Re: (erielack) Re: Meadville Line news!

["Bill K." <"pontiac_@_dreamscape.com">]

When England chose to privatize it's rail system, didn;t they more or less
create open access for frieght haulers?   Each one could contract to
provide specific services, in some cases simply different trains over the
same track.   I don't remember a lot of detail, just bits and pieces from
reading where Wisconsin Central had expanded in England.   

Bill K.

- ----------
> From: Kevin DeGroff <"kdegroff_@_starpower.net">
> To: erielack <"erielack_@_internexus.net">
> Subject: Re: (erielack) Re: Meadville Line news!
> Date: Friday, June 09, 2000 3:31 PM
> 
> The biggest problem with open access would be the level of
> maintnenance and investment performed, which would no doubt
> be at a 'government standard'.  Thats not necessarily a plus.
> 
> Its true that the government pays for airports and waterways and roads,
> But some of these facilities are truly dumps, and, well, the condition of
the
> interstates is about equal with the Meadville line in its current state. 
I bet
> if you took the level of maintenance and investment you see at Penn
Station
> or LaGuardia, and translated that to a degree of investment and
maintenance
> on most trunk lines, you end up with mainlines that wouldn't be as well
> maintained as they are today in private hands.
> 
> NY Penn Station IS an outright dump, so are the majority of airports.
> I'd hate to see that translated to the mainlines.
> 
> The biggest thing the government could do would be to relax or outright
> eliminate ROW taxes, even on hi-density trunks of profitible carriers.
> It would be a financial gesture that moves alot closer towards the rate
> of support for other modes, and it would let the business in private
hands
> do the job of bringing in the capital dollars.  Eliminating the tax
expense
> means more dollars for capital projects, used as the railroad sees fit.
> Combine this effort with a program of subsidizing long-haul startups like
> Susquehanna and WC and ? , a process which produces a public benefit
> by increasing competition, and stop further mergers until some
> competitive balance returns.  The STB failed big-time in this.  Perhaps
> merger application process should have been shifted to DOJ when the
> ICC was abolished, where they would have applied greater anti-trust
> scrutiny, instead of the paltry analysis on shipper impact that occurs
with
> the STB now.  The failure to shift jurisdiction to the DOJ, and instead
> giving it to the STB, is why the last round of mergers was rubber
> stamped and is why we are in the predicament now.
> 
> Insiders on Wall Street seem to feel the latest round of mergers was
> a coordinated effort by the roads to finally gain the upper hand with
> pricing.  Back in 1990 when there was the 'Super 7', the competition
> that existed placed downward pressure on carload pricing, to the
> disadvantage of the carriers.  By merging, and thus eliminating the
> pricing fights, the income of the carriers can finally rise.  It was a
> classic case of whats good on Main Street sucks on Wall Street.
> The carriers, behind the false rhetoric of 'single line haul' and
> 'merger economies', really have no intention of passing savings
> on to shippers or to reduce prices.  Its all to recover the lost
> income and eliinate future income setbacks that were incurred
> as a result of the carrier's version of price wars.
> 
> Rather than merge and create all the problems, perhaps if other
> expneses (like property taxes) are eliminated, the carriers existing
> in such a capital-intensive industry could weather the effects of
> competition better, whithout having to resort to eliminating it.
> 
> 
> Ken wrote:
> 
> > If the government owns the track, who determines the standards to which
it
> > is maintained?  What if one rail operator desires and is willing to pay
for
> > a higher standard, but another operator cannot afford it?  Who
> > decides?  Who pays?  If the track is maintained at a lower standard,
> > mandating slower speeds, an operator might choose another, faster
route,
> > depriving the rail line of needed revenue.
> >
> > There are a lot of issues to be worked out.  And then there are
signalling
> > systems, rules, etc.
> >
> > Ken B.
> 
> 
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net

 ------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net

------------------------------

End of Erielack Digest V2 #735
******************************


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to "majordomo_@_internexus.net" with the
command unsubscribe erielack-digest in the BODY of the message.
To switch to the regular version of the list, include the command
subscribe erielack as the second line in the e-mail described above.