[jabl]

> China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned.

The article we're discussing explains that Japan has the best passenger rail system in the world, and which happens to be privatized, along with privately owned track. So which one is it? Go figure.

[Philpax]

While I agree with you, their system did not start privatised, and the Shinkansens predate privatisation by some time. I don't have the evidence to justify this, but I suspect that you need national buy-in - both financially and politically - to start a HSR build-out, which could then potentially be privatised at a later stage.

[Tor3]

I believe the Japanese private rail companies also own the lines where their traffic is. This would explain a lot. There are other countries (including my native one) where the trains are run by one company and the lines are owned by another. This does.not.work. For what seems like obvious reasons. There's no economic gain for the owner of the infrastructure to spend money, quite the opposite in fact.

[KptMarchewa]

In every EU country the infrastructure company (companies) is separate from companies that operate trains, with some usually small exceptions.

[presentation]

Well, to be honest, the results in Japan and China, where that isn’t the case, have turned out to be much better.

[jabl]

The interesting thing is how the EU railway policy just keeps plowing ahead trying to impose the "vertical separation" approach in the EU, despite the disastrous results from the UK experience (and some EU countries to a somewhat lesser extent, so far the UK seems to be the only example of going all-in on that approach).

[jabl]

Most EU countries have adopted the approach of putting the infrastructure company and the public train company under the same holding company, which is sort-of the minimum that EU regulations demand. In practice, in many countries the previous national rail company (under whatever conglomerate structure it may be operating under today) is fiercely protective of its own turf and tries to prevent new entrants, and digging their heels in implementing EU railway competition regulations. So complying with the letter of the law, but does everything in its powers to not comply with the spirit.

Then again, given the UK experience of going all-in on the "vertical separation" and privatization path, perhaps one shouldn't blame them.

[Tiktaalik]

Many of these lines were built by the public, then privatized.

[Tor3]

But maintained and extended today by e.g. JR Eeast.

[kalleboo]

A lot of the lines are still being built, maintained and extended by the state and then leased out to the regional JRs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway_Construction,_Tr...

[floatrock]

Calling Japan Rail privatized is a "ehhh, kinda, in some places, if you squint" kinda thing.

Technically, yes, the JR's are private companies.

But track construction is generally done by a government construction company financed with Japanese sovereign debt. The completed tracks are then long-term leased to the JR's at favorable rates.

Is it really a private company if the key capital outlay is done by the government and given to you with a sweetheart deal? ehhhhhh.... you can call the operator company private, but you're being dishonest if you call the system privatized.