Labour calls for return of railways to public ownership after fare hike

should we.......


"The Labour Party has called for a return of the railways to public ownership after fares rose by an average of 2.3%.

The fare increase is the highest for three years and came into effect on Monday morning.

Shadow transport secretary Andy McDonald said bringing the railways back into public ownership was "a hugely popular" policy with "the vast majority of people in this country".

He told Sky News: "If we (re-nationalise the railways), we can start the process of retrieving some of the hundreds of millions of pounds that leak out of the system on an annual basis."

Mr McDonald added: "People are now saying: 'Why on Earth are we subsidising third party companies and state sector railway companies from France, Germany and Holland?'"


http://news.sky.com/story/labour-calls-for-return-of-railways-to-public-ownership-after-fare-hike-10715746

Victor wrote:Mr McDonald added: "People are now saying: 'Why on Earth are we subsidising third party companies and state sector railway companies from France, Germany and Holland?'"

Good point. If there is no efficiency off-set for profit, capitalism can never compete. What capitalists do is raise the prices to just below marginal revenue, regardless of demand, By the tail wagging the dog like that, they eventually, inevitably, operate at a loss...which they pass on to the passenger.

The only argument for free enterprise is competition = efficiency = lower cost. If that isn't happening, then rest assured, profit isn't going yield. The consumer must make up the slack.

People should stop complaining about socialism. Profit is inevitably another mouth to feed. If it doesn't give back, get rid of it.

IMO....all public utilities should be state owned and run....transport/gas/electric/water/health and such like....

Lord Foul wrote:IMO....all public utilities should be state owned and run....transport/gas/electric/water/health and such like....

Agreed.

And there is another aspect to socialism, one which I touched upon a few days back.  That is, critical tasks should not be left to drift on the currents of chance...like free enterprise.  We know this so solidly on matters of national security, that we simply take it for granted.  But, the fact is we all provide our national security by socialist means.  The military is inevitably owned and operated by the state, and there's no deviation from that anywhere.

Now, it remains to simply enlarge the list of critical tasks.  Every bit as important as defense, is healthcare...a defense of a different, but no less important kind.  Then, as you recognize, public utilities would come next.

I distrust free enterprise greatly.  Too many opportunities to cheat.  For that reason, free enterprise is unstable, and inevitably devolves into monopoly unless government intervenes.  In that case, why not just go directly to socialism.  After all, if you are going to manage the economy anyway...capitalism (profit) is just another mouth to feed.

mmm within limits quill...

aside from too much union power the economy of the 60's and early 70's over here was much better balanced....a sort of "mixed economy" with critical works in the states hands and everything else in private hands....

And one has to say the strikes were more down to conservative govt's hatred of workers...poor H&S poor wages etc ...basically state exploitation of the working people....

though to be fair ...in the end the unions did become greedy......

Lord Foul wrote:mmm within limits quill...

aside from too much union power the economy of the 60's and early 70's over here was much better balanced....a sort of "mixed economy" with critical works in the states hands and everything else in private hands....

And one has to say the strikes were more down to conservative govt's hatred of workers...poor H&S poor wages etc ...basically state exploitation of the working people....

Organized labor is just another expression of interest politics.  I think government should be problem solving, not merely a competition of interests achieving a balance.  A managed economy is much more easily achieved today than in the 18th-century, when Smithsonian economics was born.  What Keynes foresaw in the future, is upon us right now, with computers, the Internet and immediate results.

I agree that conservatives will exploit the working people.  But that's just the strong enslaving the weak.  Look at the distribution of wealth today and you see the same numerical result.  When I say free-enterprise always devolves into monopoly, it's just another way of saying the strong will always try to enslave the weak.  If we begin by eschewing the market economy, in favor of the managed economy, we can build equity into the system.  At least that's my thinking right now.

          Corporations taking over public utilities are always bad news...

Shareholders -- especially the 'institutionals' and the 'fund managers -- alway expect profits to keep on increasing exponentially, year after year..

Once they have stripped the costs (including wages..) back as far as they can, the only recourses open to them is to jack up the fares, and/or cut back/remove totally the less profitable routes and services.        


Once the fares become high enough,  workers will no longer be able to commute to work, more cars and trucks will out on the roads;  emergency services will no longer be able to respond fast enough, due to road congestion -- that is, if the emergency personnel even made it to work;  and, increasing freight costs will add more inflationary pressure to prices..

