MASSIVE FUCKING BLACKOUT

[MKSheppard]

Hmmm... Sounds so like the "Communism's failed because it's never really been tried" argument.

Wait, why is nobody concentrating on Ontario Hydro's catastrophic breakup
as I mentioned?

Everyone likes to rip into Amtrack for being a POS, with poor arrival
times, etc but in the one area it does control the entire trackage and
signalling system, the Northeastern Corridor from Washington to Boston,
it has the highest profits and the best on-time record...

But in areas where it's a freight railroad which owns the tracks that
Amtrak has to run over, you get hideous arrival times as the freight
railroads don't care about Amtrak and as a result, Amtrak trains
get delayed or worse...

[Darth Wong]

Hmmm... Sounds so like the "Communism's failed because it's never really been tried" argument.

Wait, why is nobody concentrating on Ontario Hydro's catastrophic breakup as I mentioned?

Because you're missing the point. Allowing one company to control both the tracks and the trains (or the lines and the generating stations, in the case of a power utility) creates a localized monopoly, which is precisely why Hydro's privatization and deregulation broke up those parts of the company into separate entities. In fact, "owning both the tracks and the trains" is the standard textbook analogy which is commonly used to illustrate why the practice of "vertical foreclosure" is illegal under antitrust law.

The goal of privatizing and deregulating Hydro could not be served without splitting those two entities up. The problem was that the goal itself was ill-conceived.

[MKSheppard]

Because you're missing the point. Allowing one company to control both the tracks and the trains (or the lines and the generating stations, in the case of a power utility) creates a localized monopoly,

Wait, what the fuck? This worked just fine for the last hundred years of
railroad operations as well as for power generating utilities...and now you're
saying it's monopolistic?

What the hell is stopping companies from building it's own power lines for
long distance transmissions or laying their own damn trackage?

And in the interest of public good, many railroads formed common
stock companies that owned and operated the trackage and
station utilities for the main passenger terminals in a city (union
station in DC is one example), but they also did build their own
terminals and track yards on their own dime, (Penn Station in NYC)

[SirNitram]

Because you're missing the point. Allowing one company to control both the tracks and the trains (or the lines and the generating stations, in the case of a power utility) creates a localized monopoly,

Wait, what the fuck? This worked just fine for the last hundred years of
railroad operations as well as for power generating utilities...and now you're
saying it's monopolistic?

When something is part of the textbook definition of something, it is, rather automatically, that something.

What the hell is stopping companies from building it's own power lines for
long distance transmissions or laying their own damn trackage?

Nothing. But having only one transmission line or set of tracks and having that one point of transit be owned by one company allows them to instantly remove competition. You know, what monopolies are for.

EDIT: Removed pointless reptition brought on by evil communist spies.

[MKSheppard]

Nothing. But having only one transmission line or set of tracks and having that one point of transit be owned by one company allows them to instantly remove competition. You know, what monopolies are for.

And this evil company is able to block new lines or tracks from being built?

[aerius]

Wait, why is nobody concentrating on Ontario Hydro's catastrophic breakup
as I mentioned?

Everyone likes to rip into Amtrack for being a POS, with poor arrival
times, etc but in the one area it does control the entire trackage and
signalling system, the Northeastern Corridor from Washington to Boston,
it has the highest profits and the best on-time record...

The Ontario Hydro breakup and subsequent deregulation was politically motivated as far as I can tell, that and the fact that they'd racked up something like $34 billion in debts. With the massive debt load and other political factors the government decided to get out of the power business. They broke up Ontario Hydro into chunks and started selling off the assets starting with the generating stations, and since then our power grid reliability has gone downhill.

[Alex Moon]

Wait, why is nobody concentrating on Ontario Hydro's catastrophic breakup
as I mentioned?

Everyone likes to rip into Amtrack for being a POS, with poor arrival
times, etc but in the one area it does control the entire trackage and
signalling system, the Northeastern Corridor from Washington to Boston,
it has the highest profits and the best on-time record...

The Ontario Hydro breakup and subsequent deregulation was politically motivated as far as I can tell, that and the fact that they'd racked up something like $34 billion in debts. With the massive debt load and other political factors the government decided to get out of the power business. They broke up Ontario Hydro into chunks and started selling off the assets starting with the generating stations, and since then our power grid reliability has gone downhill.

It sounds like there were problems before they went private, if they're racking up that much debt. The only thing that privatizing would have done is force those problems to the surface, which is arguably a good thing since it would force them to be dealt with.

[Enigma]

<snip>
The three pieces are Hydro One (which runs the transmission system), OPG (Ontario Power Generation, which runs Ontario Hydro's old power plants and sells power in competition with other vendors), and the IMO (Independent Market Operator, which acts as a sort of stock exchange and securities commission for electrical power).<snip>

I got the impression the Hydro One was still completly under government control. They tried to privatize it was was sued. The Ontario government lost and had to retain Hydro One.

[Stravo]

I was watching Nightline last night and they showed this speech by someone in the Senate blasting the power companies for cutting corners, etc. I am pissed at government officials who fucking pushed for privatization anmd then turn around and lambaste the companies for acting like...*gasp* businesses. They WILL cut corners to save costs, they will do everything they can to maximize profits because that's what companies do. To criticize power companies for doing what stockholders in other industries would praise them for is a bit like being angry at the Great White Shark that gnaws off your leg while your swimming in chum.

Its the governments that pushed for privitization because companies do it better and more effeciently that need to take a step back and examine what they have done because they are ultimately responsible. The power Companies didn't storm the capital building and hold them up at gunpoint to sign away the power grid to their care. It was freely given.

