Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France’s new high-speed trains

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 239 posts

Re: France’s new high-speed trains

#31

Post by supernova87a »

SNCF is fiddling with the wrong things.

It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition.

What it needs to do is cut the number of excessive public sector workers, reduce costs, and stop running the business like a political arm of the government.

I can bet that the reason they think they need to do all these things is that cost pressure is rising on them, and they think they need to branch out / cut off compartments of the business to make it better. But this is tinkering rather than addressing the fundamental issues (inability to fire people, change cost structure, etc. due to political interference).

Public rail is a money-losing venture, in every country (except Hong Kong). That's what "public" means. But it's important to have. Just how much money-losing depends on the political environment and skill of the management. UK tried this sort of thing and it left everyone with a shittier experience, though they could claim that they successfully privatized the industry -- everyone knows that's a total lie.

At least France has a history of pride in the speed of the trains, so that will keep things in check a bit. They'll pay through the nose for it though.

Re: France’s new high-speed trains

#32

Post by ucaetano »

realusername wrote: post #27
_jgvg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would prefer to keep the French train monopoly, at least it's cheap and it works. Sure you might prefer, but your personal preference doesn't change the fact that protectionism is bad in the long term, and illegal in the EU.

> the fact that protectionism is bad in the long term It all depends, some industries are just not working privately, the privatization of electricity in France was also a failure for example. The privatization of the post system was also a failure but it matters less since the postal system is less important nowadays. For the trains, the core issue here is that the network has a value has a whole, if you start to re…

> It all depends, some industries are just not working privately, the privatization of electricity in France was also a failure for example. The privatization of the post system was also a failure but it matters less since the postal system is less important nowadays.

That doesn't have anything to do with protectionism. Are you confusing protectionism with state-owned companies?

> For the trains, the core issue here is that the network has a value has a whole

I'm talking about train sets, not rail networks.

Rail networks in the EU are becoming open as well (which is the point of the article, in case you didn't read it), so SNCF is having, due to competition, to buy more efficient train sets to be able to compete with potential new entrants.

Which is good for society.

Re: France’s new high-speed trains

#33

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

_jgvg wrote: post #29
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we take this to it’s logical extreme we can see how absurd it is. Why stop at the EU? If Tau Cetians can produce trains cheap we ought to buy trains from Tau Ceti. Never mind that it puts the locals out of a job, diminishes local pride in locally manufactured goods, and what do the Tau Cetians care if the trains are unreliable and in comfortable. Economics doesn’t occur in a vacuum, and it doesn’t matter if my opi…

> it doesn’t matter if my opinion is economically factually incorrect: the National morale does matter. I don't even know how to reply to that. Not only you're completely wrong, but you're a nationalist who would sink your country for "national pride". Kinda like North Korea.

Is there something fundamentally problematic with me want a say in how my tax dollars are spent, and that I would rather the majority go to my fellow citizens so that I have to support fewer of them with welfare?

Re: France’s new high-speed trains

#34

Post by realusername »

ucaetano wrote: post #32
realusername wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fact that protectionism is bad in the long term It all depends, some industries are just not working privately, the privatization of electricity in France was also a failure for example. The privatization of the post system was also a failure but it matters less since the postal system is less important nowadays. For the trains, the core issue here is that the network has a value has a whole, if you start to re…

> It all depends, some industries are just not working privately, the privatization of electricity in France was also a failure for example. The privatization of the post system was also a failure but it matters less since the postal system is less important nowadays. That doesn't have anything to do with protectionism. Are you confusing protectionism with state-owned companies? > For the trains, the core issue here…

> That doesn't have anything to do with protectionism. Are you confusing protectionism with state-owned companies?

No I don't, I'm going to explain how the public train service works, it works by subsidising the unprofitable parts with the profitable parts. Which private train company would like to take an unprofitable train line? If you can find one, good luck.

> Rail networks in the EU are becoming open as well (which is the point of the article, in case you didn't read it), so SNCF is having, due to competition, to buy more efficient train sets to be able to compete with potential new entrants.

Since then the SNCF closed a lot of local train stations, reducing the attractivity of the train in France and threatening the train system as a whole, the same policies are producing the same consequences, I wish people would learn from the mistakes of the past one day.

