6 ms·
> The counter-argument is [...] There's also the fact that trying to establish any serious amount of competition within a specific route pretty soon runs into
by iggldiggl 5y ago
> The counter-argument is [...]
There's also the fact that trying to establish any serious amount of competition within a specific route pretty soon runs into capacity limitations, especially since open access operators seem to focus mostly on faster long-distance trains, meaning that on mixed-traffic railways they'll conflict with both freight and regional/local trains. To maximise the capacity of a route, you need to coordinate the schedules of the various trains, which is of course an anathema to the dogma of free, unrestrained competition.
Another thing is that since its impossible to offer direct connections from anywhere to anywhere, especially at anything like a reasonable frequency, the railway system must rely on connections. Attractive connections with not too long waits are only possible between a very limited number of trains. Something like the integrated clockface schedule in Switzerland works only because there's one set of long distance trains that need to be taken care of and integrated with the schedules of regional trains and even other non-railway public transport.
> Of course the EU is trying to recreate the UK model EU-wide, we'll see how that goes..
At least the UK kept a common ticketing system with through-ticketing still available from anywhere to anywhere, plus – albeit with some teething trouble – somewhen in the last decade or so they finally settled on accepting that split tickets purchased independently by a passenger in order to save some money should get the same protection in terms of passenger rights (most importantly: if you miss a connection through no fault of your own, the railway needs to accommodate you, i.e. the ticket remains valid on later trains, you get a taxi/hotel/… if it was the last train of the day, alternatively you have the right to abort the journey and claim a refund, etc. etc.) as through-tickets bought in one transaction.
In the recent EU passenger rights reform, the parliament did try mandating something similar re more through-ticketing, but a number of member states were apparently heavily opposed to this (unfortunately including Germany it seems), so sadly it was dropped…
- ant6n 5y ago> especially since open access operators seem to focus mostly on faster long-distance trains Only long distance trains are mandated to be self-financing. Competing with local trains means competing with subsidized trains, which doesn't make any economic sense -- if you have a private operating company and want to run local trains, then compete in the bidding processes to get the subsidy to the run them. And they do -- in Germany, about 1/3 of local trains are privately operated. (Btw, for freight its 40%, for intercity trains its below 1%)
- iggldiggl 5y ago> Only long distance trains are mandated to be self-financing. Competing with local trains means competing with subsidized trains, which doesn't make any economic sense Hmm yes, you're right of course. I guess my main beef is how parts of the political word are always saying "Open access competition is great and everything will be super with rainbows and unicorns" and mostly ignoring the fact that most corridors where open-access might be sort of viable are also already mostly full and any serious increase in the number of open access operators would wreak havoc on the schedules of the currently existing services, especially those of regional trains.