We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: TOCs
Details
Submitted by[?]: Capitalizt Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2370
Description[?]:
| WSS!P style - State controlled company controls the railroad lines, while private companies handle the services stuff. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Train Operating Companies (TOC).
Old value:: There is a single publicly owned TOC.
Current: The State owns and operates a national TOC, alongside private TOCs.
Proposed: The State owns and operates a national TOC, alongside private TOCs.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:08:04, March 01, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the TOCs |
| Message | We maintain our opposition to this purely due to the arguments we have placed previously. Whilst we understand the theory behind the operation of private TOC's the nature of railway infrastructure and timetable operations systemically compromises the position of increased competition due to the limitations of the infrastructure which is decidely different to other transport networks where competing private companies have the freedom to compete without limitation. |
| Date | 23:36:22, March 01, 2007 CET | From | First Party Of Hobrazia | To | Debating the TOCs |
| Message | Might we propose something here, instead of a vote on changing the law, maybe we could conduct a test, privatise one line on a major route, and see how it works for say a few years, if it does make it better start to spread the system than a sudden change, this can cause mayhem for the paying passenger. |
| Date | 23:41:39, March 01, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the TOCs |
| Message | Question: In regards the operation of TOC's, does the CP mean all rail operations or just passenger or just freight? |
| Date | 15:13:50, March 02, 2007 CET | From | Capitalizt Party | To | Debating the TOCs |
| Message | I mean all rail operations, but if you wish, we can restrict it. |
| Date | 18:27:51, March 02, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the TOCs |
| Message | You see, we've been considering this. Whilst we understand that many disagree with us on the operation of services being wholely controlled by the state as they wish competition to exist whilst we maintain that the nature of railway infrastructure forbids this, we feel that we have always been arguing about passenger services. Freight operations are, however, a completely different "ball game". Services are not necessarily timetabled weeks or months ahead, rather they tend to be operated as and when required as can be fitted in to the timetable (apart from a few continuous flows). It was with this in mind that we were planning on having "for hire" locomotives operated by HR for haulage of private owner wagons rather than HR wagons supplied for duties (see Transport Infrastructure bill. OOC: still technically not finished, but it includes all road/rail, not including mass transit, and shipping). Passenger services, due to the nature of rail infrastructure doesn't lend itself to private operation (need for integrated services, very limited profits on majority of routes etc) whereas freight could, in theory at least, operate privately and make a profit. We could have all locomotives owned and maintained by HR but all freight locomotives, not just RfG, available for hire to private operators. It would allow HR to maintain cohesion over all rollingstock, so keeping maintenance simple, but allow private operators to hire all loco's and rollingstock similar to that proposed within the bill and so keep their initial costs down due to low overheads (they pay HR to maintain those locomotives required for services, so HR makes money. This price is capped by the government) whilst the companies hiring HR stock are able to compete with each other in service provision to business. The best of both worlds? |
| Date | 23:41:04, March 02, 2007 CET | From | Capitalizt Party | To | Debating the TOCs |
| Message | While we'd still push for private competition - we'd like to 'delegate' such technical matters to them - we understand your point, as it would be in a few words too much of a mess for everyone. Will add updated description ASAP. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 202 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 119 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 79 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." - Confucius |