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?
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.
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.
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.
Yet another logical contradiction from the usual suspects.
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
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.
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.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, it's much farther than 5000 miles. We think it is an alternate universe far to the right of ours. One of the features of that universe seems to be that the money to invest in railroad infrastructure grows on trees, thus the inefficient and unworkable can be used because because there is no problem adding capacity.
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.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
cogload wrote: Slot bidding. This was proposed in the UK and then thrown out as a) unworkable, b) inefficient and c) stupid. 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.
Murphy Siding wrote: All things considered, I believe I'll go with cogload on this one. He's a little closer to the subject than us "Yanks", and tends to tell it like he sees it.
I would like to thank cogload for explaining the way things work over there for some of the hardheaded, open access is the fix for everything, users.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I might add to my previous post that the former government didn't stop at separating the infrastructure from the operators, they then divided up the trackage into a significant number of sections and let bids for maintenance contracts, with the lowest bidder getting the contract. The Engineering Dept. was sold off and Railtrack had to contract back in their services. Indeed Railtrack was only allowed to retain a small number of track inspectors who were to function as auditors only. That proved to be way too few as at Hatfield a fast moving DMU derailed at a switch and slammed into the station platform. The cause was discovered to be missing bolts on an adjustment rod for the facing point lock at a switch. In other words the DMU picked the switch at nearly 90 mph. due to improper maintenance. Note that the contractor holding the contract for that section had reported excellent financial results for the previous year. The company was investigated and then fined heavily for serious failings in record keeping and employee qualifications, and all their contracts were cancelled. Since then Railtrack has been replaced by Network Rail who has taken all Maintenance and Engineering functions back in House where they belong.
Yes and no. It was railtracks decision when flogged to downgrade the enginerring function and concentrate on generating cash from property. They were sold a pup when the Infrastructure/ Renewal contracts were signed and then handed to them; as basically these were based on a RPI-3% basis over 5 years on system where the number of trains was increasing. Therefore there was no incentive to actually inspect; add in a perofrmace regime which was suspect and chaos ensued. Hatfied was caused by a railbreak on a curve through RCF, nothing to do with crossings; I believe that you are mxing that up with Potters Bar. However Hatfield was the straw whoch broke the camels back as Failtrack found out to its horror that it didn't know the actual state of its asset; therefore panicked and imposed 20MPH blanket restrictions. The result was massive penalties for the users and a rerailing of a lot of sites. Not long after Railtrack was forced int administration by the government.
However, if you read between the lines, you will see that this is more a criticism of privatization of the British rail system than of having separate infrastructure and operating entities. In fact, the very first paragraph states that privatization was the "mistake".
No, Chris Grayling was actually admitting that having separate operating/ infrastructure entities was a mistake.
What the quotee does is to blur the lines of distinction between the act of privatization and the act of separating track from train. He makes the allegation that separation is the cause of higher fares, when in fact privatization is the real cause of higher fares. When the railroads were run by the government, they were not expected to make a profit, rather they were effectively subsidized. The fares charged for using the passenger trains under British Rail did not cover the cost of providing the service by a long shot. (Hmmmm, sounds like Amtrak to me!)
Utter codswallop. The 1968 Railways Act recognised the social railway and that a subsidy would be paid for that. the socail railway was one that was percieved to be losing money but vital to the local community. Believe it or not, there are bits of Britains railway network whoch are very difficult to cover by using bus. During the 1980's, BR was sectorized; InterCity, Provincial, Network SoputhEast (the social bit) and Freight. Of those, both Intercity and Freight were expected to run without subsidy and to a set return (5-7%). Thus they cut their cloth accordingly. The Freight business therefore concentrated on bulk haul and nothing else, whilst the Intercity Business concentrated on the major routes out of London and charging what the market could pay. And lo, British Rail actually turned a profit, but as we know when Investment Plans are in full swing and when the passenger business follows the economy a nasty recession can produce a sea of red ink. Thus Major Major decided to privitise the "deeply inefficient" BR.
BR also applied Prime User charging to its routes which helped some opf the more marginal services which the Subsidy was paid for; that went when the system was privatised leaving some services facing 3x the track access charges they were paying before.
Now that fares are expected to cover costs and provide a profit, of course they are gonna go up! Put that one in the "duh" file, will you Jay?
