France’s new high-speed trains

Post by ownagefool » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 10:35 AM UTC

elcomet wrote: post #132

ownagefool wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err UK rail was famously terrible before "privatisation". Not that privatisation is the answer, nor that being public was at fault, but I'm not sure rewriting history is helpful. Looking at UK water companies being privatised so their owners can stuff them full of debt to get around the profit caps is probably a better case study. Profit percentage caps are silly because the obvious way to make more money is to make…

I read in a lot of articles that it is actually more terrible for a lot of tracks after privatisation in the UK. What happens is that companies focus on the most profitable tracks, so the other ones are not well maintained. An example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/05/the-gu...

Post by close04 » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 10:55 AM UTC

atoav wrote: post #138

close04 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It usually does. Actually I am not familiar with one example where public rail actually makes a profit, in real terms. All public rail systems I know or have read about are subsidized by the state either directly or via subsidizing the fare for the traveler (or both).

I think we should stop counting profit as “how much tickets you sold” minus “how much money you spent”, but look at the effects of a public train system on the whole economy. I grew up in the Alps and I can guarantee that certain very profitable touristic locations wouldn’t even remotely work if there was no affordable and reliable train network that connected them to a airport, unless you want to turn some alpine ar…

Post by iagooar » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 10:55 AM UTC

iagooar wrote: post #122

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…

> cut the number of excessive public sector workers I remind you, that we're talking about France here, where firing people is very, very hard. And we're talking public sector here, which would be a huge offense there. Protests would be massive.

Post by jnty » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 11:00 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #142

conjectures wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition." This certainly didn't help in the UK. It's been a shameful saga with multiple failures and no clear rationale. The theory was: privatisation -> ??? -> uber efficiency. Ignoring the fact that the economic theory which usually fills in the ??? requires free entry and exit into the m…

Assuming the railway itself is public and shared, as in this case, how is rail a natural monopoly?

Post by kmlx » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 11:02 AM UTC

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…