Often times, it seems that companies run by clueless chancers and gsmblers, having found that they have taken on more than they can competently manage, will cynically jack up the fares to untenable and unsustainable heights, in the hope that a friendly gov't will bail them out,  maybe even re-nationalise that particular 'essential service'...        


A good stategy could be for people to simply stop using the trains if fares are increased to unreasonable levels --  which would only hurt the national economy, and hence the "greater good", in the long run --   until the gov't knuckles down and fixes the problem..

But with 'human nature' being what it is,  not enough commuters are likely to put the "common good", nor what is actually right and proper, before their own selfish interests.    

Lord Foul wrote:IMO....all public utilities should be state owned and run....transport/gas/electric/water/health and such like....

Yes... I agree... and I see that other posters agree too...!


Question is... why do they then support the eu, which has imposed all the rules that have forced the opening up of railways and public services to corporations to be able to take over..?

Question still unanswered...?

Tommy, France, Germany and others do not suffer the same widespread privatisation of public services as the UK. Why is that? It isn't the EU at fault here, if we already open our services and industries to privatisation then it is our own government that opens them up to being bought by foreign companies. It is successive British governments, Conservative and Labour, that have sold everything to outsiders, not the EU.

Wrong les... public sector has been opened up in France and Germany too.

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong les... public sector has been opened up in France and Germany too.

And yet their railways remain mostly state owned. Why is that?

They remain state owned because if they tried to change it a General strike would be called. The Unions control France.

And in Germany?

Regardless, those countries have great public transport, mostly cheaper, and state owned.

It is ridiculous the same isn't the case in the UK.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong les... public sector has been opened up in France and Germany too.

And yet their railways remain mostly state owned. Why is that?

https://sinfin.net/railways/world/france.html

http://www.railfaneurope.net/list/france.html

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong les... public sector has been opened up in France and Germany too.

And yet their railways remain mostly state owned. Why is that?

https://sinfin.net/railways/world/france.html

http://www.railfaneurope.net/list/france.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF

Also, in Germany the railways are technically controlled by a private company -- but the German government owns all the stock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bahn

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/renationalise-railways-what-no-one-will-tell-you-we-cant-while-were-eu


http://www.caef.org.uk/d111crow.html

And yet the railways of France and Germany remain largely state owned- why is the UK different?

The plain truth is our governments are ideologically opposed to state ownership of just about everything. They could own the railways as the French and Germans do they just choose no to. No responsibility and screw the passengers.

Open main menu

EditWatch this pageRead in another language
First Railway Directive
The First Railway Directive 91/440/EC (with amendments, also called the "First Railway Package") is an EU directive that sets out an EU law framework and requirements for railways in the EU to allow open access operations on railway lines by companies other than those that own the rail infrastructure. The legislation was further extended by further directives to include cross border transit of freight.

The subsequent directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC, which built upon the initial legislation, are collectively known as the First Railway Package.[1] In September 2010, the process of merging the directives into a single piece of legislation was begun, with the addition of modifications to strengthen the regulatory framework.[2] The Second Railway Package and the Third Railway Package aimed to push integration further.

Background Edit

In many countries in Europe the railway systems developed as separate privately owned companies operating regional networks[note 1] with permission to construct and operate a line being granted or instructed by government legislation, or by royal decree or license. During the 20th century the railways became organised and run through a country wide organisation[note 2] often through nationalisation. These entities in general had total or virtual monopolies.[note 3]

These national companies were vertically integrated organisations and it was difficult or impossible for private or regional enterprises to run their own trains on the national networks, or to compete in other EU country's railway systems. Thus in 1991 EU Directive 91/440 was created to make it a legal requirement for independent companies to be able to apply for non-discriminatory track access (running powers) on a European Union country's track.[3]

Description Edit

The aims of the directive are to create a more efficient rail network by creating greater competition. To achieve this aim member states are required to ensure that organisations operating the infrastructure (track, signalling etc.), and those operating services (trains) are separate and run on a commercial basis.[note 4] Additionally railway companies from all member states are allowed to run services on any other member states rail infrastructure, both for passenger transport and goods. The free competition provided by the mandate is optional for regional and urban passenger trains.[4]

