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: Private Train Sevices Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Constitutional Monarchy 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: August 2419
Description[?]:
| If any of you ever saw the state of the British rail network before it was privatised, you would understand this bill. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Train Operating Companies (TOC).
Old value:: There is a single publicly owned TOC.
Current: There is a single publicly owned TOC.
Proposed: Private companies operate TOCs throughout the country.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:58:20, June 22, 2007 CET | From | Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | Excellent. The Liberals support... |
| Date | 17:59:22, June 22, 2007 CET | From | The Rabble | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | Have you been on the british rail network since it was privatised? fucks sake, not a chance |
| Date | 20:06:45, June 22, 2007 CET | From | Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | I have. It still moves you from one place to another... |
| Date | 00:40:35, June 23, 2007 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | And it moved you quicker before. Case in point Virgin crosscountry, ever stood waiting for a train at new street? The amount that you hear cancelled or delayed is horrendous. Private rail companies do not improve railways since there can be no true competition between companies. |
| Date | 03:13:58, June 23, 2007 CET | From | Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | Of course there is. There is air travel, buses, cars... Just because there can't be two trains running the identical route and the identical time doesn't mean there can't be competition. |
| Date | 12:10:07, June 23, 2007 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | However this bill does not enable any of what you have just stated moreover using the example of the British network (although Britain does not exist in this world) since privatisation of the transport industry prices for all modes of transportation have sky-rocketed. It is only on routes that have government subsidisation in the form of such things as Centro etc. that prices have not done this. Additionally using our fictional country of Britain the private companies have been given a great deal of government money and since privatisation the railway network has cost the taxpayer more than when it was a publicly owned company. |
| Date | 12:10:46, June 23, 2007 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | ooc: I'm well aware that Britain is not a fictional place, however in the context of the game, it is. |
| Date | 12:47:07, June 23, 2007 CET | From | People's Populist Party - Zogist Mafia | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | ooc: could be a historical place too, couldn't it? Couldn't particracy be set on another planet in a post-apocalyptical future time? |
| Date | 14:34:36, June 23, 2007 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | ooc:Unless we're going AU and Earth managed to get colonies by 2000 |
| Date | 14:50:39, June 23, 2007 CET | From | People's Populist Party - Zogist Mafia | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | ooc: AU? |
| Date | 17:31:49, June 23, 2007 CET | From | Constitutional Monarchy Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | seriously the system was worse beforehand. you would be lucky to get a train at all before, and the trains were in appalling condition... at least they move nowadays.... :) |
| Date | 17:43:54, June 23, 2007 CET | From | Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | And Britain is not the only example for privatization of state-run train operators. Just because it was less than perfectly implemented in Britain, doesn't mean that private companies are incapable of operating railways. Hell, it was the private sector that constructed most of the railroads in the first place... |
| Date | 01:34:29, June 24, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | OOC:- Quote: Liberal Party of Beluzia and Bailon - it was the private sector that constructed most of the railroads in the first place... And those private companies were, on the whole, funded by, or at least encouraged by, government grants. As for privatisation of train services in other countries other than Britain, there are numerous reports of problems within the privatised German rail network, to name but one, not least over safety considerations as safety checks were reduced in an attempt to drive down costs. As for British privatisation, it has been shown to be a complete sham costing the taxpayer £5 billion before the private companies had even started operating and have since cost further billions in order to provide those companies with incentives to operate those services without providing service improvements that should be expected with such expenditure. The very point that so many of these private companies require such large amounts of public money to operate their services whilst increasing their prices faster than inflation to provide a poor service that even the former British Railways would have been disgusted with proves what a disaster privatisation was/is, especially considering BR was operating those services with an ever decreasing subsidy and actually operated their INTERCITY network at a profit (something no other high speed rail network in the world has done) and the private companies which now operate those services require huge amounts of public money to operate those same services with, in many cases, the same rolling stock can surely only prove how poorly run a private rail network is. Quote: Whig Party - "at least they move nowadays" Unless you catch a Virgin Train, or a First Great Western, or a South West Train or... IC:- Quote: Liberal Party of Beluzia and Bailon -"Just because there can't be two trains running the identical route and the identical time doesn't mean there can't be competition." Actually, within the confines of this bill, that is exactly what it means. By privatising the rail network you are attempting to increase competition within the rail