Vertical integration? or separation?

[pdeaves]

With much talk in the UK about 'bringing together track and train', it's interesting that in Japan they have taken the first move to separate track and train. This article explains: https://www.railwaygazette.com/infr...on-to-japanese-passenger-market/60461.article

Tadami Line transfer brings vertical separation to Japanese passenger market
3 December 2021

JAPAN: Part of the storm-damaged Tadami Line in central Honshu has been transferred from JR East ownership to management by the local prefecture, the Tohoku Transport Office within the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport & Tourism announced on November 30.

The move is the first example to make use of regulatory changes in the transport sector to transfer a passenger route from First Sector to Second Sector status, vertically separating ownership of the infrastructure from train operations. JR East will continue to provide the passenger services, paying access charges to the infrastructure manager, as JR Freight already does to run its trains across the country.

Article goes on to explain the history, including the fortune spent repairing weather damage.

 

[EC73LDN]

It looks like this might be a special case because of the nature of the line - it appears to be something akin to a cross between the Heart of Wales, Inlandsbanen in Sweden and the Little Yellow Train route in south west France. I can understand why the operator would find it difficult to justify the amount of investment needed for a relatively low passenger traffic - and so having the route owned by local interests may improve its chance of survival.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

With much talk in the UK about 'bringing together track and train', it's interesting that in Japan they have taken the first move to separate track and train. This article explains: https://www.railwaygazette.com/infr...on-to-japanese-passenger-market/60461.article

The french regions are chomping at the bit to stop being forced to pay SNCF huge amounts for poor services. In Germany politicians are pleased with the results competition to provide subsidised services has brought.

Only the UK covets a national integrated monopoly - perhaps because they had one of the best nationalised operators followed by by far the worst attempt at privatisation.

 

[Djgr]

Let's hope someone learns from Britain's mistakes.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The french regions are chomping at the bit to stop being forced to pay SNCF huge amounts for poor services. In Germany politicians are pleased with the results competition to provide subsidised services has brought.

Only the UK covets a national integrated monopoly - perhaps because they had one of the best nationalised operators followed by by far the worst attempt at privatisation.

I'd say that the German system is actually very effective, but it only works because the subsidised services are kept within regional transport associations. The example from Poland (where larger provinces established their own railway companies at the expense of the national-regional operator) shows that such a system doesn't work if there's no cooperation agreements between operators.

 

[dutchflyer]

Re Japan: from what I learnt in the past, many more minor branch lines have been taken over by localities along it-be it city council or province or region, but in those cases they also ran their own services as a local ´private´company over these lines. Severe economies were made-up till 1-person operation and traindriver selling/checking tickets in a tiny railcar! Most of these lines were deemed uneconomic by JR and were proposed for closure. An odd one was even more like an uneconomic metro-branch. Japan is slowly ageing and depopulating in rural areas and getting more crowded in urban areas-a bit like France, but on a lower grade. A bit similar to Switzerland with its once many minor local branch lines, all being separate companies, till mergers started.