9 ms·

We need to nationalise the railways EU wide. Privatised rail makes no sense anywhere in the world. Flights are cheap because competition drives down prices. But

We need to nationalise the railways EU wide. Privatised rail makes no sense anywhere in the world. Flights are cheap because competition drives down prices. But there's no real competition on the rail network. You can't have two trains leave the same station and arrive at the same destination as the same time. The train company that runs the train from Station A to Station Z at 13:00 get's all the passengers that need to travel that route at that time. Sure there are ways for one train to overtake another, but that capacity is severely limited because of the physical and safety constraints. Trains are also more expensive to run than planes because they need more infrastructure to operate, and that infrastructure is high maintenance. So we have almost no competition, high operating costs, and we've set it up so the people operating the trains are in opposition to each other and have no incentive or obligation to work together to lower prices or improve the service. Nationalise it. All of it. And let's just accept that there are some things that simply shouldn't be run by the private sector. And I realise that "Nationalisation" in the context of the EU is the wrong word. What I'm saying is the that EU should run the whole thing. Whatever that's called... Federalisation? I don't know.

Tijdreiziger 8y ago
> The train company that runs the train from Station A to Station Z at 13:00 get's all the passengers that need to travel that route at that time. False. (Factual) counterexample: On the Stockholm-Malmö route, there are three operators (SJ, MTR and Snälltåget). The number of passengers on each company's trains will depend heavily on their pricing strategies.
- tomelders 8y ago
  All running the same route, at the same time? It doesn't look like it. https://www.omio.co.uk/search-frontend/results/1307902350/train?locale=en&abTestParameters=&adults=1&arrival_fk=406057&children=0&departure_date=14/04/2019&departure_fk=406028&infants=0&is_rebrand=true&travel_mode=train&user_currency=GBP&user_domain=co.uk&user_id=429ac382-a96c-41de-94dc-e9ffcfa20431&user_locale=en https://www.omio.co.uk/search-frontend/results/1307902350/tr...
  - Tijdreiziger 8y ago
    For the largest part of the route between Stockholm and Malmö, there is only one physical rail route [1], so yes. There is a small difference in journey time (~4h30 vs ~5h00), but the companies depart within minutes of each other at times (e.g. Apr 18: SJ departure 16:24, Snälltåget departure 16:28) One error I made is that there are only 2 operators: SJ and Snälltåget (MTR operates to Gothenburg, not Malmö). On the route to Gothenburg, the journey time is equal (~3h00), and again the companies depart within minutes of each other (e.g. Apr 18: SJ departure 12:33, MTR departure 12:43), and again there is only one physical rail route linking the cities [1]. [1] see https://www.openrailwaymap.org https://www.openrailwaymap.org
rebolek 8y ago
We have no high speed rails, are finally privatizing some trains and it's for good. The quality of service is finally going up even in the state run train company. The competition works differently. Our country wants train that will run from A to B, X times a day and companies will present their offers. Who has the best offer will run this route for Z years. Nationalization was tried and doesn't work. It has to be supervised by state, but not run by them, that will lead to inferior service.
- willyt 8y ago
  Privatisation was tried in the UK and it hasn’t worked. Our trains are just as unreliable as they always were. The food is still shit. Only difference is that the fares have been going up way faster than inflation for years now because we not only have to pay for the maintenance and operation costs but also the cost of someone making a profit from it and all the administrative costs of having 100 organisations all arguing over who’s fault the delay was. Our running costs are considerably higher than other EU countries because of this. Railways are a natural monopoly, just like power lines, water pipes and roads.
  - rebolek 8y ago
    Rail ways are natural monopoly, but trains running on those tracks are not. I'm certainly not arguing for Thatcher-style privatization of trains, but the step by step privatization that is happening here in Czechia makes sense, improves service and lowers prices.
    - willyt 8y ago
      I think it depends how busy the network is. If there are lots of free slots for new services and it’s possible to run faster by just buying new trains then maybe. But in the UK it’s saturated and many services have been running to pretty much the same timetables since the 1970’s so the whole network operates like a massive interlinked system of gears covering the whole country which in most cases has to be centrally coordinated. The only real flexibility that private operators have is what colour the train is and how clean are the carpets. They are allowed to offer cheaper fares, but many don’t offer particularly good deals because the network is saturated and demand is high so there is no reason to do this. Edit: added ‘which in most cases has to be centrally coordinated.’
taffer 8y ago
> You can't have two trains leave the same station and arrive at the same destination as the same time. To what extent is this a prerequisite for competition? The hour has 60 minutes, there is no need for all trains to depart and arrive in exactly the same minute. Apart from that, it is also not possible for several aircraft to take off from the same runway at the same time. So there is no difference between trains and flights. > Nationalise it. All of it. That's a non sequitur. If you want better service, enforce it through regulation; if you want lower prices, use regulation to improve competition. You do not need a state monopoly.
LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
Why cant the train and infrastructure be run by the state- while the service inside is run by a private company? Like, the company rents the traincar barebone and puts in seats, foodstalls, wifi, ac, etc. Finally, while we are at modernizing, can we get maglev trains - with detaching and attaching passenger cabins? Because, the real slowdown in europe is local "little" emperors having a say where the train stops, and theire voters region is that one place, the ICE has to stop.
- adrianN 8y ago
  No we can't get maglev trains with detaching passenger cars because already the nonmagical train infrastructure we have today costs millions per kilometer for high speed service and modernizing the grid to support maglev service on a reasonable number of connections would be way too expensive.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> Trains are also more expensive to run than planes because they need more infrastructure to operate, and that infrastructure is high maintenance. Um... are you counting the airports when making that comparison? And the air traffic control infrastructure? And the maintenance costs of the planes themselves vs the maintenance costs of the trains? > Privatised rail makes no sense anywhere in the world. Are you counting the US freight railways in that? If so, you are badly mistaken.
gumby 8y ago
> Trains are also more expensive to run than planes because they need more infrastructure to operate, and that infrastructure is high maintenance. Planes and their associated physical plant are pretty expensive too and suffer a lot of variable costs trains don't. Do you have figures? Apart from that, your suggestion is not obvious. The SNCF is a nationalized train system, and it arguably works well. Britain's rail network was built privately and suffered after nationalization (and subsequently after privatization) The US's nationalized passenger network is in dire shape. The private sector freight system is thriving.
- jonathanp88 8y ago
  > The SNCF is a nationalized train system, and it arguably works well It SO doesn't!. Apart from the flashy TGV Network, Frances Railways are a total mess. Try taking a Train in a rural area and you'll most likely find it's been replaced by a bus, or there's gaps of Hours between Services. The French governement will soon, finally, Long after most of the rest of Europe, allow private companies to bid to provide the Government-subsidized local rail Services. The regional goverments who actually provide the subsidy are champing at the bit to be able to Dump SNCF, who can essentially Name their Price, with the regions then forced to give it them.
  - gumby 8y ago
    In the Anglo-Saxon countries abandoning those unprofitable routes would be considered a smart move; subsequent private players with public subsidies would angle to maximise those rents and lobby to keep competition out.
tzs 8y ago
> Trains are also more expensive to run than planes because they need more infrastructure to operate Cost to run includes more than just the underlying infrastructure costs. Look at how much it costs to ship goods. Rail is over two orders of magnitude cheaper per ton mile than air, and about an order of magnitude cheaper than trucks, and about 1/3 of the cost of than boats. This suggests that the high infrastructure cost of rail has little impact on cost to run.
kartan 8y ago
> Privatised rail makes no sense anywhere in the world. It makes sense in Japan. It is a small country with a high amount of population that is very concentrated. In any other part of the world governments are the ones paying the bill for the rail networks meanwhile "private" companies are just adding their profit to the cost. There is no competition, there is no long term investments (until the government pays), customers are captive, ... It just doesn't work.