Under privitisation most of the saver tickets which wre eavailable have been either severely restricted or have disappeared. However sason tickets are regulated for political reasons which does not make much environmental or social sense rreally.
Funny, but there is no mention here of comparative freight rates pre-privatization vs post-privatization. The whole idea of open access is to allow natural market forces to drive decision making, which means moving the stuff that makes money, e.g. freight, not passengers.
Passenger trains do make money. Lots of it; Freight barely strugggles to make a 10% margin in this country. Thats why BR junked the marginal stuff and jacked the prices up to the captive shippers (hiss). Now that there is competition the rates have come down, however the companies are finding it diufficult to get a decent return ( no suprise) and the infrastructure owner is finding it difficult to accomodate all users, or potential users.
However, in Europe it is considered a natural right that citizens will have rail passenger services.
Anymore than it is considered a natural right for all Yanks to drink petrol drinking motorized vehicles.
It is hard wired into the socialist tapestry of the Continent, and is the number one reason that growth in rail freight is stymied.
Doesn't really matter if it is private separated track and train operations, or private integrated track and train operations, freight will always play second fiddle to passenger trains in Europe. The big difference between private OA operations and private integrated operations is that under OA, rail freight at least has a chance of growth, since 3rd party operators can bid for slots. That is what is happening now in most of Europe, slowly but surely. Under integrated operations, freight has no chance, because political forces will demand passengers first of the integrated operator, and 3rd party freight entities will be left out in the cold
Some semblance of truth here. However, semblance only. Firstly what are the political forces aspirations. In many countries there are active schemes to promote freight onto the railways. If you are going to franchise a train operation which is not vertically integrated then the franchisee will run to what you pay it; a set timetable of lets say 10 trains for lets say £100 per year. The Franchisee can then have the option of adding extra services to that or not. Now, if there is space in the network and if the infrastructure operator is sufficently incentivised wither through regulation or fiscal inducement then whatever slots will be on offer can be then parcelled round and in the UK Freight pays mainly marginal costs. By Law OA operators where the market exists and b) if they do not abstract from the revenue of the franchisee in passenger terms can have a bite of the cherry, thier rights are protected.
That is the real political aim of the Fascists........er, I mean the "Tories" - use the "mistake" of rail privatization as political tool to get votes. Remember, passengers vote, freight does not. Re-read the article, and you will see it is focused on higher passenger rates, not on the ostensible attempts at getting freight off roads and onto rail. In truth, in this article OA is the straw man taking the pot shots for the higher passenger fares associated with privatization. Take out OA and replace it with private integrated operations - you still will have higher passenger fares, and like the US you will have a lack of infrastructural investment to keep up with demands. All that privatized integrated operations will accomplish is to create one or two monopolistic fiefdoms. Yeah, that'll get those passenger rates down.
Sir Grayling is either less than honest, or an economic moron.
Oh dear. Mussolini was fascist. So was Hitler btw. Not sure if you can count the Tories under that umbrella.
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
(1) What part of "Get Real" do you refuse to understand? Do you not understand the word context? (or are you afraid of it?...It kinda makes a mess of most of your warped arguments when the rest of the world fails to walk off in lockstep with you...)
futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote:I might add to my previous post that the former government didn't stop at separating the infrastructure from the operators, they then divided up the trackage into a significant number of sections and let bids for maintenance contracts, with the lowest bidder getting the contract. The Engineering Dept. was sold off and Railtrack had to contract back in their services. Indeed Railtrack was only allowed to retain a small number of track inspectors who were to function as auditors only. That proved to be way too few as at Hatfield a fast moving DMU derailed at a switch and slammed into the station platform. The cause was discovered to be missing bolts on an adjustment rod for the facing point lock at a switch. In other words the DMU picked the switch at nearly 90 mph. due to improper maintenance. Note that the contractor holding the contract for that section had reported excellent financial results for the previous year. The company was investigated and then fined heavily for serious failings in record keeping and employee qualifications, and all their contracts were cancelled. Since then Railtrack has been replaced by Network Rail who has taken all Maintenance and Engineering functions back in House where they belong. It seems then that the original separation went to far, making things more complex than it had to be. OA should consist of two basic funtioning units - track owner and train operator(s). It is fine if either basic unit wants to contract out certain services from time to time, but it should not be a requirement nor a standard practice. I also think the franchising rights aspect does not allow the OA model to function optimally. Franchising sole rights to use certain sections of track may invoke the unintentional lazy bug for the franchisee, and thus repress the need for competitive innovation. Come to think of it, the only advantage of franchising over US-style integrated operations is that if the franchisee does not please the online clients, they can reject them for a new franchisee when the contract is up for renewal. Under US-style integrated operations, the online clients are stuck with the "take it or leave it" attitude forever (or until the IO tears out the tracks, whichever comes first). 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?
