02-02-2005 22:12									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DanS Bus and rail take about 4 hours. Maybe a couple minutes longer for bus.

You have found your problem.

For the record:
Paris-Brussels per bus = 3h45
Paris-Brussels per train = 1h25

	02-02-2005 22:12									#32
	Support Apolyton

As an aside for Spiffor - Planes are cheaper than rail in the UK already for long distances.

If you're going to newcastle or scotland from london for instance it's cheaper and quicker by plane.

And those distances are very short in US terms.

	02-02-2005 22:21									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS It's pretty easy to figure out what the problem is. It costs $35 roundtrip from Washington to NYC by bus and $152 by train.

As I pointed out. That, however, is not the problem, but an effect of the problem.

quote: What idiot would subsidize the train enough so that it is competitive with bus? And this is an area (the NE corridor) where passenger rail is supposed to make sense!

Trains are more efficient as far as pollution and traffic are concerned. Given the massive gridlock in that area, as well as the commuter pollution, it might be well worth the subisidy. With the population of the U.S. expected to increase by an additional 200 million in the next fifty years, any solution to the coming traffic nightmare is going to have to include quite a bit of subsidized commuter rail.

Or do you asserate that Americans are too stupid to manage to make work what the Europeans and Japanese have done for decades?

	02-02-2005 22:23									#34
	Get a bigger avatar today!

This is a question for Spiffor, but anyone can respond.

Is the competition in Europe for the same line and for the same time? That is, if I want to go to Paris to Berlin at 8 am do I have significant choices. Because that is really what competition is. It's not diferent companies offering services at different times and places.

	02-02-2005 22:26									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

No. There's one track. One company operates the service on that line. It's impractical to have several companies operating the same services on the same line.

There is some competition when the company bids for the licence to operate that line, and if they don't perform they can lose the rights to another company. There are also regulations so, for instance, they can't just serve the popular routes at peak times.

	02-02-2005 22:29									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Is the competition in Europe for the same line and for the same time? That is, if I want to go to Paris to Berlin at 8 am do I have significant choices. Because that is really what competition is. It's not diferent companies offering services at different times and places.

For what I know (and this is only France, where rail is almost completely public, and Germany where privatization has been postponed), no.

My experience of other countries' trains (and thus other institutional arrangements) is very limited. So it would be a better idea to ask the nationals of other countries to ask how it is in their countries: privatizations are widely different from one European country to another.

When I was in Sweden, I seem to have understood that there were several companies that offered travels on the same lines. However, the national rail company offered a booking engine that included all those companies. It allowed to compare and to have the best prices at the best times. Now, I didn't really understood what was going on while I was in Sweden

	02-02-2005 22:31									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MikeH No. There's one track. One company operates the service on that line. It's impractical to have several companies operating the same services on the same line. There is some competition when the company bids for the licence to operate that line, and if they don't perform they can lose the rights to another company. There are also regulations so, for instance, they can't just serve the popular routes at peak times.

These look like policies that have been designed by someone who has a brain. How come the British rail is such an abysmal failure? I thought that was precisely because you allowed the companies to do whatever they pleased.

	02-02-2005 22:34									#38
	Got spare money?

Well then it is like I imagined. Privatization is only for privatizations sake and not form sake of competition.

	02-02-2005 22:44									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Well then it is like I imagined. Privatization is only for privatizations sake and not form sake of competition.

That's not true (and keep in mind that I strongly oppose the privatization of the French Rail, and that I despise the consequences of Germany's botched attempt).

The idea behind privatization is that a private company will undergo great lengths to keep the favour of the political institution that grants its licence. Although corruption can have a say in this, the basic idea is that the operating company will see its license challenged by other competitors every few years. As such, the private company must strive to keep a low price and a high quality, to be better than the would-be operators.

This idea relies on the prejudice that public companies are always complacent and mismanaging, while private companies are always on the edge and good-managing (or if they're not, they're rooted out). In truth, it is false. A public company can be well managed, and can have edges than a private company cannot have. Also, a private company can make money while utterly sucking.

But for the people who have been brainwashed into thinking that private enterprise will always be better than public ones in ventures where you sell something, privatization makes sense from a consumer-satisfaction point of view.

	02-02-2005 22:52									#40
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MikeH There is some competition when the company bids for the licence to operate that line, and if they don't perform they can lose the rights to another company. There are also regulations so, for instance, they can't just serve the popular routes at peak times.

Yes, this is exactly what we need here in US. The consumer will win in this situation because this will result in better customer service, comfort, and prices..

	02-02-2005 23:08									#41
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor For what I know (and this is only France, where rail is almost completely public, and Germany where privatization has been postponed), no.

Passenger transportation is still in the hands of the state but AFAIK transport of goods is more privatised than it used to be.