Further related legislation exists which applies to railway operations that are covered by directive 91/440:

Cross border freight in the EU Edit
The directive was further clarified and extended by EU directive 2001/12 which initially allowed cross border freight operations on a network of tracks – to be called the Trans European Rail Freight Network[note 5] a network which includes ports and freight terminals.[note 6] The network on which traffic was allowed was to be extended to the whole European network. As a consequence of this new trans-national freight network an additional change was made to the original legislation which required train safety and operating standards[note 7] to be set out clearly and administered by an organisation that did not run commercial services. The directive also required separate accounting of freight and passenger service revenues and costs.[5]

Track allocation and access charges in the EU Edit
EU directive 2001/14 set out the framework for the construction of bodies that control and regulate the allocation of line possessions to companies, and the charges for using the track,[6] this directive replaced the previous legislation EU directive 95/19.[7]

Licensing of railway companies in the EU Edit
EU Directive 95/18[8] set out a framework and guidelines for the way in which countries of the EU provide licenses to operate to railway companies; a license provided in one member state is generally valid in all other member states.[note 8] The directive was further clarified by EU Directive 2001/13 in 2001.[9]

EU Directive 2004/51 Edit
EU Directive 2004/51 (part of the Second Railway Package) amended directive 91/440 to include reference to the Trans European Rail Freight Network, and future access by 2007 by licensed rail freight operators of all the European rail network as originally described in directive 2001/12.[10]

Conclusions Edit

Though the original directive was seen by some as a law bringing about privatisation of the railways,[11] there are no requirements in the legislation requiring any level of privatisation.[citation needed] The main aim of the process was the "de-monopolisation" of European railways, with the aim of increasing competitiveness,[12] a process referred to as 'liberalisation'.

There has also been a large increase in the number of private freight providers, many relatively small such as Rail4chem and ERS Railways, but the national companies still control the majority of the traffic. Deutsche Bahn has expanded considerably in the rail freight market, with the purchase of the freight section of the Dutch railway company NS (now DB Schenker Rail Nederland), EWS (UK), and DSB goods (Denmark) amongst others. The French state rail company SNCF also expanded through acquisitions, raising the possibility of trans-national virtual monopolies on rail freight replacing former national monopolies,[13] or a potential duopoly between SNCF and Deutsche Bahn in most of western Europe.[14][15]

A subsidiary of the British company DB Schenker Rail (UK), EuroCargoRail, operates trains in France and Spain, a situation unlikely prior to the liberalisation.

The increase in cross-border traffic has fuelled demand for multiple voltage electric locomotives such as Bombardier's TRAXX, Siemen's Eurosprinter and electric versions of Alstom's Prima locomotives series.

In passenger transport, large transport corporations have been created, or expanded into the rail market from other related activities such as FirstGroup, Veolia, Serco and Arriva.

In the UK, the directives have been criticised in some areas[16] partly based on the problems with the full privatisation of British Rail, additionally the regulations favour competitive practice which are not necessarily compatible with workers rights.[17]

Implementation Edit
In the years following the introduction of the mandates different countries implemented it to different extents and at different paces. By 2004, some countries such as the United Kingdom had gone far beyond the original remit privatising the railway system in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland), others such as Finland and France had created fully separate infrastructure and railway companies from the state-run enterprises; still others, such as Germany, had created separate subsidiaries for different service providers and a subsidiaries for infrastructure and track (DB Netz). Yet others merely separated accounting between the two organisational sections.[18] Most countries in the EU still have a state owned infrastructure company, but many have privatised part or all of their service providers, or are working towards privatisation.

In June 2010, the European Commission instigated legal proceedings through the European Court of Justice against 13 states that had not fully implemented the set of directives (known as the 'first railway package'). The countries not having fully implemented the legislation to the Commission's satisfaction were Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.[19][20] In 2012 action against Germany and Austria on the basis that their infrastructure and operating companies were insufficiently separate was rejected by the European Court of Justice. Portugal, Spain and Hungary remained as having not yet fully complied with the aspects of the directives.[21] Legal action against Bulgaria was passed to the Court of Justice in 2012 for non-implementation.[22] In February 2013 the European Court of Justice ruled that the governments of Hungary and Spain had failed to liberalise their railways; infrastructure management was not sufficiently separated from train operation.[23]