beaulieu wrote:I might add to my previous post that the former government didn't stop at separating the infrastructure from the operators, they then divided up the trackage into a significant number of sections and let bids for maintenance contracts, with the lowest bidder getting the contract. The Engineering Dept. was sold off and Railtrack had to contract back in their services. Indeed Railtrack was only allowed to retain a small number of track inspectors who were to function as auditors only. That proved to be way too few as at Hatfield a fast moving DMU derailed at a switch and slammed into the station platform. The cause was discovered to be missing bolts on an adjustment rod for the facing point lock at a switch. In other words the DMU picked the switch at nearly 90 mph. due to improper maintenance. Note that the contractor holding the contract for that section had reported excellent financial results for the previous year. The company was investigated and then fined heavily for serious failings in record keeping and employee qualifications, and all their contracts were cancelled. Since then Railtrack has been replaced by Network Rail who has taken all Maintenance and Engineering functions back in House where they belong.
It seems then that the original separation went to far, making things more complex than it had to be. OA should consist of two basic funtioning units - track owner and train operator(s). It is fine if either basic unit wants to contract out certain services from time to time, but it should not be a requirement nor a standard practice.
I also think the franchising rights aspect does not allow the OA model to function optimally. Franchising sole rights to use certain sections of track may invoke the unintentional lazy bug for the franchisee, and thus repress the need for competitive innovation. Come to think of it, the only advantage of franchising over US-style integrated operations is that if the franchisee does not please the online clients, they can reject them for a new franchisee when the contract is up for renewal. Under US-style integrated operations, the online clients are stuck with the "take it or leave it" attitude forever (or until the IO tears out the tracks, whichever comes first).
And what would stop the future applications of this concept from going equally as far, if not farther in this subcontracting? Railroads already subcontract some maintenance work, track as well as rolling stock, so the precident is there for this to happen no matter which operation concept is used. Since it's already such a corporate mantra in this day and age, why would it NOT happen here?
The more restrictions you put on implementing a new concept, the less interest there will be in companies wanting to bid on it.
jeaton wrote: Well I am sure glad you set me straight on the whole situation.
Well I am sure glad you set me straight on the whole situation.
Glad to help the cause of the cognitively challenged.
A couple things I don't quite understand. If ridership has gone up to the point that capacity is being used up and fares have increased so much, why isn't money being spent to increase capacity?
Because passengers don't make money for any railroad, even in passenger train paradise. Passenger trains can use up capacity to the hilt and not make a dime for the operator or the infrastructure owner.
Wouldn't the private companies make even more money if they had the capacity to increase their business? Further, if the companies could make even more money hauling freight, why are they ignoring that business?
They're not. Read bl's post regarding the freight situation. If not for the French closed access blockade, more long haul freight companies would be banging down the doors to get a piece of that potentially humoungous pie.
By the way, the Tories are the political conservatives of the country. The people and politicians of your state are considered very conservative. Fascists?
The Tories aren't any more conservative than the old pre-Reagan wing of the Republican party, which by today's standards would be considered very liberal. That was back in the days of the Nixon/Rockefeller corporate liberalism, not the grass roots Christian/Conservative/Small Business aspects of today's Republican Party. That Rockefeller wing was more in tune with propping up large monopolistic corporations in distain of small business and individualism, and thus at the expense of economic innovation. So yes, I consider the Rockefeller *conservatism* as nothing more than corporate fascism, certainly not in the best interests of most US citizens. And the Tories don't engender anything that would have widespread public benefits of true social conservatism.
The only reason the British press/public considers the Tories as "conservatives" is that the opposition party, Labour, is even more liberal. Such is the political landscape in Europe.
Perspective, Jay, perspective.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.