[SirNitram]

Nothing. But having only one transmission line or set of tracks and having that one point of transit be owned by one company allows them to instantly remove competition. You know, what monopolies are for.

And this evil company is able to block new lines or tracks from being built?

Via the immense costs of laying track and lines, yes. This single company can effectively neuter every attempt at competition. Or perhaps you're too wrapped up in your preconceived notions to realize the immense cost of even laying a second set of track between D.C. and Charleston(HINT: There's Huge Fucking Mountains In The Way).

[Montcalm]

How long do you think it will take for every home owner have solar panel on their house.

[Sea Skimmer]

Via the immense costs of laying track and lines, yes. This single company can effectively neuter every attempt at competition. Or perhaps you're too wrapped up in your preconceived notions to realize the immense cost of even laying a second set of track between D.C. and Charleston(HINT: There's Huge Fucking Mountains In The Way).

The US is full of unused roadbeds because only a fraction of lines are in use from their peak. However we don't need more railways, we need to opposite. Railway freight in the US is crippled because dispute the nation only having four major railways left none owns track coast to coast. A series of jury-rigged transfer agreements have kept traffic moving but a greatly inflated costs and low speed. The low speed is driving away international cargos, in theory the fastest way to move containers from Japan and much of Easter Asia to Europe to ship them to the US, taking them by train to the east coast and then ship them on again. One or two huge monopolies controlling all freight track could do a much better job.

Trucking and ships would continue provide ample incentive to keep the company competitive.

[SirNitram]

Via the immense costs of laying track and lines, yes. This single company can effectively neuter every attempt at competition. Or perhaps you're too wrapped up in your preconceived notions to realize the immense cost of even laying a second set of track between D.C. and Charleston(HINT: There's Huge Fucking Mountains In The Way).

The US is full of unused roadbeds because only a fraction of lines are in use from their peak. However we don't need more railways, we need to opposite. Railway freight in the US is crippled because dispute the nation only having four major railways left none owns track coast to coast. A series of jury-rigged transfer agreements have kept traffic moving but a greatly inflated costs and low speed. The low speed is driving away international cargos, in theory the fastest way to move containers from Japan and much of Easter Asia to Europe to ship them to the US, taking them by train to the east coast and then ship them on again. One or two huge monopolies controlling all freight track could do a much better job.

Trucking and ships would continue provide ample incentive to keep the company competitive.

So instead of making an effort to modernize the tracks and build in redundancies to allow for faster trains and to deal with wrecks and problems, we should hand the system over to one or two monopolies, open our wallets whenever we want to move something domestically by rail, and say 'Help yourself'.

Nevermind that this plan ignores the basic start of this conversasion: Privatization led to this power outage. Now, Skimmer, I want you to imagine something. There's only a handful of tracks out of West Virginia these days, and the hundred-car coal trains need to make the crossing every day. If we allow monopolies to own the tracks, are they going to build in redundancies that will cost millions, perhaps more? Or are they going to just keep going until something goes wrong?

Coal plants run most of the Eastern Seaboard. Most comes from W.Va. Only a handful of ways for the coal to get out. And if things start to go wrong..

Well, it'd be more than the Northeast.

Sure, your plan would bring international cargo hauling. Unless something broke and the system went to shit.

[Sea Skimmer]

So instead of making an effort to modernize the tracks and build in redundancies to allow for faster trains and to deal with wrecks and problems, we should hand the system over to one or two monopolies, open our wallets whenever we want to move something domestically by rail, and say 'Help yourself'.

You don't get it; the problem isn't track or train quality. It the fact that the companies are all trying to make a profit and none can afford sufficient infrastructure to do so. Right now we have a bear minimal of trackage, which is the very problem, no one can afford more and no one has tracks coast to coast. Rerouting trains is near impossible because the only alternative if there is one is likely owned by someone else, which can and does lead to vast delays.

Nevermind that this plan ignores the basic start of this conversasion: Privatization led to this power outage. Now, Skimmer, I want you to imagine something. There's only a handful of tracks out of West Virginia these days, and the hundred-car coal trains need to make the crossing every day. If we allow monopolies to own the tracks, are they going to build in redundancies that will cost millions, perhaps more? Or are they going to just keep going until something goes wrong?

Your argument requires the individual companies to be capable of building and maintaing redundant tracks. They aren't and don't. The result is the current slow jurry rig in which many trains must traval on the tracks owned by several companies because the market wont support multipul lines.

Coal plants run most of the Eastern Seaboard. Most comes from W.Va. Only a handful of ways for the coal to get out. And if things start to go wrong..

Then it will be no different then if there where many railways, But when the tracks are working they will work far better and faster and cheeper since you dont have two or three railways trying to make a profit off a single train.

[Darth Wong]

To distill this into the simplest possible terms:

Efficiency and redundancy are OPPOSING concepts.

Business and the free-market system is very good at producing efficiency, but you need redundancy to provide mission-critical reliability. They need sufficient incentive (which can only be created through regulation) to spend the necessary money, and since the amount of money is basically enormous, the incentive would have to be huge as well.

In short, we would either have to basically pay them government money in order to build the infrastructure (in which case it basically becomes a government project with a closed bidding system), or we would have to levy enormous back-breaking fines on them for unreliability (which would never fly for a variety of reasons).

[kojikun]

To distill this into the simplest possible terms:

Efficiency and redundancy are OPPOSING concepts.

Ahh but wouldn't it be a more efficient use of whatever to have redundencies that PREVENT spread of damage, hmm? Maybe not in this case tho, cause plant costs are higher then the cost of the failure.