Today's NYTimes has an article on the failure of the privatization of railroads in Great Britain. It's interesting to read with Amtrak and the U.S. saga in the back of one's mind. I was unaware that some of the British rail lines were owned by other European nations.
Tomlinson Run Railroad
Replies sorted oldest to newest
That's interesting ! Maybe Russia will own our railroads given the current situation.....NLOL
Dan - "NLOL"? looked it up on my internet acronym list, couldn't find !! "No laughing out loud"? "No licorice on Labrador"?
Nervously laughing out loud?
I understand the Russians own the steel mill at Pueblo, Colo. I am not laughing, but cringing.
The British rail freight privatisation evolved into DB Schenker, originally Deutsche Bahn and the logistics company Schenker. I wonder how the whole Brexit thing will work out, as there were carloads running between Britain and Eastern Europe. Canadian National and Wisconsin Central were involved for a while.
Well, at least they have a list of approved steam locomotives, unlike the anti-steam sentiments of some.
Actually it's only the operating franchises which are "owned" by foreigners in Britain. The infrastructure itself is owned by the government through Network Rail. Freight and passenger operators purchase track space or capacity from Network Rail.
A similar arrangement is used in other countries in Europe whereby the government retains ownership of the infrastructure and sells operating rights to rail operating companies.
From conversations with my European colleagues; there is an advantage in this arrangement to freight shippers. Just about all rail served manufacturing sites in Europe have multiple rail operators with whom they can contract for freight service; thus introducing competition for freight rail traffic. This differs dramatically from our setup in the US where the railroads own both the infrastructure and the operations, thereby rendering many rail shippers captive to a single railroad.
Curt
mark s posted:Dan - "NLOL"? looked it up on my internet acronym list, couldn't find !! "No laughing out loud"? "No licorice on Labrador"?
You win the $64.00 question. Congratulations. Here I thought I penned it first.....LOL
juniata guy posted:Actually it's only the operating franchises which are "owned" by foreigners in Britain. The infrastructure itself is owned by the government through Network Rail. Freight and passenger operators purchase track space or capacity from Network Rail.
A similar arrangement is used in other countries in Europe whereby the government retains ownership of the infrastructure and sells operating rights to rail operating companies.
From conversations with my European colleagues; there is an advantage in this arrangement to freight shippers. Just about all rail served manufacturing sites in Europe have multiple rail operators with whom they can contract for freight service; thus introducing competition for freight rail traffic. This differs dramatically from our setup in the US where the railroads own both the infrastructure and the operations, thereby rendering many rail shippers captive to a single railroad.
Curt
But, there is a hidden story here...A few years ago there was a discussion here about passenger service in Britain - I did some internet digging - there are financial reports from the British government. They reveal that the management and operation are sub-contracted out. An entity will maintain the railway and signaling, another will manage the traffic and others will operate and maintain trains. Ownership is still with the British government and all of it is heavily subsidized by the government.
But maybe the rails here should plan to divide their companies between ops and ROW. That way, if another company or even UPS directly wants to run a train on their tracks you can charge a toll.
I am against FORCED OPEN ACCESS, because it would be an illegal taking of private property. But opening up the system as a toll road would make that issue mute.
I don't really want to get into a story like this but what the ....
My son travels everyday on a Southern Branchline from Hamstreet a village station to Ashford a mainline station then he catches the high Speed train to London for this privilege he buys a 12.000 pound or 12,000 dollars forgotten which, I know it's a lot of money season ticket. When Southern rail don't connect with the train at Ashford because of strikes Southern send him a cheque he recently received 500 pounds for the no travel. he got so fed up with it he went and bought a small car to drive into Ashford to connect with the high speed train. Now there are two unions involved here, one the Train Drivers union and second the conductors union the drivers have had enough and said they will run the trains without conductors which by the way half the railways in the world including Australia do.
Southern has said all along that no one was getting fired just not replaced not good enough for the union. This story was told to me on Sunday 2nd April 2017 by my son who travels on these trains every work day I also have travelled on Southern trains many times (when the conductors decide not to strike) I was in England last year in August for the whole month some days the trains would run other times no.
No doubt someone else will have a different story to tell about this, I don't really care, all I know is my son travels every work day on these trains and I have to, it's not nice (being the forum I won't use stronger language) considering the price you pay for train travel in England it's not cheap and being a foreigner we don't get concession rate or compensation because we don't have an annual ticket.
Roo.
Roo posted:I don't really want to get into a story like this but what the ....
My son travels everyday on a Southern Branchline from Hamstreet a village station to Ashford a mainline station then he catches the high Speed train to London for this privilege he buys a 12.000 pound or 12,000 dollars forgotten which, I know it's a lot of money season ticket. When Southern rail don't connect with the train at Ashford because of strikes Southern send him a cheque he recently received 500 pounds for the no travel. he got so fed up with it he went and bought a small car to drive into Ashford to connect with the high speed train. Now there are two unions involved here, one the Train Drivers union and second the conductors union the drivers have had enough and said they will run the trains without conductors which by the way half the railways in the world including Australia do.
Southern has said all along that no one was getting fired just not replaced not good enough for the union. This story was told to me on Sunday 2nd April 2017 by my son who travels on these trains every work day I also have travelled on Southern trains many times (when the conductors decide not to strike) I was in England last year in August for the whole month some days the trains would run other times no.
No doubt someone else will have a different story to tell about this, I don't really care, all I know is my son travels every work day on these trains and I have to, it's not nice (being the forum I won't use stronger language) considering the price you pay for train travel in England it's not cheap and being a foreigner we don't get concession rate or compensation because we don't have an annual ticket.
Roo.
Roo:
Are you from Down Under? If so, are you not a citizen of the English Commonwealth? Subject of the Queen? Hence, are you not a citizen? Or is there more to this?
