public versus private rail , intergrated versus split

some discussion has arisen in various topics in the worldwide forum of the pros and cons of the various forms of rail providers . particularly what happens when the track provider is different from the train companies , and you have multiple companies running on the same track network .
Please continue the discussion here , rather than in the other specific topics . Feel free to cut and paste your contributions from the other topics .
Thanks

David

Privatisation is not necessarily a bad thing, it just depents on how to to it. The bad thing on European privatisation is that they uncoupled the link between who owns the track and who runs on it. Having dozens of operators runing on the same track with dispatches having no clue who is who and were to send them is a recipy for chaos.

Another consern for the European situation is that the track becomes the responsebitiy of a Governmental body which will depent of the whimsicality of polititicians who also in Europe are still very much road minded, since they like very much the tax incomes that come from car fuels. At least in the Netherlands I know for sure they spent way to little on maintenance. So what will happen: to little mainenance => poor track => low speeds /accidents => every thing goes by road.

A railway company that does a poor job on maintenaice will eventualy go bankrupt but there are other railway companies that can step in if there are competing routes. Just some thought to give this discussion a start.

Gijs

Here in New zealand , the complete railroad was privatised , leading to the tracks been run down in an effort to compete with road . ( well , thats one reason , the other was asset stripping by the new owners , but that is a very long story ) . recently the government has brought the track back ,
but running rights are exclusively for the one operating company toll rail . i beleive the actual train control is run by the operator , not the track company .

NS3737 wrote:Privatisation is not necessarily a bad thing, it just depents on how to to it. The bad thing on European privatisation is that they uncoupled the link between who owns the track and who runs on it. Having dozens of operators runing on the same track with dispatches having no clue who is who and were to send them is a recipy for chaos.

Another consern for the European situation is that the track becomes the responsebitiy of a Governmental body which will depent of the whimsicality of polititicians who also in Europe are still very much road minded, since they like very much the tax incomes that come from car fuels. At least in the Netherlands I know for sure they spent way to little on maintenance. So what will happen: to little mainenance => poor track => low speeds /accidents => every thing goes by road.

A railway company that does a poor job on maintenaice will eventualy go bankrupt but there are other railway companies that can step in if there are competing routes. Just some thought to give this discussion a start.

Gijs

I dont agree. If one company ownes the rails but many companys should use them ist will be bad. Thats the same thing like sold all Tollways to BMW: Driver of BMW will sure get better conditions to use it...

The existing network should be owned by state, new builded lines could be owned by private companys.* Every Company has the right to use the network if their trains and personal fulfill the regulations and they can pay the "toll".

The old way of state-owned railways ist too expensive. They have to bureaucratic structures...
It is okay if the state finance the regional public transport - but he must no own the transport enterprises.
Private enterprises a mostly more efficiently then state-owned ones...
And with money the treasury in Europe has the same problems as in the states...

By the way: The same thing i think will be a good idea for motorways.

The only problem with privatization is that, at least for passenger service, it does not work--- at least not in the US. In the states, ALL railroads began as private entities, and most mainline railroads still are. Of course they are all freight carriers, while the government created Amtrak provides almost all intercity passenger rail service---- and is operating under the constant threat of being shut down for lack of funds.

The history of private rail operations in the US has basically been that private companies built all of the mainline rail systems which currently exist, and operated both passenger and freight service. As long as the passenger operations could be subsidized out of a railroad's freight operations, passenger operation remained privately provided. However, in the 1950's and '60's, competition from air travel, in the passenger area, and tractor trailer trucks, in the freight area so eroded even the freight operations that the railroads felt they had to get out of the passenger area in order to try to save their freight operations. Creation of Amtrak permitted them to do this. With the assistance of the government created Conrail ( in the East) and a number of mergers and consolidations, railroad freight service was returned to profitability and, when Conrail was sold by the government in the early 1980's, resumed its private status. Provision of intercity Passenger rail service, is, however, still a government function, through Amtrak, and is likely to remain this way for the forseeable future.

walt wrote:The only problem with privatization is that, at least for passenger service, it does not work--- at least not in the US.

It makes a difference whether the state pay for passenger service or wether the state organises passenger service by creation of a state railway.

Private enterprises are better (and cheaper!)in organisation of rail transport than the state with all its authorities and officials...

Thomas I wrote: Private enterprises are better (and cheaper!)in organisation of rail transport than the state with all its authorities and officials...

I agree with that so why do you want the rail infrastructure to be in the hands of a governmental body? See one of your earlier posts.

Gijs

NS3737 wrote:

Thomas I wrote: Private enterprises are better (and cheaper!)in organisation of rail transport than the state with all its authorities and officials...

I agree with that so why do you want the rail infrastructure to be in the hands of a governmental body? See one of your earlier posts.

Gijs

Because if one private company owns the infrastructure it will do anything possible to discriminate other company which wants to use the infrastructure. Thats is what DB today does with Connex or the SNCB with DBs ICE-3 or the FS/Trenitalia with Swiss and Austrian Locos or, or, or...

...thats the same thing like give all motorways to bmw....

David Benton wrote:some discussion has arisen in various topics in the worldwide forum of the pros and cons of the various forms of rail providers . particularly what happens when the track provider is different from the train companies , and you have multiple companies running on the same track network .
Please continue the discussion here , rather than in the other specific topics . Feel free to cut and paste your contributions from the other topics .
Thanks

David

Here's a link from China
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 479799.htm

"Rail network needs private locomotive
2005-09-22 06:30
Railway policy-makers have reiterated the sector will usher in more non-government investors to speed up its development. But so far there is a lot of talk but not much action.
The latest promise was made by high-ranking railway ministry officials and national policy-makers attending a forum that concluded yesterday in Beijing. They pledged the sector will experiment with a floating pricing regime, introduce a shareholding system and create more channels for non-State investment.

Thomas I wrote:[Because if one private company owns the infrastructure it will do anything possible to discriminate other company which wants to use the infrastructure. Thats is what DB today does with Connex or the SNCB with DBs ICE-3 or the FS/Trenitalia with Swiss and Austrian Locos or, or, or...

...thats the same thing like give all motorways to bmw....

That still does not addres my main concern that the railway infrastructure will be left to the whimsicality of politicians. In the USA there are and have been track sharing arrangemens like the WP and SP (later UP and SP) in Nevada and the UP and BNSF in Colorado worked. Railway history has proven that competitors can co-operate to their mutual interest. One more thing your comparison to give the roads to BMW: the railway equivalent would be to give the tracks to Siemens, Bombardier or Alstom, indeed not a good idea. Anyway do not forget that the real competion is not between railway companies but between modes of transportation, the railways versus the roads, air lines and waterways.