govt to buy back railway company ?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/sto ... d=10480159

In New Zealand , there seems to be a possibility the govt will try to buy back the railway operating company . It already owns the track operating company . It appears they have reached stalemate on track access charges , and there is little chance of an argeement . in the meantime less money is been spent on the tracks and trains .
This is a political hot potato for the govt , as the train operating company Toll is an Australian company , giving them too good a deal would be seen as sending money overseas .

I think the Milton Friedman school of economics, which underpins the worldwide orthodoxy of Neo-conservatism, is coming to an end, or at least being questioned. That orthodoxy almost required governments to sell off such things as railways, whether it's a good thing to do or not.

In Britain Railtrack went bankrupt, and could never have continued without public subsidy. People did not like the subsidy going in at one end and coming out as shareholders' dividends at the other.

The idea that a railway can exist without non-farebox payments is sheer nonsense.

There are benefits to people who don't use the railway but those people can't easily pay for the benefits they receive - such as less congestion on the roads. Therefore it is reasonable for government to collect those benefits as general taxation. If Milton Friedman doesn't like it, I don't care. He wasn't god.
In Britain rail fares have reached ridiculous levels. I wonder how far they will go before people revolt. In the rest of Europe fares are much lower. The British "Labour" government is just as Tory as the Conservatives.

George , the railway here is mainly frieght , but i spose the same principles apply . The govt probably sold the railway for idelogical reasons rather than economics , i would agree . The unions had already made huge concessions to make the railway profitable while it was still a govt business . then came privatisation , at about a tenth of the amount the govt had poured into it , on the grounds that the govt would need to pump even more money into it if it kept it . better to let private companies invest it was argued . Except the new owners ( who happened to be the people advising the govt to sell )did the opposite , effectively asset stripping the railway to pay for its purchase .
it has never recovered from that , and the govt is weary of dealing with railroad companies since .

Brian Rudman give his usual lowdown on the subject , and the managment of private - public partnership .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/sto ... 891&pnum=0

David Benton wrote:Brian Rudman give his usual lowdown on the subject , and the managment of private - public partnership .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/sto ... 891&pnum=0

London has that system. Transport for London, controlled by the elected Mayor, specifies the service levels. I know that contracting companies can lose their contracts.

Most of the rest of the country has a weaker system. In my local area the bus company is withdrawing services that have run in my experience for 30 years.
The train service is now mainly specified by the Ministry. But fares are rising to ridiculous levels.