Re: France’s new high-speed trains

#35

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

_jgvg wrote: post #29
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we take this to it’s logical extreme we can see how absurd it is. Why stop at the EU? If Tau Cetians can produce trains cheap we ought to buy trains from Tau Ceti. Never mind that it puts the locals out of a job, diminishes local pride in locally manufactured goods, and what do the Tau Cetians care if the trains are unreliable and in comfortable. Economics doesn’t occur in a vacuum, and it doesn’t matter if my opi…

> it doesn’t matter if my opinion is economically factually incorrect: the National morale does matter. I don't even know how to reply to that. Not only you're completely wrong, but you're a nationalist who would sink your country for "national pride". Kinda like North Korea.

What about China? Do you see China buying German trains?

Re: France’s new high-speed trains

#36

Post by jdietrich »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #25
ucaetano wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, it is anti-competitive and bad for the economy, as it creates trade barriers and stifles innovation, as well as using your taxes badly. It essentially accounts to government subsidies for a certain company. And that's why it is illegal in the EU.

If we take this to it’s logical extreme we can see how absurd it is. Why stop at the EU? If Tau Cetians can produce trains cheap we ought to buy trains from Tau Ceti. Never mind that it puts the locals out of a job, diminishes local pride in locally manufactured goods, and what do the Tau Cetians care if the trains are unreliable and in comfortable. Economics doesn’t occur in a vacuum, and it doesn’t matter if my opi…

Protectionism is usually an inferior policy option that makes everyone poorer. It amounts to a state subsidy of uncompetitive industries, redirecting resources away from other, more productive parts of the domestic economy.

Investing in local industry is perfectly wise. A country that has a skilled workforce, good infrastructure and efficient capital flows is likely to be highly competitive on an international level. Propping up industries just because it's politically easy is the first step down a very slippery slope.

Alstom is comfortably profitable and doesn't need propping up. What's more, it is substantially reliant on export contracts that could be severely jeopardised in a culture of protectionism. The multi-billion dollar contracts it has to provide trains to India, South Africa and the US are all under threat if those countries decide "why should we give all this money to a French company when we could build these trains ourselves?".

Protectionism destroyed the British national morale in the 1970s. The country was weighed down with an unsustainable burden of uncompetitive industries, propped up by the public purse because it was too politically painful to allow them to decline. The resulting swing to Thatcherism resulted in a swift and brutal end to those industries - rather than a managed decline, they were simply culled off, with utterly traumatic effects on a generation of workers who weren't prepared for it.

National morale based on an economic sleight-of-hand is a poor substitute for national morale based on industries that are genuinely capable of taking on the world and winning.

Re: France’s new high-speed trains

#37

Post by titanix2 »

supernova87a wrote: post #31

SNCF is fiddling with the wrong things. It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition. What it needs to do is cut the number of excessive public sector workers, reduce costs, and stop running the business like a political arm of the government. I can bet that the reason they think they need to do all these things is that cost pr…

> It doesn't need to open up the network to competition.

I think this is mandated by the EU. And it could be a good thing. I'm personally fed up to be treated like a thief when I forgot composting my ticket (which happen because there is not gate to access the rails) or when I could not buy it in the first place (some station doesn't have have vending machines).

Also the price lottery for TGV tickets is infuriating (price goes from 14€ to 140€ for the ride I take the most) and the commercial strategy of the SNCF is to offer cheap TGV which lacks any confort to kind of punish you not buying the more expensive option.

But actually I would even be happier if we import all the working staff from Japan and make them the whole thing working smoothly under a join JR-France company.

Re: France’s new high-speed trains

#38

Post by jdietrich »

supernova87a wrote: post #31

SNCF is fiddling with the wrong things. It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition. What it needs to do is cut the number of excessive public sector workers, reduce costs, and stop running the business like a political arm of the government. I can bet that the reason they think they need to do all these things is that cost pr…

>UK tried this sort of thing and it left everyone with a shittier experience, though they could claim that they successfully privatized the industry -- everyone knows that's a total lie.

Passenger volumes have more than doubled since privatisation, after a long period of stagnation under nationalisation. While walk-on fares have increased above the rate of inflation, advance fares are substantially cheaper. The supposed problems of the British rail network resemble that Yogi Berra quote - "nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21056703

https://www.stagecoach.com/media/insight-features/the-facts-...

Re: France’s new high-speed trains

#40

Post by ucaetano »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #33
_jgvg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it doesn’t matter if my opinion is economically factually incorrect: the National morale does matter. I don't even know how to reply to that. Not only you're completely wrong, but you're a nationalist who would sink your country for "national pride". Kinda like North Korea.

Is there something fundamentally problematic with me want a say in how my tax dollars are spent, and that I would rather the majority go to my fellow citizens so that I have to support fewer of them with welfare?

No, you can want it as much as you want.

Won't make it good, but you're still free to want.

Post reply on HN