you going to continue to be the boards spell checker?

Bert

See, you completely missed the earlier comment: "Being in Idaho, FM has little comprehension of life in a place with a population density of the United Kingdom."

You had no objection then.

That was fine.

Lot's of information about "England's operation"? Right?

Right?

Now, in response to your comment about England, I posted some actual numbers, ahhh, now it's irrelevant if the PNW looks like England.

 

Again apples to oranges.  Anything about Englands railroad operation yet?  How about open access?  Nothing as usual, spell check away.

 

Bert

[MichaelSol]

You brought up the whole PNW issue with: 

"I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas"

Implying that since FM lives in Washington, and it does have urbanized areas, he might know something about England and its operation.  Now Michael, do you have anything to post about Englands operation?  Anything about open access? Or are you going to continue to be the boards spell checker?

Bert

See, you completely missed the earlier comment: "Being in Idaho, FM has little comprehension of life in a place with a population density of the United Kingdom."

You had no objection then.

That was fine.

Lot's of information about "England's operation"? Right?

Right?

Now, in response to your comment about England, I posted some actual numbers, ahhh, now it's irrelevant if the PNW looks like England.

Remember: "nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot."

Seems like you pretended you knew a lot.

[n012944]

You brought up the whole PNW issue with: 

"I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas"

Implying that since FM lives in Washington, and it does have urbanized areas, he might know something about England and its operation.  Now Michael, do you have anything to post about Englands operation?  Anything about open access? Or are you going to continue to be the boards spell checker?

 

Bert

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

Again what is your point?  The only thing  you have to offer is, my urban area is bigger that your urban area?  Who cares? 

Then why did you suggest the PNW urban corridors are "nothing even close to England"? You seemed to feel that was a significant point, but now I see you confess you have no actual data on "England" nor any realization of how the PNW urban corridor compares.

Suddenly it's "who cares" but only after you made it an issue.

Isn't this a pattern with you?

Again, comparing England to the PNW is comparing apples to oranges.  I guess that is too much for you to understand.  So one question Michael, do have anything to bring to this thread?  Or are you just going to sit and nitpick over little things like spelling and what state FM lives in?  Oh wait, that would break YOUR pattern.

 

Bert

Then, why did you say, "nothing even close to England" as though pretending there was a comparison, that you knew something about it, and that it was relevant enough to make the specific "claim" when no one else did?

And of course, it is transparently obvious that I was the first and only one who felt it "important" as to where Futuremodal lived, as to the credibilty of his observations.

Of course. I was the first! If you disregard an earlier comment "Being in Idaho, FM has little comprehension of life in a place with a population density of the United Kingdom."

Gosh, you were sure silent on that one.

 

[n012944]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

Again what is your point?  The only thing  you have to offer is, my urban area is bigger that your urban area?  Who cares? 

Then why did you suggest the PNW urban corridors are "nothing even close to England"? You seemed to feel that was a significant point, but now I see you confess you have no actual data on "England" nor any realization of how the PNW urban corridor compares.

Suddenly it's "who cares" but only after you made it an issue.

Isn't this a pattern with you?

Again, comparing England to the PNW is comparing apples to oranges.  I guess that is too much for you to understand.  So one question Michael, do have anything to bring to this thread?  Or are you just going to sit and nitpick over little things like spelling and what state FM lives in?  Oh wait, that would break YOUR pattern.

 

Bert

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

Again what is your point?  The only thing  you have to offer is, my urban area is bigger that your urban area?  Who cares? 

Then why did you suggest the PNW urban corridors are "nothing even close to England"? You seemed to feel that was a significant point, but now I see you confess you have no actual data on "England" nor any realization of how the PNW urban corridor compares.

Suddenly it's "who cares" but only after you made it an issue.

Isn't this a pattern with you?

[beaulieu]

Dave, I am going to break this up to simply things.

  My perception, is that you appear foolish in this particualar discussion.  But, that's just me.(shrugs).    

I appear foolish?!  For engaging in debate?  For questioning ideas that have been taken for granted by others?

For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding.

Dave can you explain to me how your slot bidding would work? The situation right now is that the freight companies say that they can barely afford the cost of their slot fees right now. How would they be able to offer more money for a slot in a bidding process?

I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures.

They are only profitable, because they are like US Class I railroads, a monopoly provider, they do have limited competition in a small number of markets, and even with that, only two are making money.

I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads.

It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable".  Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion.  Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation.  After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.

You won't. And inspite of what has been said, there are no profitable passenger operations unless they are a total monopoly. The examples cited do not have to cover the cost of their infrastructure. In otherwords all they have to pay for is their own costs, plus maintain the infrastructure. Under those circumstances they can be said to be making money. If they had to build any new capacity they cannot do it. Period.

That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition.  Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up.  They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door.  In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model.  Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA.

Repeat after me EWS is not franchised, they are an OA Operator, again and again until it sinks in. The other OA Operators are stealing business from EWS because it is bigger  and more established and so has slightly higher costs. Some business it lost because other companies undercut it. In other cases the customer went out of business. The steel mill at Llanwern is mostly closed except for one small part. A couple of coal fired power stations closed or converted to Gas, etc. The only market growing is imported containers, the very same market that you say US railroads don't make much money on.
If you think that US railroads can't make much money hauling containers 1000 miles how much money do you think UK railways can make hauling it 100 miles. Take for example the coal fired powerplant at Drax, the largest in the UK, they receive 40 trains per day. The business is split three ways, EWS, Freightliner, and GB Railfreight each have a portion. Five years ago EWS had it all as they were the only company with enough assets to handle the business. The power company was cagy though, they split their total business into many smaller contracts, both Freightliner and GB Railfreight could handle one of the smaller contracts. Gradually the other two have become larger. Now the power company splits the business something like 50, 30, 20 percent with the lowest bidder getting the biggest piece, be too far off the lowest bidders price and you might get nothing at all. Its a buyers market, but the power company knows that it is in their best interest to keep everybody in the game if they are at least competitive. In a sense this is "Open Access" paradise. But the only if the game is use the tools the government gives you. The OA Operators are nowhere near where they could think about building any trackage. Neither are the customers in most cases will to pay for a simple siding.