Tijdreiziger 8y ago

> The train company that runs the train from Station A to Station Z at 13:00 get's all the passengers that need to travel that route at that time. False. (Factual) counterexample: On the Stockholm-Malmö route, there are three operators (SJ, MTR and Snälltåget). The number of passengers on each company's trains will depend heavily on their pricing strategies.

tomelders 8y ago
All running the same route, at the same time? It doesn't look like it. https://www.omio.co.uk/search-frontend/results/1307902350/train?locale=en&abTestParameters=&adults=1&arrival_fk=406057&children=0&departure_date=14/04/2019&departure_fk=406028&infants=0&is_rebrand=true&travel_mode=train&user_currency=GBP&user_domain=co.uk&user_id=429ac382-a96c-41de-94dc-e9ffcfa20431&user_locale=en https://www.omio.co.uk/search-frontend/results/1307902350/tr...
- Tijdreiziger 8y ago
  For the largest part of the route between Stockholm and Malmö, there is only one physical rail route [1], so yes. There is a small difference in journey time (~4h30 vs ~5h00), but the companies depart within minutes of each other at times (e.g. Apr 18: SJ departure 16:24, Snälltåget departure 16:28) One error I made is that there are only 2 operators: SJ and Snälltåget (MTR operates to Gothenburg, not Malmö). On the route to Gothenburg, the journey time is equal (~3h00), and again the companies depart within minutes of each other (e.g. Apr 18: SJ departure 12:33, MTR departure 12:43), and again there is only one physical rail route linking the cities [1]. [1] see https://www.openrailwaymap.org https://www.openrailwaymap.org

rebolek 8y ago

We have no high speed rails, are finally privatizing some trains and it's for good. The quality of service is finally going up even in the state run train company. The competition works differently. Our country wants train that will run from A to B, X times a day and companies will present their offers. Who has the best offer will run this route for Z years. Nationalization was tried and doesn't work. It has to be supervised by state, but not run by them, that will lead to inferior service.