I am for making everything in transportation private, except for local roads. And if that happens, the ones running the airports, turnpikes, ship ports ET AL have to pay full taxes. Everybody is on the same level. And let the crying begin.
The freight railroads have their own private ROW, and mostly have to pay for ROW work and taxes. Every other mode should.
BTW, job creation is not the proper function of government!
Dominic:
This is definitely a diversion from the original topic but; your forced open access comment needs to be addressed.
The US railroads along with the AAR have billed the competitive switching proposal currently before the STB as "forced access". Nothing could be further from the truth.
What shippers are asking for is economic access to a second railroad so long as there is or could be a working interchange nearby. In other words; the carrier physically serving the plant would continue to do so and would be compensated for that service. The serving carrier would be paid to move the cars to the nearby interchange with the competing carrier. The shipper would then have the option of using the competing carrier for the line haul.
Under current regulations; a railroad that physically serves a shipper's plant site can refuse to quote a rate that would enable the shipper to move traffic to the second carrier at any interchange point other than the one the serving carrier wishes to use. Competitive switching is intended to address that by requiring the serving railroad to provide the shipper a rate to the nearest interchange with the competing carrier.
This is as much an efficiency issue as economic one. By way of example; the company I work for has a production site captive to NS in the Mobile area. This particular site ships to destinations on BNSF in Texas and the Pacific Northwest. The most efficient means of handling these shipments would be to hand them to BNSF in Mobile yet NS refuses to allow that to happen. Rather; shipments are moved via NS back north to Birmingham thence to gateways such as New Orleans, Memphis or Kansas City. This adds days to the transit time and increases our cost of doing business.
Economic access has been in use in Canada since the mid-1980's under the form of inter-switching. It has actually resulted in the Canadian railroads having a superior operational and economic performance than US railroads who have insisted on maintaining status quo.
Curt
I think there are two issues with "forced access".
If two railroads are involved, the shipper choosing the interchange point is not an issue. The cars have to be interchanged anyway. And Marshal Fields was correct, "The customer is always right."
But if a train of one railroad is forced onto another by government order I think it does cross a constitutional line of "taking" private property. It could be a Pandora's Jar we do not want to open.But the the railroads come up with agreements between themselves, great.
"
BTW, job creation is not the proper function of government!"
There aren't too many Constitutional experts who would agree with you. After all the preamble reads:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, "
Creating jobs, where it promotes the general welfare, is in fact mandated by the Constitution 
.
Landsteiner posted:"
BTW, job creation is not the proper function of government!"
There aren't too many Constitutional experts who would agree with you. After all the preamble reads:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, "
Creating jobs, where it promotes the general welfare, is in fact mandated by the Constitution
Not really.
The preamble does not hold the same force as the Articles and amendments that follow. It just says what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish.
The SCOTUS ruled in the 30's, 60's, and the late 80's that the kind of spending for direct job creation is restricted by the tenth amendment and left to the states. There are other examples and precedent as well.
Even James Madison said that the preamble is superseded by the Articles that follow so as not to allow infinite Federal power.
Now, there have been legal ways around that for the so called "Jobs Programs, but the references are lengthy, and we've already derailed (no pun) this thread enough
So the federal government provides funds to the States to achieve its goals in this area. Or uses the military or something like the Civilian Conservation Corps. To say that job creation isn't part of the federal mission is oversimplistic and dogmatic .
During wartime, the federal government got involved in the railroads in a big way, because it was necessary to the war effort. That created a lot of jobs, directly and indirectly.
It's notable that the best (from the riding public standpoint, anyway) railway systems in the world are heavily government managed in various ways: France, German, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc. Try to imagine running the Air Force as a capitalist, free trade, non-federal entity .
The royals should buy a line to give to the great grand kids to play with. 
The above comment is neither constructive, helpful or witty.
Public transport here varies from poor to appalling, some much for private enterprise being the solution to all of societies ills.
One positive however is that we have a lot of mainline steam where as in the US , lawyers and big corporations seem to do their best to shut it down.
n.
Are you from Down Under? If so, are you not a citizen of the English Commonwealth? Subject of the Queen? Hence, are you not a citizen? Or is there more to this?
Dominic.
No it doesn't work like that maybe before federation but not now the Queen is just really a figure head in Australia or the correct term "Head of State".
How it helped my son was, my father was English my mother was Australian I was born in Australia, because my son's grandfather (My Father) was English it enabled him to get a four year work visa that could be renewed.
Now because he is well established in England and owns a house and has a good job (Banking) he has applied and received English citizenship as well as keeping his Australian Citzenship of course none of this helps us we are still regarded as foreigners as I was born in Australian and only hold Australian citizenship and of course don't pay any tax to England only Australia.
The strange thing about this is in regards to my health because I am a war veteran and had gunshot wounds from the Vietnam war I hold a gold card which means the Aust Govt are saying I'm disabled the British Govt recognize this in their country for free treatment for my wounds the same as disabled British vets if they come to Australia it's an agreement between the two countries but no concession rates! Roo. (I dunno how we got onto this subject) 
Dominic Mazoch posted:I think there are two issues with "forced access".
If two railroads are involved, the shipper choosing the interchange point is not an issue. The cars have to be interchanged anyway. And Marshal Fields was correct, "The customer is always right."
But if a train of one railroad is forced onto another by government order I think it does cross a constitutional line of "taking" private property. It could be a Pandora's Jar we do not want to open.But the the railroads come up with agreements between themselves, great.
If you make a deal with the devil, well, you make a deal with the devil. The railroads were built with government subsidies (aka the devil). So do they have the right to complain if the devil wants his due?
You say "taking private property". I'm just curious, but wasn't all that "private property" given to the railroads by the public?
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
