Comments on: For French High-Speed Rail, a Lower-Cost Future Pondered

By: Drewski

Drewski — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:32:55 +0000

Sweden and Germany have both made clear distinctions between long-distance trains and local/regional service. In Sweden, local services are subsidized by the lan (counties), or by a group of lan. The cross-subsidy that Thatcher used to carp about with British Rail doesn’t exist in Swedish operations. In Germany, states typically contract with Deutsche Bahn or with private operators. In some states, it’s become a political issue (some opposed to private operators, some all but opposed to DB), but there’s still a clear national network of services. Not only is the network structure apparent, but the whole issue of competition on intercity routes is still restricted by the number of available timeslots. In Sweden’s case, this is even more relevant, because the entire intercity system is constrained by track limitations in Stockholm. No matter what, there are only so many trains that can be run. Compare this to low-cost airlines, which have made an art of taking direct and indirect subsidies (I don’t see Ryanair or Southwest paying the full cost of operating even one airport), and which generally create a mess by doing what works for them, and damn the most effective use of infrastructure. But then, I guess I’m arguing for something that isn’t a priority in the debate right now.

By: Anton

Anton — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:49:46 +0000

So RFF is charging the SNCF, which gets subsidized by the French government, which then gets those subsidies back by the RFF. So in fact nobody is loosing anything here, except non-SNCF tain operators trying to get into the French HSR market. Additionally, it appears some of the trackage owned by RFF is managed by the SNCF — which the RFF pays for. This whole system smells like a protectionist scheme to keep Die Bahn out of France.
Because the strike ridden SNCF couldn’t really compete against more market oriented train operators, it has opted to undermine the whole open access agenda.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:37:37 +0000

Cullen, the problem with arguing network effects in France’s case is that SNCF doesn’t exploit the possible connections to maximize TER and TGV ridership. For example, at Nice-Ville, the TER connection to Monaco and Menton and the TGV connection to Paris are timed to just miss each other.

If instead the transfer were timed well, and the trains ran on time, then there would be more riders using both train types. It would also be possible to be more aggressive with TER transfers. Thus, selling the combined tickets at a premium over the commuter tickets, as SNCF does today, would allow collecting TGV fares for a TER spending level.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:33:30 +0000

The problem with the network effect argument is that it’s sometimes used for lines for which network effects are tiny. Sometimes, the argument is serious, for example a branch line feeding a profitable main line. But sometimes, it’s spurious: for example, the Empire Builder does not feed the Northeast Corridor, contrary to what NARP and the URPA say.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:32:53 +0000

Well, it is logical to replace the short haul routes first — and to replace the busiest routes first.

The various existing HSR schemes in the US are mostly pretty good about doing that. They just need funding….

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:30:54 +0000

“Some potentials US HSR corridors are actually more Japanese than European. They concentrate instead of dissipate frequency, connect larger cities than in Europe, and make intermediate stops in downtown areas instead of on the outskirts.”

HSR projects which come to mind in this regard: California, the “Southeast” (basically North Carolina and Virginia), the NY Empire Corridor, the Cascades in the NW. Also several of the proposed “midwest” corridors (notably the Chicago-Milwaukee and the proposed Chicago-St. Louis *via* Champaign routes). Except for the insuperable station location problems, the 3C line would qualify.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:22:45 +0000

“Another concern is the network effect. A complete network is more useful and will generate more revenues than a network limited to the profitable lines.”

As far as I’m concerned, this is the *only* argument for “geographic equity” between low-population and high-population areas.

The branch lines bring passengers to the mainline, and carry passengers away from the mainline. Without the branch lines, people start taking their cars instead.

By: dejv

dejv — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:09:27 +0000

The problem is that the profit redistribution wasn’t transferred from old system to the new one. Obviously, in competition-based system, it can’t be done by operators. The other places could be RFF (by diferentiation of track fees for various lines) or French department of transport (by collecting license fees on profitable lines and subsidizing the lossy ones).

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:01:00 +0000

Given SNCF’s funny ideas about schedule adherence, one could say it still has to learn about regular interval scheduling, period. Yes, it’s nice that the TER runs on a takt when it’s on time, but the TER isn’t always on time.

By: Max Wyss

Max Wyss — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:11:02 +0000

Tell that those “mänätschers”…

It is essentially using yield management concepts for airlines which poison the frequency and flexibility concept of rail travel. On the other hand, SNCF (for longer distance) still has to learn about regular interval scheduling. Ah, yeah, and Trenitalia is not much better…

On the other hand, the Deutsche Bahn does have early booking tickets, but you still can just hop on the next train available.