Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The problem with private rail operators is that they don't compete for the end-users. Screaming "competition" and then actually doing outsourcing is one of the biggest scams in the whole privatisation circus.

Due to the necessities of scheduling, you can almost never have more than one operator on each bit of rail anyway, so once the decision has been made (typically for a period of several years and typically on the basis of nothing whatsoever but price), there is no competition.

So outsourcing government functions to private companies is more closely analogous to the granting of royal merchant charters than to the operation of supermarkets as far as competition is concerned.

Oh, and competition isn't magic. In fact, it introduces a number of costs that are not present for state-run entities - advertising, lawyers to do tax evasion and profit, to name some obvious wastes of money.

It also introduces redundancy into the system, because to operate two companies you need two entire structures that can perform essentially the same service. Now, redundancy isn't necessarily bad, but it's not magically good either. Having 20 % more staff than you need to cover all your bases on a normal day is A Good Idea. Having two CEOs, however, is just a waste of money. (Of course, having one CEO is very often a waste of money too... but I digress.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 03:07:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Screaming "competition" and then actually doing outsourcing is one of the biggest scams in the whole privatisation circus.

Wow, very true! Would you write a diary on this, it should become a classic.

once the decision has been made (typically for a period of several years and typically on the basis of nothing whatsoever but price), there is no competition.

That's not necessarily true in railfreight. In practice, for medium to large sized customers over medium distances, private railfreight competition can be very lively -- and chaotic and too risky. In Germany, it is a quite frequent occurence that some event -- extra demand, breakdown of a locomotive -- leads to a whole cascade of companies lending locos from other operators  (you read that right: one company borrows another's suplus loco, but the second company then discovers it would still need it and borrows a loco itself from a third company) or passing off a regular transport to another company. Always operating on the edge, bankrupcies happen regularly, which mean quick market re-organisations (remaining operators buy up locos and rush in to take customers).

But, I wonder if lower prices are worth the chaos and unreliability for customers. (Then again customer friedliness and fast response are things most nationalised railways could greatly improve upon...)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 04:37:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding wasteful redundancies in organisation. The IMO most important aspect of these on railways is maintenance. All private operators need regular loco maintenance bases of their own, either that or use the services of some centralised maintenance shops run e.g. by manufacturers.

But this is very inefficient. In an integrated railway, locos can simply go to the nearest maintenance shop. In the open access system, they have to waste many train-kilometres to reach the own or the manufacturer depot. Already the separation of different operations in a to-be-privatised state railway has this effect.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 04:43:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series