Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Schizophrenia vs. "One-ness"

Expand Messages
  • CEB
    Hi, Following is the link to the members of CER (the Community of European Railways and Infrastructure Managers) and they are really a mixed bag of rail
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 23, 2005
      Hi,

      Following is the link to the members of CER (the Community of European Railways and Infrastructure Managers) and they are really a mixed bag of rail services and infrastructure which are at least separate on the books, separately owned (but not necessarily so open to competition as they should be), actually separate, and then things like reportedly excellent regional services in Switz running on "metals" not their own, etc.

      I am not saying it is simply a matter of indiviual cases, that privatisation and separation has in general done one thing or another, but just there are many different examples, at least in Europe.

      Truth in advertising: Can you tell that I am trying to get CER as a partner for "On the Train" and not trying to be controversial at all?

      http://www.cer.be/content/listmember.asp?level1=925&level0=922

      Also, here is the descripion of the sub-programme in "On the Train" which is related to use and abuse and refuse of infrastructure:

      7. Intelligent Energy Corridors Creating, enhancing and preserving existing mostly non-electrified railway corridors for regional railways and/or Greenways. Also called Either a rail or a trail, but its not for sale!, it will show examples of current regional rail service restoration programmes (such as PKP rail buses for communes programme (see PKP 2003 Annual Report pg 59-60) and other from the UK and also Greenways both separate from and incorporated into un-used rail infrastructure and corridors. It will include a professionally-focused workshop on mechanisms and also community processes to decide on what form IECs should take, the main goal in either case to keep corridors intact (not sold off, piece-by-piece). EGWA has proposed that their annual board meeting take place on train
      Invited Participants: EGWA (European Greenway Association); ACoRP (Association of Community Railway Partnerships); Greenways Program of the Czech Environmental Partnership; national and regional railway advocacy organisations


      Todd
      ______________________________________________________________
      > Od: "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
      > Komu: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
      > Datum: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:55:20 -0500
      > Předmět: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: NYT op-ed about Amtrak
      >
      >
      >
      > >> WHEN SPEAKING OF RAIL, the organization
      > >> responsible for the infrastructure must be the same as the
      > >> organization operating the trains.
      > >
      > >This is not necessarily true, and in some cases wildly impractical.
      >
      > In my experience, it is universally true. When I was at NJ Transit,
      > we had an awful time with Amtrak, which operates the NEC. We were
      > in continual conflict with Amtrak over the operation of our
      > commuter trains on their corridor. Ditto many other experiences.
      >
      > >Do you really believe the owner of the NEC should also operate
      > >trains for NJ Transit and Metro North?
      >
      > Yes
      >
      > >RATP in Paris seems to do a
      > >very capable job running its RER service on SNCF tracks.
      >
      > I don't know the specifics here, but I'll bet the RER is the
      > sole operator on SNCF tracks. It IS possible for that to work,
      > but what advantage is there? (What can never work is more than
      > one operator on a line, unless that line is very lightly used.)
      >
      > >> I have never seen a realistic proposal for an arrangement that
      > >> allows the tracks to be commonly owned and separately used.
      > >
      > >There are plenty of examples throughout Europe where this is
      > >the case.
      >
      > Such as?
      >
      > >The BR fiasco was unfortunate, but not particularly
      > >relevent as Minetta is not proposing a "Railtrack" type corporation.
      >
      > That sounds to me exactly like what he's proposing, although
      > he's very coy with the details.
      >
      > >> I'll bet that, since Amtrak is not using its own tracks, that
      > >> the service is often late.
      > >
      > >Amtrak does own the NEC. Nonetheless, its Acela service is
      > >embarrassingly late.
      >
      > Equipment errors. They have 19 Acela train sets, no one exactly
      > like any other. How did THAT happen?
      >
      > Railroads that run well are run from the top down. It's one place
      > where a hierarchical organization is essential; networks don't work.
      >
      > >Compare that to something like California's
      > >Capitol Corridor service -- it has much better on-time performance
      > >even though it runs on tracks owned by UP.
      >
      > I'll bet UP isn't running much freight over that line (at least
      > compared to its capacity--is it double-tracked?).
      >
      > I recall taking the train from Santa Barbara to Emeryville and being
      > advised by the conductor that there was almost always a one-hour delay
      > getting through the Oakland yards (not the day I happened to take it).
      >
      > Regards,
      > 
      > 
      >
      >
      > -- ### --
      >
      > J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
      > mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
      >
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
      > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.