	02-02-2005 23:11									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor That's not true (and keep in mind that I strongly oppose the privatization of the French Rail, and that I despise the consequences of Germany's botched attempt). The idea behind privatization is that a private company will undergo great lengths to keep the favour of the political institution that grants its licence. Although corruption can have a say in this, the basic idea is that the operating company will see its license challenged by other competitors every few years. As such, the private company must strive to keep a low price and a high quality, to be better than the would-be operators. This idea relies on the prejudice that public companies are always complacent and mismanaging, while private companies are always on the edge and good-managing (or if they're not, they're rooted out). In truth, it is false. A public company can be well managed, and can have edges than a private company cannot have. Also, a private company can make money while utterly sucking. But for the people who have been brainwashed into thinking that private enterprise will always be better than public ones in ventures where you sell something, privatization makes sense from a consumer-satisfaction point of view.

Well that is really a different situation. Right now there is pressure on Amtrak to maintain good service and low price, otherwise there will be political backlash. That's not the same as companies existing in a competitive market. It's hard for outsiders to know how efficiently a company is running without competition. With real competition a company has to operate efficiently or they are elimiinated automatically form the industry.

	03-02-2005 00:56									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: These look like policies that have been designed by someone who has a brain. How come the British rail is such an abysmal failure? I thought that was precisely because you allowed the companies to do whatever they pleased.

Well, for a long time, the railway infrastructure was given over to a private monopoly called Railtrack. Presumably the fact that it had shareholders was supposed to make it better somehow. Railtrack allowed the track to decay - what would have been routine maintainance under British Rail they now called 'upgrading' - and there were some accidents due to unmaintained track. And so the whole network was thrown into chaos as frantic repairs were made.

The thing is, passenger numbers have been increasing, so just getting back to the standard of BR isn't enough - we should have been moving forward with the railways, instead of spending a decade and a half just trying to keep them from collapsing.

Railtrack has now been wound up, thankfully, and replaced by a nationalised company, Network Rail. The trains are still private, though. The Scottish network was recently given over to the bus company.

The government recently revoked the license of a train company in the South of England somewhere (due to poor performance), and took over the running of the trains itself until a new company could be found. The trains in that network are now amongst the most punctual in the UK, but the government is still insisting that it will put them into private hands again.

And this is only scratching the surface of the problems with the British rail system.

Mind you, at least the British government recognises that railways are an important national asset that can't just be allowed to go 'bust'. I'm doubtful that the Americans will care in the least as what little they have is allowed to go to ruin. Their loss.

	03-02-2005 01:03									#44
	Remove this text

Thanks for the explanation, Sandman

quote: The trains in that network are now amongst the most punctual in the UK, but the government is still insisting that it will put them into private hands again.

Considering that the public network is proving its superiority over private ones, why the heck would the gov want to privatize it again?:

	03-02-2005 01:14									#45
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

They're New Labour. They're afraid of being seen to willingly nationalise anything. Even if it's a good idea.

This is despite poor transport being one of the main gripes of British business.

	03-02-2005 01:22									#46
	Support Apolyton

BBC Railways Link

This is probably a better source of information that my semi-informed ramblings. Network Rail is a not-for-profit company that is all but controlled by the government, but not actually state-owned. Or something.

	03-02-2005 01:48									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There used to be an Amtrak line from Chicago to Indianapolis. It was quick, comfortable, and usually packed. Then they cut it and forced everyone to ride Greyhound. It wasn't that much more expensive than the bus, either, $35 round trip.

	03-02-2005 02:14									#48
	Put an end to popups!

Cross country rail travel in the US was made obsolete in the second half of the 20th century by jet planes. Most private companies went bust or cut passenger service around the 60s.

Amtrak was created because there are plenty of towns across America that were built around rail lines- not enough population density to justify highways or airports. It's not politically acceptable to make these towns "obsolete".

	03-02-2005 02:35									#49
	Remove this text

quote: Amtrak was created because there are plenty of towns across America that were built around rail lines- not enough population density to justify highways or airports. It's not politically acceptable to make these towns "obsolete".

In the lower 48 states, these towns wouldn't be destroyed by loss of rail passenger service. On the other hand, the freight rail system is highly developed throughout the US -- even to small towns -- and loss of freight rail access would be devastating for industry. But as stated, all of those rails are privately owned and only a very small subset run passenger service.

quote: As I pointed out. That, however, is not the problem, but an effect of the problem.

Well, we've got a $117 gap between rail and bus (plus any operating subsidies that are going to be removed or reduced), which demonstrates the magnitude of the problem. Do you think it's possible for Amtrak to offer a $35 round trip ticket, or alternatively to make the gap a worthwhile purchase, given convenience, time-to-destination, etc.?

