Subject:
|
Re: British railway industry
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:17:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1220 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
I agree, inasmuch as we're talking about privatization in
> practice, not theoretical Libertarian privatization, which
> I would agree would function more effectively than the
> half-assed privatization Railtrack represents (but, I would
> also argue, would be inferior to public ownership in this
> case).
Except for, as I said, how do you incentivise the public sector to deliver
value for taxpayers money? When BR knew it had the government to bail it
out it used to
>
>
> > Bit about what previous structure to return to:
> > > Early 19thC.
> >
> > Right, I shall get back to you to cite why this didn't work then (How Lewis
> > Carroll was able to joke in 'The Hunting of the Snark': 'They threatened
> > its life with a railway share'!
>
> I had totally forgotten about that line! Brilliant.
Thanks. Of course now I'm home I can't find anything relevant. I guess
.debate has to move a little slower while we look to back stuff up. I'll be
with you soon but suffice to say that the failure rate of railway
'start-ups' and the number of people who lost their shirts makes the dotcom
bubble look tame.
>
>
> It's also possible to create "virtual assets" that can be traded
> or used as a proxy in an industry like, say, gas and electric.
> While the actual power or pressure is given by a certain company's
> facility, they "sell" that asset at wholesale to your provider.
> Your provider does the same at plants they own. And so on, and so
> forth--more b2b than actual doubling or trebling of infrastructure.
> Theoretically it works well, so long as everyone plays fair (and
> doesn't collude, or sign exclusionary regional contracts as has
> happened with some cable service providers in the Midwest).
Agreed but I think you are referring to generation. I have no problem with
privatized power stations, it just the transmission pylon network that
should be state owned because we don't want two of those.
>
> > I think this boils down to: is it practical, affordable and environmentally
> > sustainable to have significantly more infrastructure capacity than you need
> > so that competition can happen. In Cable transmission, maybe. In
> > electricity transmission, no. In Railways (in Britain), no.
>
> I'd argue thus far that "Cable and electric, yes. Railways, no."
> But that's only because I consider the kinks not to be worked out
> sufficiently for a system as important as the UK's rails to be
> tossed upon it. Now, the control of actual *stock* would be another
> matter--isn't that analagous to the airlines being private
> while the airports (usually) aren't? I'm on a limb on that last
> one, so let me know if I'm off base with thinking most large
> airports are publicly-owned.
Now Lawrence has pitched in, cheers Lawrence, does this change what you said
there as I was bit lost. Coudl you explain a bit more?
>
> By the way (and especially Larry), have you seen the recent story
> about the push to build and maintain high-speed lines around the
> US? Apparently Amtrak is miffed that they won't be given control
> but will be allowed to "bid fairly" to run the new system or a part
> thereof. I haven't seen how they're going to maintain the track
> and associated assets, though.
I'm really interested in this. Are the lines being built by a private firm
and then leased or sold to an operator to maintain and operate services or
is it a Design, Build, Maintain contract with a franchised operator? If the
former the designer has no incentive, beyond the spec and Client management
to build in reliability as he doesn't incur the maintenance charge. If the
latter you have a split of the wheel-rail interface with all the attendant
problems we have with that. Either way it appears to be as crazy as PPP in
terms of securing a safe and reliable, customer-focused railway.
>
> > p.s. We're the only two discussing this, shall we knock it on the head, take
> > it to email, or do you expect Lindsay to come back?
>
> I'm here, and reading, but just really busy.
No problem, I'm just getting used to .debate (and I'm enjoying it, though
feeling guilty that my Lego-related posts look pretty meagre in comparison!)
Psi
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