Ireland derogated its obligation to implement the legislation; until 2012 Iarnród Éireann train operations and infrastructure businesses remained unsplit, and a similar situation existed in Northern Ireland.[24]

See also Edit

Arrangements between railroads – arrangements in gaining track access in other countries
ERTMS – A pan-European signalling system being promoted by the EU.
EU Directive 2001/16 – standards for interoperability of rail systems. See: Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 19 March 2001 Interoperability of conventional rail systems eur-lex.europa.eu
Second Railway Package, related legislation concerning primarily safety and interoperability
Third railway package
Fourth railway package
Notes Edit

^ For example in the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, Germany.
^ For example: British Railways created in 1948; SNCF 1938; Deutsche Reichsbahn created through merger of individual German state railways in 1920; RENFE and FEVE in Spain, during the Franco government
^ Specifically in terms of mainline workings, small industrial railways continued to exist in large industrial complexes such as mines and steelworks.
^ The legal consequence of this is that companies providing track access and those providing trains are separate, both in terms of management and accounting. ie separate companies
^ Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Annex 1, See: maps of the Trans European Rail Freight Network (TERFN) pages 9–25,[5] also see directive 2001/12/EC section 12, Article 10a;[5]
^ Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Annex 1, See: list of ports in the TERFN, page 8[5]
^ Such standards can be referred to as "Technical Specifications for Interoperability" (TSI) and are set in the EU by the European Railway Agency e.g. see: Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) www.era.europa.eu
^ Provided that the original license was issued for operations in other countries; a change of operating circumstances requires a re-evaluation, or re-application for a license.
References Edit

^ "European Union legislation". www.rail-reg.gov.uk. Office of Rail Regulation (UK). First Railway Package.
^ "Proposals for revision of First Railway Package published". 20 September 2010.
^ Development of the Community's railways europa.eu
^ Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways eur-lex.europa.eu
^ a b c d Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 26 February 2001 amendment to directive 91/440/EEC eur-lex.europa.eu
^ Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification eur-lex.europa.eu
^ Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees eur-lex.europa.eu
^ Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 on the licensing of railway undertakings eur-lex.europa.eu
^ Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 26 February 2001 amendment to directive 95/18/EC eur-lex.europa
^ Corrigendum to Directive 2004/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways eur-lex.europa.eu
^ A Proud British Tradition gets Shunted Off the Rails www.sovereignty.org.uk
^ Liberalization of railway transport : European directives on railway transport and Access to infrastructure Author: Enrico Mordiglia www.mordiglia.it
^ Railway Mergers and Railway Alliances: Competition Issues Author:Russell Pittman, Conference on Emerging Competition Issues in Regulated Network Industries: Alliances, consortia and other quasi-mergers, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 25–26 September 2008 164.15.69.62
^ Rail freight duopoly would be bad news for industry Damian Brett , 25 February 2010 , www.ifw-net.com
^ Rail Freight Group (opinion) "Stop the creeping European duopoly!" , Page 5 , 12/2009 , www.rfg.org.uk (www.railfreightgroup.com)
^ Brussels and rail 'liberalisation' Centre for Social Europe 12/2005 www.rmtbristol
^ The European Union, railway privatisation and the attack on workers' living standards Authors: Anna Rombach, Françoise Thull, 8 November 2007
^ Towards a single European railway market? The slow process of implementing European railway standards Authors:Jan-Coen van Elburg, Torben Holvad, Publication : Association of European Transport, 2004, www.etcproceedings.org
^ Rail services: Commission initiates proceedings against 13 Member States which have not fully implemented the first railway package Reference: IP/10/807 , 24 June 2010 , Brussels , europa.eu
^ EC stepping up pressure 28 July 2010 , www.railwaygazette.com
^ "Directive 91/440 does not require institutional separation", www.railwaygazette.com, 7 September 2012
^ "Commission takes legal action against Bulgaria for failing to fully implement the first railway package", europa.eu, European Union, 26 January 2012
^ "European Court of Justice rules on vertical separation". Railway Gazette International. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
^ "Irish government looks at rail restructuring as derogation ends", www.railwaygazette.com, Railway Gazette International, 14 March 2012
External links

Last edited 3 days ago by AnomieBOT
Wikipedia®

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Terms of UsePrivacyDesktop