4 ms·
"It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition." This certainly didn'
by conjectures 8y ago
"It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition."
This certainly didn't help in the UK. It's been a shameful saga with multiple failures and no clear rationale. The theory was: privatisation -> ??? -> uber efficiency. Ignoring the fact that the economic theory which usually fills in the ??? requires free entry and exit into the market. That doesn't exist in the case of natural monopolies like rail.
- icebraining 8y agoAssuming the railway itself is public and shared, as in this case, how is rail a natural monopoly?
- jnty 8y agoA key reason is that off-peak services are often subsidised by on-peak services, so to economically provide a good all-day service the whole thing needs to be provided by the same operator.
- icebraining 8y agoNo reason to require a single operator, you just need a shared "pot" to move money around. On-peak trains pay into the pot, off-peak trains get money from it.
- isostatic 8y agoVery few people don't take rail for the fun of it. People take rail to go somewhere, therefore the market is transport. The options for say Glasgow to London are Drive Coach (2 operators (national express, megabus) Fly (2 operators I think) Train (2 operators) That's 7 different options, each has pros and cons