willyt 8y ago
Privatisation was tried in the UK and it hasn’t worked. Our trains are just as unreliable as they always were. The food is still shit. Only difference is that the fares have been going up way faster than inflation for years now because we not only have to pay for the maintenance and operation costs but also the cost of someone making a profit from it and all the administrative costs of having 100 organisations all arguing over who’s fault the delay was. Our running costs are considerably higher than other EU countries because of this. Railways are a natural monopoly, just like power lines, water pipes and roads.
- rebolek 8y ago
  Rail ways are natural monopoly, but trains running on those tracks are not. I'm certainly not arguing for Thatcher-style privatization of trains, but the step by step privatization that is happening here in Czechia makes sense, improves service and lowers prices.
  - willyt 8y ago
    I think it depends how busy the network is. If there are lots of free slots for new services and it’s possible to run faster by just buying new trains then maybe. But in the UK it’s saturated and many services have been running to pretty much the same timetables since the 1970’s so the whole network operates like a massive interlinked system of gears covering the whole country which in most cases has to be centrally coordinated. The only real flexibility that private operators have is what colour the train is and how clean are the carpets. They are allowed to offer cheaper fares, but many don’t offer particularly good deals because the network is saturated and demand is high so there is no reason to do this. Edit: added ‘which in most cases has to be centrally coordinated.’

taffer 8y ago

> You can't have two trains leave the same station and arrive at the same destination as the same time. To what extent is this a prerequisite for competition? The hour has 60 minutes, there is no need for all trains to depart and arrive in exactly the same minute. Apart from that, it is also not possible for several aircraft to take off from the same runway at the same time. So there is no difference between trains and flights. > Nationalise it. All of it. That's a non sequitur. If you want better service, enforce it through regulation; if you want lower prices, use regulation to improve competition. You do not need a state monopoly.

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago

Why cant the train and infrastructure be run by the state- while the service inside is run by a private company? Like, the company rents the traincar barebone and puts in seats, foodstalls, wifi, ac, etc. Finally, while we are at modernizing, can we get maglev trains - with detaching and attaching passenger cabins? Because, the real slowdown in europe is local "little" emperors having a say where the train stops, and theire voters region is that one place, the ICE has to stop.

adrianN 8y ago
No we can't get maglev trains with detaching passenger cars because already the nonmagical train infrastructure we have today costs millions per kilometer for high speed service and modernizing the grid to support maglev service on a reasonable number of connections would be way too expensive.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

> Trains are also more expensive to run than planes because they need more infrastructure to operate, and that infrastructure is high maintenance. Um... are you counting the airports when making that comparison? And the air traffic control infrastructure? And the maintenance costs of the planes themselves vs the maintenance costs of the trains? > Privatised rail makes no sense anywhere in the world. Are you counting the US freight railways in that? If so, you are badly mistaken.

gumby 8y ago

> Trains are also more expensive to run than planes because they need more infrastructure to operate, and that infrastructure is high maintenance. Planes and their associated physical plant are pretty expensive too and suffer a lot of variable costs trains don't. Do you have figures? Apart from that, your suggestion is not obvious. The SNCF is a nationalized train system, and it arguably works well. Britain's rail network was built privately and suffered after nationalization (and subsequently after privatization) The US's nationalized passenger network is in dire shape. The private sector freight system is thriving.

jonathanp88 8y ago
> The SNCF is a nationalized train system, and it arguably works well It SO doesn't!. Apart from the flashy TGV Network, Frances Railways are a total mess. Try taking a Train in a rural area and you'll most likely find it's been replaced by a bus, or there's gaps of Hours between Services. The French governement will soon, finally, Long after most of the rest of Europe, allow private companies to bid to provide the Government-subsidized local rail Services. The regional goverments who actually provide the subsidy are champing at the bit to be able to Dump SNCF, who can essentially Name their Price, with the regions then forced to give it them.
- gumby 8y ago
  In the Anglo-Saxon countries abandoning those unprofitable routes would be considered a smart move; subsequent private players with public subsidies would angle to maximise those rents and lobby to keep competition out.

tzs 8y ago

> Trains are also more expensive to run than planes because they need more infrastructure to operate Cost to run includes more than just the underlying infrastructure costs. Look at how much it costs to ship goods. Rail is over two orders of magnitude cheaper per ton mile than air, and about an order of magnitude cheaper than trucks, and about 1/3 of the cost of than boats. This suggests that the high infrastructure cost of rail has little impact on cost to run.

kartan 8y ago

> Privatised rail makes no sense anywhere in the world. It makes sense in Japan. It is a small country with a high amount of population that is very concentrated. In any other part of the world governments are the ones paying the bill for the rail networks meanwhile "private" companies are just adding their profit to the cost. There is no competition, there is no long term investments (until the government pays), customers are captive, ... It just doesn't work.