industry. This is an impossibility due to the restrictions imposed by a rail system because of cost and space available. Unlike, for example, road transport, a train service cannot "shadow" another precisely due to the limitations involved in allowing for breaking distances etc. This can only be overcome should multiple rail lines be placed directly opposite each other and be signalled to allow for travel simultaneously with the same speed limits imposed on both stretches of line and both companies having access to the same/similar rollingstock otherwise one company will always be placed in a more advantageous position. Moreover, the requirements of operating both passenger and freight services on a rail system are significantly different than that of a road network. If your lorries require more capacity, you can spot hire additional trucks. If your buses can't cope with the number of passengers, you can hire additional buses. This is not so easy for a train company. If your freight train is operating at capacity you have to find rollingstock which is generally difficult to procure due to the high cost of maintenance and storage. You then need to have that rollingstock transferred to where it's needed. You then need to be sure that the breaking systems and couplings are compatible. You then need to check whether the locomotive is powerful enough to haul the additional weight, if not a new locomotive would be required at additional expense. You also need to be sure that the service can operate within its signalling slot. If an additional service is required it must be found a slot in order to operate, etc etc. Rail networks are complicated systems and they generally operate better as a unified system rather than small individual companies. |
| Date | 16:52:47, June 24, 2007 CET | From | Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | No one is saying that the size of the operating companies should be restricted. There is economic sense in allowing the TOCs to consolidate into larger, more efficient units... As for a largely successful example of privatization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_National_Railway#Privatization |
| Date | 20:58:09, June 24, 2007 CET | From | Constitutional Monarchy Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | thats a lot of quoting mate.... well u have ur view, and it sucks. National rail is rubbish, we want a decent rail network where competition drives quality up and prices down. |
| Date | 22:13:17, June 24, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | OOC: Using Canadian National as a choice for proving the success of a privatisation isn't really a good idea, especially considering that article raises continued arguments showing the poor safety record of CN since privatisation. IC: The only way you can have competition driving up quality and reducing prices on a national rail network is with multiple competing companies, something which can't happen due to the nature of rail operating systems. You have your view, we have ours. It just happens that ours is based on fact whereas yours is based on an impossible fallacy. |
| Date | 00:05:42, June 25, 2007 CET | From | Constitutional Monarchy Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | ooc lol ic right well if my current department can ensure that there would be at more than one company that has to provide the service... they will have to compete, therefore prices will have to drop, but they will need to maintain a good quality service or else customers will not want to use the service. |
| Date | 01:31:22, June 25, 2007 CET | From | People's Populist Party - Zogist Mafia | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | Rail is the best thing we've got until we invent teleporters... or maybe a pneumatic tube system? I say govt. stays out, or competes w business. If you let them work together they rape the taxpayers., |
| Date | 04:31:47, June 25, 2007 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | @Whig Party Except multiple companies cannot run the same services on the same network for the simple fact that the service is limited by the number of lines built. Using the example of most bus networks: they will run competing services on the same routes often at the same time in order to try and take one anothers passengers. This cannot work with a train operating company therefore the argument that your department will ensure that more than one company provides the service cannot be used simply because of pure logic. ooc @PPP:AU means alternative universe, it's common in most online writing. |
| Date | 04:34:55, June 25, 2007 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | @ LPBB: Larger does not always equal better. Moreover conglomerates reduce competition and drive prices up. Moreover once the competition is destroyed there is then no need, in the views of the companies, to keep prices low since the consumer has no alternative means. |
| Date | 10:31:00, June 25, 2007 CET | From | Constitutional Monarchy Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | why cant two trains go on one track? at different times clearly it is possible.... if prices get too high then nobody will use rail, therefore the train companies will have to keep prices low. |
| Date | 16:45:20, June 25, 2007 CET | From | Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Private Train Sevices Act |
| Message | "Using Canadian National as a choice for proving the success of a privatisation isn't really a good idea, especially considering that article raises continued arguments showing the poor safety record of CN since privatisation." That 'poor' record is still one of the best in the world. Transport is a messy, dangerous business. No amount of regulation in the world will change that... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 335 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 239 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 176 |
| Random fact: If you want to leave Particracy, please inactivate yourself on your user page to save the moderation team some time. |
| Random quote: "There is a mandate to impose a voluntary return to traditional values." - Ronald Reagan |