Problems in "open access" paradise? 

<snipped>

[edblysard]

And he used smarmy in two separate replies on the same thread…

Guess he ran out of really masculine insults, or lost his thesaurus...

 

[Limitedclear]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe.

My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand.  Other than that, you can disagree with me 100% of the time and get nothing more negative than a terse rebuttal.

And no, I didn't care for Spiro Agnew either.

Wow...all that self loathing, reaching for a religious context...quick get out the DSM V...

We'll be back for a diagnosis shortly with Dr S. Freud...

FOFLMAO...

FM you just kill me...LOLOLOLOLOL...

LC

 

 

[jeaton]

Dispersed redundancy of the highway system?  In Seattle?  Perhaps you propose to fill in Lake Washington and Puget Sound? 

I do suppose that the US could have many more highways if we were willing to double or triple the "user fees" on motor vehicles.  Any takers?

[n012944]

[

My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand. 

Something you are well known for on these boards.  A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here.

 

Bert

 

[n012944]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

 

 

Again what is your point?  The only thing  you have to offer is, my urban area is bigger that your urban area?  Who cares?  Nothing of what you have said has anything to do with open access or Englands railroad operations.  I don't understand the relevance, unless your are just trying to take some heat off your buddy FM, who has made himself look foolish on this thread.

 

Bert

[n012944]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

 <>But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

And have you been to England?

Yes I have, what is your point?

Bert

Do you feel you know more about the organizational and financial aspects of the British railroad system as a result of having been there?

 

No I don't.  I also am not arguing with people who DO live there.  I know little of Englands operations, which is why for the most part I have stayed on the sidelines on this thread. 

 

Bert

[Limitedclear]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Clarification - I am a resident of the State of Idaho, but the family farm is across the border in Washington.

None of which has any bearing on one's ability to debate open access vs closed access vs nationalization vs privatization vs franchising vs integrated operations vs *profitable* passenger trains vs overtaxed road users.  Being there does not instantly make one an expert on the economic fallout of the move from nationalization to privatization, with or without separation, with or without franchising. 

I am quite quite familiar with the Seattle area transporation situation.  If the British urbanside is anything like the Puget Sound, the problems may have the same root cause:  Not enough dispersed redundancy in the road system.  Passenger rail is not the answer, it only adds to the problems.  And it's the "problems" that keep the *elected* officials seemingly engaged from the public perception perspective.

 

FM is still in his own private Idaho...

FOFLMAO...

LC

 

 

[Murphy Siding]

  My perception, is that you appear foolish in this particualar discussion.  But, that's just me.(shrugs).    

I appear foolish?!  For engaging in debate?  For questioning ideas that have been taken for granted by others?

For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding.

I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures.

I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads.

It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable".  Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion.  Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation.  After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.

That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition.  Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up.  They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door.  In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model.  Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA.

Problems in "open access" paradise?  More like problems with people like you just being able to understand the subcontext of what is being debated here.  But, hey, that's just my opinion.

     Holy Cow! Batman!  I feel as though I gave you a battle cry to circle the wagons and ralley 'round the flag!       It conjures up images of John Belushi in Animal House: " Over!!??  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!!??" Rock On!!

[Anonymous]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Clarification - I am a resident of the State of Idaho, but the family farm is across the border in Washington.

None of which has any bearing on one's ability to debate open access vs closed access vs nationalization vs privatization vs franchising vs integrated operations vs *profitable* passenger trains vs overtaxed road users.  Being there does not instantly make one an expert on the economic fallout of the move from nationalization to privatization, with or without separation, with or without franchising. 

I am quite quite familiar with the Seattle area transporation situation.  If the British urbanside is anything like the Puget Sound, the problems may have the same root cause:  Not enough dispersed redundancy in the road system.  Passenger rail is not the answer, it only adds to the problems.  And it's the "problems" that keep the *elected* officials seemingly engaged from the public perception perspective.

[Anonymous]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe.

My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand.  Other than that, you can disagree with me 100% of the time and get nothing more negative than a terse rebuttal.

And no, I didn't care for Spiro Agnew either.

[Anonymous]

  My perception, is that you appear foolish in this particualar discussion.  But, that's just me.(shrugs).    

I appear foolish?!  For engaging in debate?  For questioning ideas that have been taken for granted by others?

For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding.

I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures.

I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads.

It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable".  Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion.  Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation.  After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.

That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition.  Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up.  They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door.  In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model.  Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA.

Problems in "open access" paradise?  More like problems with people like you just being able to understand the subcontext of what is being debated here.  But, hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

 

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

 <>But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

And have you been to England?

Yes I have, what is your point?

Bert

Do you feel you know more about the organizational and financial aspects of the British railroad system as a result of having been there?

[n012944]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

 <>But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

And have you been to England?

Yes I have, what is your point?

 

Bert

[TomDiehl]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington,

Wow, that's more specific than Dave has ever told us.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe.

In another time, he could have been a speechwriter for Spiro Agnew.

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

 <>But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

And have you been to England?