prepared by the Ministry of Maritime Transport and Communications in the framework of the restructuring of the railway sector 08.01.2013 Date of the Directorate General described the meeting informed the union by TCDD management "Turkey Rail Liberalization Law on the Draft of Transportation" When the general terms, we see that the attempt to create a structure similar to the liberalization of the German Railways. The reason is, as some statistics indicate, after the liberalization of the German Railways, the great attack and the great profit passed. So how did the German Railways turn black? Is it mentioned in detail?
As someone who has seen previous drafts and presentations, this is never mentioned. In short, although the German railways are liberalized, DB AG is more than 75% owned by the state. Even holding. The deep-rooted understanding of rail transportation that German Railways has been doing for many years and also the transportation that it has made not only in its own country but also to other countries, especially to neighboring countries, are the foundations of today's strong holding. With its freight forwarding and logistics company DB Schenker, it is now the only name in much of Europe, the British island and connecting Europe to China (in partnership with Russian Railways). This is despite the EU's statement that "with privatization, monopoly will disappear, competition will increase quality and prices will become cheaper", it has already started to become a big monopoly not only in its country but also throughout Europe. Since 2010, he has been in court with the commission, as this situation attracted the attention of the EU commission. It is thought that the case will be finalized for 2013.
This is the result of thinking that without understanding the operation of the railway, different companies will provide quality and price advantages by transporting to the same points on the same line. In a more common sense, the railroad remains in the hands of the trap. However, it is useful to underline an important issue here. Freight transport is the most revenue-generating transport in railways. Meanwhile, DB Schenker will jointly transport in our country with a large logistics company that has wagons. Thus, the German Railways came to our railway poor country. So why, as soon as you hear the "S" of liberalization, not with the Turkish company to be established, but with the German company? The reason is obvious, its dominance in a significant part of Europe. In a Europe dominated by mainly French Railways (SNCF is a State Company) in the west and south of Europe, German Railways in the north and east, and dozens of companies connected to the railways of both countries, what will the Turkish Railway company do? Did DB Schenker come to our country because there was no belief that he would do anything? Or will there be fierce competition in our country, but will there be a price and service advantage? If so, why is there no such thing in the world, especially in Europe? We turn around and come to the same question, like toy trains that turn around on their own track and cannot go anywhere. Apparently, I will ask the same question several times in the article.
The first one that stands out in the draft law is Türk Tren A.Ş. TCDD Taşımacılık A.Ş. to be replaced. It is useful to take a look at the items without getting too stuck here. At first, the first article in the "purpose of the law" section caught my attention.
a) To provide the most appropriate, effective and lowest possible price for passenger and freight transportation by rail.
If you cannot do this with the public hand, how will it be done once you become a company? What has been done to improve the situation of the institution that has been making losses all this time? Actually, the first ones are obvious. Under the name of contracted personnel, employees working with lower salaries and longer working hours were created. An additional burden was placed on employees by canceling and merging many titles as if sufficient technology investments were made. For this reason, the fact that excessive fatigue and related accidents occur in the staff was for some reason ignored. In short, while still in the hands of the public, the first step towards cutting costs was for the staff. So, will this situation for the personnel get better once it becomes a corporation? Or will personnel practices become more stringent in the name of cheaper transportation? In fact, with the draft law, the high-salary personnel whose retirement is approaching will be retired as soon as possible (with an additional bonus of 30%), instead, they will work with a lower salary and longer overtime, so that fewer personnel will be recruited as soon as possible. Among the factors, there are those who think that competition will make a very important contribution. So, is there an application in the world where two different companies carry out transportation from A to B on the same line and compete with each other on the railways operated by private companies, increasing the service quality and decreasing the price? I'll give your answer right away; None. The reason is due to the internal dynamics of rail transport. It is difficult to understand this with the logic of highway or airline operation. I talked about this process at the beginning of my article titled "Privatization in Railways and Its Effects" that I wrote earlier. On the other hand, speaking of the airline, there are those who approach such as "There was competition in the airline, the prices dropped, everyone is getting on the plane". Also, ask the personnel working in the private airline. More importantly, for airline employees who have gone on strike but lost their jobs… Also, in airline transport (domestic flights), there is no SCT for fuel. In February 2013, when I wrote the article, we pay 4,95 TL SCT for the gasoline price of 2,17 TL. Now, you can rate the fuel advantage used in the airline. Does the state make this huge subsidy for air transport when the railways are liberated? Could there be a slight reduction in shipping costs in this way? So, including personnel sanctions, isn't it advertised that “it was liberalized, got involved in private companies, competition occurred and prices went down”? Of course, whatever competition is mentioned in the railway ...
Other articles in the "purpose of the law" part;
d) the construction of railway infrastructure by public legal entities and joint stock companies registered in the trade registry and the use of this infrastructure,
e) Providing railway corporation and railway train operations for public corporations and joint stock companies registered in trade registry.
