Re: If rail privatisation hadn't happened

In message <ak1r15hh9ph0a6agesod8d6sh6otv750pc@xxxxxxx>
Tony Polson <docnews2011@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Mortimer" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It would be interesting to make a detailed comparison between the
Swedish privatisation model and our own. I suspect that many of the
weaknesses of the British model are a direct result of right wing Tory
political dogma dictating deviations from the Swedish model, which has
been in place and working successfully since 1988.

Have any countries privatised a monolithic public railway company (the
equivalent of British Rail) and kept it as a monolithic (but now
privately-owned) company, without fragmenting it into a track access
company and a series of TOCs? If so, it would be interesting to see if
that business model has worked better or worse than the fragmented
model.


Wasn't Argentina's state railway, or at least a substantial part of it,
privatised in this way?

No

I have a vague recollection that it may well have
been a disaster.


Given large chunks of the network have been abandoned it could be called a
disaster.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
.

Relevant Pages