I'm skeptical.

	03-02-2005 02:38									#50
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The train is faster than the bus. Also, the bus wasn't always that cheap, it's only since the beginning of Chinatown bus operations that the price dropped to $35.

Solution? Build Chinatowns across the country.

	03-02-2005 02:43									#51
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor You have found your problem. For the record: Paris-Brussels per bus = 3h45 Paris-Brussels per train = 1h25

Well, the distance between Washington and New York is 225 miles, whereas it is 164 miles for Paris to Brussels. I would have thought that Paris to Brussels would be all freeway, but I guess not.

In any event, maybe I'm overestimating the time for the train. The Amtrak web site lists the $144 tickets at a 3 hour, 20 minute trip. Additionally, you might be able to knock off maybe an hour from the NYC <-> Washington trip with roughly the current infrastructure (but at a higher ticket price). Anything more would require new rights of way and bullet trains.

	03-02-2005 02:43									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DanS Well, we've got a $117 gap between rail and bus (plus any operating subsidies that are going to be removed or reduced), which demonstrates the magnitude of the problem. Do you think it's possible for Amtrak to offer a $35 round trip ticket

Maybe not $35, but already it could have considerably lower prices if there were more customers. To attract customers, having faster trains would be a good idea. So is handing out generous rebates to some categories of the population (young, unemployed, old...), so that they can fill in the train. It's better to have a cheapo seat than an empty seat.

quote: or alternatively to make the gap a worthwhile purchase, given convenience, time-to-destination

Unless the stations in DC and NY (and in the cities inbetween) are very remote from the city centre, and badly connected to cabs / mass transit, I don't see how train would be less convenient than bus. As for the speed, it's not like there aren't economically viable fast trains out there. Competing European countries have developed their own fast-train design aimed at accomodating old tracks. So you won't need any hugehugehuge investment to have satisfyingly fast trains.

You'll need the political will to do so however. And you'll need to clean up Amtrak's pathetic management, it seems.

	03-02-2005 02:48									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS In any event, you might be able to knock off maybe an hour and a half from the NYC <-> Washington trip with roughly the current infrastructure (but at a higher ticket price). Anything more would require new rights of way and bullet trains.

Pendolino goes at 125-140 Mph, and is supposed not to require new tracks. If you take the stops between DC and NYC, that's still ca. 2 hours for the trip. That will be considerably more attractive than busses for those who can afford it. And for those who have rebates.

	03-02-2005 02:52									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I DanS'ed you. The 2:20 figure is the Acela Express figure (which is one of those upgraded trains that you mention), and assuming an upgrade of the switching near New York City.

But those trains are pretty expensive. The Acela Express tickets now go for $252 round-trip.

Would it be right to subsidize those business travelers on the $252 round-trip ticket, when all the rest of us are choosing bus for $35 round-trip?

	03-02-2005 02:55									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Solution? Build Chinatowns across the country.

To quibble, the bus services are run by the Chinese, but they don't stop in Chinatown in Washington, D.C.

	03-02-2005 02:59									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DanS I DanS'ed you. The 2:20 figure is the Acela Express figure (which is one of those upgraded trains that you mention), and assuming an upgrade of the switching near New York City. But those trains are pretty expensive. The Acela Express tickets now go for $252 round-trip. Would it be right to subsidize those business travelers on the $252 round-trip ticket, when all the rest of us are choosing bus for $35 round-trip?

1. I'm not sure all the rest of you are choosing the bus, for exactly the same reason that most of you people prefer expansive planes over cheap buses to travel cross country. Speed matters.

2. A train has heavy fixed costs, but small variable costs, once you scheduled one. A train full of "subsidized" customers will lose far less money than an empty train. In turn, with an attendance being up, the train company won't have to charge the customer as much to recoup the costs. This will improve the competitiveness compared to other transportation forms.

	03-02-2005 03:06									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: This will improve the competitiveness compared to other transportation forms.

But just at the figures, Spiff! We could give away bus tickets to anybody who wants them, kill Amtrak, and end up way ahead.

	03-02-2005 03:07									#58
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Well, the distance between Washington and New York is 225 miles, whereas it is 164 miles for Paris to Brussels. I would have thought that Paris to Brussels would be all freeway, but I guess not.

Is that all? 164 miles? Hmm, always thought it was more. As to the freeway part, it is mostly freeway ( if not all which I actually think it is ).

	03-02-2005 03:07									#59
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DanS But just at the figures, Spiff! We could give away bus tickets to anybody who wants them, kill Amtrak, and end up way ahead.

... with slow transportation that clogs the highways.

	03-02-2005 03:09									#60
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

It's not much slower. And the clogging of highways is minimal. Certainly much better than cars. If people want a faster trip, they can fly.