27 ms·

China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned. The reason the rail systems

China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned. The reason the rail systems never got upgraded and Amtrak couldn't deploy high speed rail everywhere (despite it being a national priority in the 70s, 80s, and 90s) is that outside of the northeast corridor, Amtrak doesn't own the lines and couldn't get the owners to allow Amtrak to upgrade them for passenger high speed rail.

jabl 5mo ago
> China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned. The article we're discussing explains that Japan has the best passenger rail system in the world, and which happens to be privatized, along with privately owned track. So which one is it? Go figure.
- Tor3 5mo ago
  I believe the Japanese private rail companies also own the lines where their traffic is. This would explain a lot. There are other countries (including my native one) where the trains are run by one company and the lines are owned by another. This does.not.work. For what seems like obvious reasons. There's no economic gain for the owner of the infrastructure to spend money, quite the opposite in fact.
  - KptMarchewa 5mo ago
    In every EU country the infrastructure company (companies) is separate from companies that operate trains, with some usually small exceptions.
    - presentation 5mo ago
      Well, to be honest, the results in Japan and China, where that isn’t the case, have turned out to be much better.
      - jabl 5mo ago
        The interesting thing is how the EU railway policy just keeps plowing ahead trying to impose the "vertical separation" approach in the EU, despite the disastrous results from the UK experience (and some EU countries to a somewhat lesser extent, so far the UK seems to be the only example of going all-in on that approach).
    - jabl 5mo ago
      Most EU countries have adopted the approach of putting the infrastructure company and the public train company under the same holding company, which is sort-of the minimum that EU regulations demand. In practice, in many countries the previous national rail company (under whatever conglomerate structure it may be operating under today) is fiercely protective of its own turf and tries to prevent new entrants, and digging their heels in implementing EU railway competition regulations. So complying with the letter of the law, but does everything in its powers to not comply with the spirit. Then again, given the UK experience of going all-in on the "vertical separation" and privatization path, perhaps one shouldn't blame them.
  - Tiktaalik 5mo ago
    Many of these lines were built by the public, then privatized.
    - Tor3 5mo ago
      But maintained and extended today by e.g. JR Eeast.
      - kalleboo 5mo ago
        A lot of the lines are still being built, maintained and extended by the state and then leased out to the regional JRs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway_Construction,_Transport_and_Technology_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway_Construction,_Tr...
- Philpax 5mo ago
  While I agree with you, their system did not start privatised, and the Shinkansens predate privatisation by some time. I don't have the evidence to justify this, but I suspect that you need national buy-in - both financially and politically - to start a HSR build-out, which could then potentially be privatised at a later stage.
- floatrock 5mo ago
  Calling Japan Rail privatized is a "ehhh, kinda, in some places, if you squint" kinda thing. Technically, yes, the JR's are private companies. But track construction is generally done by a government construction company financed with Japanese sovereign debt. The completed tracks are then long-term leased to the JR's at favorable rates. Is it really a private company if the key capital outlay is done by the government and given to you with a sweetheart deal? ehhhhhh.... you can call the operator company private, but you're being dishonest if you call the system privatized.

jabl 5mo ago

> China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned. The article we're discussing explains that Japan has the best passenger rail system in the world, and which happens to be privatized, along with privately owned track. So which one is it? Go figure.

Tor3 5mo ago
I believe the Japanese private rail companies also own the lines where their traffic is. This would explain a lot. There are other countries (including my native one) where the trains are run by one company and the lines are owned by another. This does.not.work. For what seems like obvious reasons. There's no economic gain for the owner of the infrastructure to spend money, quite the opposite in fact.
- KptMarchewa 5mo ago
  In every EU country the infrastructure company (companies) is separate from companies that operate trains, with some usually small exceptions.
  - presentation 5mo ago
    Well, to be honest, the results in Japan and China, where that isn’t the case, have turned out to be much better.
    - jabl 5mo ago
      The interesting thing is how the EU railway policy just keeps plowing ahead trying to impose the "vertical separation" approach in the EU, despite the disastrous results from the UK experience (and some EU countries to a somewhat lesser extent, so far the UK seems to be the only example of going all-in on that approach).
  - jabl 5mo ago
    Most EU countries have adopted the approach of putting the infrastructure company and the public train company under the same holding company, which is sort-of the minimum that EU regulations demand. In practice, in many countries the previous national rail company (under whatever conglomerate structure it may be operating under today) is fiercely protective of its own turf and tries to prevent new entrants, and digging their heels in implementing EU railway competition regulations. So complying with the letter of the law, but does everything in its powers to not comply with the spirit. Then again, given the UK experience of going all-in on the "vertical separation" and privatization path, perhaps one shouldn't blame them.
- Tiktaalik 5mo ago
  Many of these lines were built by the public, then privatized.
  - Tor3 5mo ago
    But maintained and extended today by e.g. JR Eeast.
    - kalleboo 5mo ago
      A lot of the lines are still being built, maintained and extended by the state and then leased out to the regional JRs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway_Construction,_Transport_and_Technology_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway_Construction,_Tr...
Philpax 5mo ago
While I agree with you, their system did not start privatised, and the Shinkansens predate privatisation by some time. I don't have the evidence to justify this, but I suspect that you need national buy-in - both financially and politically - to start a HSR build-out, which could then potentially be privatised at a later stage.
floatrock 5mo ago
Calling Japan Rail privatized is a "ehhh, kinda, in some places, if you squint" kinda thing. Technically, yes, the JR's are private companies. But track construction is generally done by a government construction company financed with Japanese sovereign debt. The completed tracks are then long-term leased to the JR's at favorable rates. Is it really a private company if the key capital outlay is done by the government and given to you with a sweetheart deal? ehhhhhh.... you can call the operator company private, but you're being dishonest if you call the system privatized.