In order to further explain these articles, it is necessary to look at the section "Authorization of Public Legal Entities and Companies" in the third part of the draft law. Some of the items here;
a) Building their own railway infrastructure,
b) To be a railway infrastructure operator on the railway infrastructure of themselves and / or other companies,
c) To be a railway train operator on national railway infrastructure network,
may be authorized by the Ministry.
The most critical business in railways is infrastructure management. Because in railway transportation, an important part of the costs is infrastructure, construction, maintenance and repair costs. In simple terms, the main boss is the one who holds the infrastructure. In railway operations, all technical parameters, from the tonnage to the speed, from the length to the determination of vehicle types, are within the conditions set by the infrastructure. Let's build a theory now. Let Marmaray be engaged. You know, recently there were news that freight trains would pass through the Marmaray tube passage at night. Some companies even made a calculation of "how many trains we can pass per day with Europe connection" based on this news. In this case, the Marmaray tube crossing becomes the strategic crossing gate that connects Anatolia and the Caspian region with the Kars-Tbilisi-Baku line by uninterrupted railways. Let A be the infrastructure operator of this gate. During the day, a good infrastructure usage fee will be received from the Marmaray sets that carry out urban transportation. As you know, what should a private company do where there is no income? In addition, there will be an income expectation from freight trains that will pass at night. It is already the only alternative for connecting to Europe by continuous rail. Infrastructure operator A company will prepare all technical and safe specifications for freight trains that will pass here. It has to. Train operators will prepare their trains in accordance with these specifications. Otherwise, they will lose time and a little money by using the train ferries between Tekirdağ-Derince or Tekirdağ-Bandırma. Well, let's say our company A has a closeness or partial partnership with company B, which operates the train. Doesn't firm B provide a great advantage for tunnel crossings? Does it pass the trains that are slightly out of the technical specifications through the tunnel? Or, wouldn't there be a price advantage in tunnel crossings? Will this not affect the transportation fees of companies C and D who will use the tunnel and have no ties with A and B? In this case, wouldn't C and D firms turn to firm A, which is more affordable in terms of price and time, in opening up to Europe? Doesn't this reinforce the monopolization of firm B, which is engaged in transportation, thanks to its partnership or proximity with firm A, which holds the infrastructure business? Many people reading these lines may think that I am an extreme conspirator or dreamer. For this, I will not give the IDO example. As you know, the price and transportation policy of İDO was criticized a lot and it finally went out like a straw flame. My example will be from Europe, which has been shown as the cradle of democracy, equality and law. I have given this example before in my article "Privatization and Its Effects on Railways". I think it is useful to give it again here. I am adding the relevant paragraph completely here.
In international transportation, there are many strategic points that can be expected to be fair to other firms, which are close to a certain transportation company or firms at these points? How can factors such as the Competition Supervisory Board be effective for fair sharing? The answer to these questions emerges clearly in a report published on Railway Gazette International on 30 September 2011. The news is about the use of the Channel Tunnel, the excessive unbalanced compensation of the companies and the intervention of the EU commission. The Channel Tunnel is the only and important passage connecting England and France under the sea by rail. The UK-France co-production tunnel is managed by a company called Eurotunnel, which is also jointly established by these two countries. Under the name of tunnel safety rules, restrictions on the variety of trains to pass through the tunnel have been put, only trains with the relevant safety certificate can use the tunnel. Otherwise, it is transferred to the trains carrying tunnel transportation. The policies of the administration until 2007 partially met the cost of tunnel construction. A new era started in May 2007 with a change in management and long-term loan. Of course, in order to be able to pay the loan and generate income, tunnel usage fees have been increased and this increase is mostly reflected in freight transportation. On the complaints of the EU commission for the high cost of freight transport, rather than passenger transport, the first warning to the tunnel management came in 2008. The company is the owner of the property and uses the advantages of this, thanks to the long technical and financial reports they prepared on this complaint, no result of the current complaints. But the years passed were the efforts of the EU Commission to give the weight to the railways and the agreements with the member countries for these efforts. When we look at the latest 1-2 news in the year, we have provided flexibility in the train / wagon types in the tunnel passage. Despite this, the extremely unbalanced pricing policies applied for freight transport prompted the UK-based Freight Forwarding Association and petitioned the EU commission to examine the issue. The transportation prices set out in the complaint petition explain the gravity of the incident. In the case of freight transport, Network Rail, the UK infrastructure company, receives 2 £ per km, 1 for the tunnel connection, and 1 for the tunnel connection. it significantly reduces the demand of railway operators. As the property owner, the logic that "there is no short road other than this tunnel anyway, who wants to transport in a shorter time pays £ 60 per km" is completely contrary to the logic of the EU commission wanting to further mobilize rail transport. Therefore, the EU commission has started to impose rule violation proceedings and the penalties required accordingly. On the one hand, it is an application that wants to benefit from the blessings of railway transportation, the countries that are trying to improve their economy and their demands, on the other hand, their own monopoly in a very strategic connection. . In the complaints filed for tunnel management and filed lawsuits, tunnel shareholders have always emphasized the law on private property and, in addition, the cost of tunnel construction and debt payments. The EU commission is also opposed by international transport agreements and competition laws. I would also like to state that I have not yet found any information about the criminal proceedings that constitute the subject of this latest news. This situation led to the privatization of the infrastructure completely, the redefinition of the standards for partial privatization, and the more active involvement of the competition supervisory bodies. Another question to be asked for our country is the question of whether similar situations will be experienced when the infrastructure of Marmaray, which provides uninterrupted rail connection to Anatolia and Europe and includes the Bosphorus tube passage, is completely privatized.
