3 ms·
Except "who controls the rail" is often a (private or national) entity (DB Netz / SNCF réseaux) who will have to offer access to the infrastructure to pretty he
by black_puppydog 5y ago
Except "who controls the rail" is often a (private or national) entity (DB Netz / SNCF réseaux) who will have to offer access to the infrastructure to pretty heavily regulated and uniform conditions.
Much like the idea of separating ISPs from the last mile infrastructure by the way.
- im3w1l 5y ago> Except "who controls the rail" is often a (private or national) entity In Europe. But not in the US. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/railroad/us-and-european-freight-railroads-are-on-different-tracks https://www.freightwaves.com/news/railroad/us-and-european-f... http://www.mapattacks.com/2015/01/who-owns-americas-rail-infrastructure.html http://www.mapattacks.com/2015/01/who-owns-americas-rail-inf...
- iggldiggl 5y agoEven with the network controlled by a "neutral" entity limited capacity means you can pretty quickly reach a situation where additional competition can't happen without actively worsening the schedules of the existing operators. Timetabled connections are likewise impossible to set up with too much uncoordinated competition, because without making the connection times unattractively long they cannot really be set up between more than one train per relation (maybe sometimes two at a stretch). Plus connections that aren't ridiculously padded (and therefore result in absolutely uncompetitive journey times) really only work with some sort of through-ticketing so passengers aren't left stranded if they do miss a connection after all.