ChatterBank2 mins ago
Train Operators To Maintain Their Own Tracks?
7 Answers
https:/
the reason the railways are not currently vertically integrated is the existence of the "First Railway Directive" 91/440/EEC (and its various successors) which drove the privatization model, separating train operation and infrastructure to foster and ensure free trade and open access.
If the UK government is really as "anti-brexit" as some suggest, now seems a really odd time to announce a policy that directly defies EU law......
the reason the railways are not currently vertically integrated is the existence of the "First Railway Directive" 91/440/EEC (and its various successors) which drove the privatization model, separating train operation and infrastructure to foster and ensure free trade and open access.
If the UK government is really as "anti-brexit" as some suggest, now seems a really odd time to announce a policy that directly defies EU law......
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The effective re-nationalisation of the rail infrastructure in 2002 had nothing to do with EU directives.
It was because the Private Company 'RailTrack' was failing in its duty to keep the network safe. The final straw came with the Hatfield crash. By then, the company was effectively bankrupt and the tax payer had to take over.
In short, the privatisation had been a failure, both financially and on passenger safety.
The re-Privatisation of these functions (which is effectively what this is) is a retrograde step and will be the result of effective lobbying by the train operators, who are mostly foreign owned, to fill their pockets.
It was because the Private Company 'RailTrack' was failing in its duty to keep the network safe. The final straw came with the Hatfield crash. By then, the company was effectively bankrupt and the tax payer had to take over.
In short, the privatisation had been a failure, both financially and on passenger safety.
The re-Privatisation of these functions (which is effectively what this is) is a retrograde step and will be the result of effective lobbying by the train operators, who are mostly foreign owned, to fill their pockets.
Tora,
// one of my very few socialist style policies //
And it is wrong.
Services improve when there is competition from providers. In the case of train travel, that is private operators. The infrastructure should be separate from profit and shareholders as safety cannot be left to market forces, which is why the current proposal is wrong.
We currently have the perfect mix, ring fenced safety, and competition for line franchises.
// one of my very few socialist style policies //
And it is wrong.
Services improve when there is competition from providers. In the case of train travel, that is private operators. The infrastructure should be separate from profit and shareholders as safety cannot be left to market forces, which is why the current proposal is wrong.
We currently have the perfect mix, ring fenced safety, and competition for line franchises.
Prior to the directive most countries had (and quite a few still have) a rail system similar to that in the UK prior to Privatisation where the infrastructure company and the operator was one and the same. The idea of the directive was to engender competition across the rail networks of Europe by providing open access to the tracks. In the quarter century since it was introduced the directive has singularly failed in this objective in at least three major EU countries. France has no competitive train operators, with SNCF being the only operator of any significance – a situation that will remain for at least ten more years. Germany has made a token, half-hearted move towards competition. In Italy the single operator is a “private” company (whilst being 100% owned by the government).
The UK, of course, complied with the directive in full in both spirit and practice and, as usual, went considerably further than was required. It is doubtful if the privatisation of the railways would have been undertaken the way it was had the directive not been in force.
Without a doubt the most successful period for the railways in the UK was between 1923 and 1939. In 1923 the dozens of small railway companies that had been born in the railway building era were grouped into the “Big Four” (Southern, LMS, LNER and GWR). These companies owned and maintained the track, built and operated the trains and did a lot more besides. WW2 obviously intervened and by 1945 the railways were in a state of disrepair from the ravages and pressures of war. Nationalisation was the only realistic way forward at that time.
The way things are set up at present there are three groups of organisations taking a cut of the fares and subsidies – the infrastructure operator, the train operators and the rolling stock companies (the “ROSCOs”). It is clearly a nonsense for train operators to be dependent to such a degree on organisations over whom they have no control and where there is no alternative to them. If full renationalisation is not to take place (and I have mixed feelings as to which this should be desirable) then a reorganisation to bring the industry back to something along the lines of the Big Four may possibly be an improvement.
The UK, of course, complied with the directive in full in both spirit and practice and, as usual, went considerably further than was required. It is doubtful if the privatisation of the railways would have been undertaken the way it was had the directive not been in force.
Without a doubt the most successful period for the railways in the UK was between 1923 and 1939. In 1923 the dozens of small railway companies that had been born in the railway building era were grouped into the “Big Four” (Southern, LMS, LNER and GWR). These companies owned and maintained the track, built and operated the trains and did a lot more besides. WW2 obviously intervened and by 1945 the railways were in a state of disrepair from the ravages and pressures of war. Nationalisation was the only realistic way forward at that time.
The way things are set up at present there are three groups of organisations taking a cut of the fares and subsidies – the infrastructure operator, the train operators and the rolling stock companies (the “ROSCOs”). It is clearly a nonsense for train operators to be dependent to such a degree on organisations over whom they have no control and where there is no alternative to them. If full renationalisation is not to take place (and I have mixed feelings as to which this should be desirable) then a reorganisation to bring the industry back to something along the lines of the Big Four may possibly be an improvement.
the report in the telegraph is a little clearer (I think) as to what's being proposed, ie "vertical integration", where a train operator not only runs trains over a network, but is responsible for maintaining it, and has a say in the route's management.
http://
such a plan will have a detrimental effect on an ability for open access operators to obtain paths for their trains; this includes freight as well as passenger, and may well render rail freight economically unviable.
there's no word on who will own the trains but since there's no suggestion the franchise system will be ended, it's difficult to comprehend how the trains could be sold to an operator who may lose their franchise later on.
http://
such a plan will have a detrimental effect on an ability for open access operators to obtain paths for their trains; this includes freight as well as passenger, and may well render rail freight economically unviable.
there's no word on who will own the trains but since there's no suggestion the franchise system will be ended, it's difficult to comprehend how the trains could be sold to an operator who may lose their franchise later on.
1 to 7 of 7
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.