At that time, I cited an example for Marmaray. It seems that there is a slight similarity between what happened in the Channel tunnel and my "conspiracy theory" above ...
In late 2011, the issue of privatization of Polish railway infrastructure came up in Europe. A private company is already doing maintenance work. This time, the EU commission is more cautious. He does not want something like the Channel Tunnel incident to happen here. The reason is that Poland is the gateway to western and central Europe, Russia, Asia and of course China. The firm holding the infrastructure of this place attracts the attention of those who are close to this company. As we come to 2013, there has been no news on this subject. Already with the partnership of DB Schenker and Russian Railways (RZD), the connection between Europe-China goes from a monopoly. Perhaps they don't want to further rivet this with infrastructure.
Laws of the article of the article as it extends the article, the reader is forcing. Especially many of my friends who read on the computer on the internet complain about it. Therefore, I will give an example and try to gather the subject.
Britain suffered the most from the liberalization and subsequent privatization in the railways. After liberalization and privatization, many companies started passenger transportation business, following the well-established passenger transportation approach of England. Of course, these companies do not compete with each other between the same stations on the same line. Since passenger transport in railways is a low-income transport, these companies are subsidized by the state in order to reduce some expenses such as the infrastructure usage fee and the regulation in our airline fuel taxes. The reason for the subsidy is to offer more acceptable ticket prices to the passenger, similar to our airline prices. However, the EU commission cautioned the British government for finding this support too much. As a result of the gradual reduction of state support with the necessary regulations, ticket prices have also increased gradually. Many Britons who use the railroad today seriously criticize its "being economical" situation. In British railways, it is DB Schenker, which is affiliated with German railways, which is engaged in freight transportation. So, can the cons of passenger transport be somewhat supported by freight transport? Why not? But if it weren't for separate companies independently of each other. Or, if they did not offer the freight transport that generates income with liberalization, on a golden tray. If the state could support passenger transportation with a portion of the income it earned from freight transportation… You know we have a saying, starting with “Passed Bolu's market”. Speaking of us, what do you think companies that are eagerly awaiting liberalization will carry? Is it a passenger? Is it a burden? Look at the news, all of the companies waiting in line are waiting for freight transport. There is no suitor for YHT, which is the apple of the eye of TCDD. Will it be in the future? If it does, know that the ticket prices will not be very economical, or, with the ticket price system on the airplanes, it will get a little cheaper. In this case, the situation of those who have an urgent job or those who have to travel at the last minute does not seem very pleasant.
What will be left to TCDD Tasimacilik AS when private companies take over strategic points in revenue generating freight transport? With these remnants, TCDD Tasimacilik AS. Will it be able to carry out efficient and high return transportation? In the future, when the EU commission tells us “cut costs, reduce state support”, will the public responsibility defined in the draft law be fulfilled? This item is below.
f) Public Service Obligation: Obligation of a railway passenger transport service to be provided on the basis of a contract by the Ministry in order to ensure that a rail train operator on a given line is not provided under normal commercial conditions,
There is a striking point in the article. It is called "Passenger Transport".
They have seen the problems in British railways, German and French railways, and have a strong state-owned company and they keep their cargo and passenger transportation within their body. In our case, while the draft law was being written, German railways came to our country.
The railways, which became liberalized and subsequently privatized around the world, resulted in the use of the lines that large companies came to their business and their monopolization in these regions. Competing to grab a seat in revenue-generating freight transport, companies have left their passenger transport to the state or to the state. However, with a proper management, both passenger and freight transportation can be carried out by the state. Take a look at the German and French railways. Why are these two giants of Europe owned by the state (operating as state companies), despite the opposition of the EU commission?
Let me finish writing a question.
Who will be the beneficiaries of the liberalization?
Final draft of the draft law on the liberalization of railways
Source : I kentvedemiryolu.co