DOCSLIB.ORG

The Reform of UK Railways —Privatization and Its Results Gérard Mathieu

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Reform of UK Railways —Privatization and Its Results Gérard Mathieu Feature Railway Reforms in Europe The Reform of UK Railways —Privatization and Its Results Gérard Mathieu This article presents the results of a differences included: According to the privatization supporters, detailed analysis by the High Council of • A very low market share (about 5% of this separation of business activities would the Railway Public Service (CSSPF)1 of the the overall market) and a seemingly lead to a more responsible, innovative, and reform of UK railways 5 years after their irreversible decline in rail transport customer-oriented management style—the privatization. Privatization was a difficult • Great dependence on large subsidies older organization had been designed more process that had been put off for a long • Presumed vigorous opposition from for dealing with operating constraints than time. It was carried out in great haste by local residents to line closures and for satisfying market needs. In 1991 and the government, who first opted for network downsizing 1992, an additional step was taken with excessive fragmentation of the rail sector the introduction of The Organizing for and establishment of Railtrack as a private Prime Minister Thatcher and her cabinet Quality (O for Q), which would lead to ‘landlord,’ to manage the infrastructure, were extremely cautious about the idea abolition of the old regions and establish and then—despite the initial intentions— of privatizing railways, judging the issue profit centres within each business sector. had to renounce real competition to be complex and ‘potentially The BRB assumed overall responsibility (for between the franchised Train Operating unworkable.’ The Prime Minister ‘…felt general policy, finances, technical Companies (TOCs). Although traffic that Middle England held an inexplicable standards, etc.), while each profit centre increased, the mixed results were much affection for its railways and that to tinker had its own management. The high degree criticized in Britain, because the quality with BR would precipitate a political of autonomy and the new O for Q of services deteriorated considerably and disaster.’2 organization provided managers with the railway infrastructure has been poorly The initiative came from both Norman experience and principles that would prove maintained and managed. This situation Fowler, the Transport Secretary, and from invaluable when the railways were led the British government to place the British Railways Board (BRB) itself. Both privatized. To a large extent, this BR Railtrack in administration on 7 favoured privatization of BR subsidiaries. reorganization created favourable November 2001 and a new organization Above all, Fowler saw a way to reduce conditions for privatization. called Network Rail was announced on 3 subsidies, while the BRB hoped for more October 2002 (see JRTR 33, pp. 32–40). investment in the rail sector. This did not Long road to privatization from happen; once united within the same 1988 to 1997 Reform—Laborious and holding company, BR subsidiaries were BR privatization became a top priority for Risky Venture sold off gradually between 1981 and 1989. the government again only in 1988 under the initiative of Paul Shannon, Transport Denationalization or not? Precedent of BR reorganization Secretary. Even so, the government Reform of UK railways was part of the vast by business sector wavered between three options: programme of privatization undertaken by The privatization of UK railways was • Regional division, following the Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative facilitated by the reorganization model provided by the old private government in various sectors of the undertaken by BR in the 1970s. The aim networks in the pre-BR period economy, including telecommunications, was always to reduce BR’s need for public • Separation by business type into water authorities, air and road transport, subsidies. At the heart of reform efforts intercity, regional, and freight and maritime ports. However, the rail was partial reorganization emphasizing • Physical separation of infrastructure network was not an obvious choice for operations (business sectors) and using the and operations by establishing a Track denationalization and took place through existing structure based on regional Authority a long privatization process lasting from offices. The latter were then limited to 1979 to 1997. The British government operating trains. The business-sector The 1992 White Paper New Opportunities was perfectly aware of the unique offices designated people who were for the Railways reached the final choice; difficulties posed by the rail transport responsible for managing their sector and its intent was ‘To harness the management sector because British Rail (BR) was very achieving objectives, especially in skills, flair and entrepreneurial spirit of the different from other industries. These marketing, costs, and investments. private sector to provide better services Acknowledgement: This article was first published in French in Transports No. 423 mai/juin 2002, pp. 149–169. It is reproduced in English by courtesy of the publisher, Les Éditions Techniques et Économiques, at 3 rue Soufflot, 75005 Paris, France. 16 Japan Railway & Transport Review 34 • March 2003 Copyright © 2003 EJRCF. All rights reserved. to the public’ by creating guidelines for the privatization process and following the spirit of preceding privatizations. The chosen method was to: • Separate infrastructure and operations • Create a single manager for all infrastructure (Railtrack) • Divide BR into some 20 operating units • Adopt a franchise system for passenger services Why privatize? Despite her first reservations, Thatcher finally rallied to the principle of rail Commuter train at London Victoria Station before BR privatization (EJRCF) privatization. However, she was deposed as party leader and it was Prime Minister from train operations, the British purchased BR’s rolling stock and let it John Major who oversaw the BR government’s decisions went well beyond to the TOCs. privatization after Parliament adopted the these measures. • Many subcontracting companies were difficult 1993 Railways Act. The Act created, mainly to maintain and obtained royal assent on 5 October 1993 Fragmentation of BR improve infrastructure according to but 3 more years were needed to achieve Operations ‘modern equivalent’ rules. a functioning business structure. In promoting privatization, the The chosen option ultimately divided UK The TOCs have a monopoly on the lines government had three objectives: railways into some 100 separate entities they operate on, although other operators • Reduce the level of government summarized as follows: can use some track sections. The same subsidies for rail transport over the • Railtrack became the sole owner and applies to stations and depots, which were long term manager for the entire railway leased by Railtrack to a TOC (a Station • Open the transport sector to infrastructure including tracks, Facility Owner (SFO) in charge of track competition to improve services, signalling equipment, electrification operations and management). increase railway productivity, and equipment, stations, depots, shops, Competition is limited because very few reduce administrative sluggishness etc. services compete on the same • Respond better to market needs, • Twenty-five TOCs were established infrastructure. There is competition in thereby meeting demand and with franchises to run passenger awarding the franchises, but there is very improving financial results operations for durations of between 7 little in the market itself. years (18 franchises) and 15 years; Despite total privatization of the Privatization opponents ascribed ulterior • Eurostar, an international company, railway freight sector, the rail freight motives to the process, including the began managing joint operations with companies have a quasi-monopoly government’s desire to relieve public French National Railways (SNCF), status (although this is entirely relative, finances from the weight of investment Belgian National Railways (SNCB), because roads account for 94% of the necessary to improve a network that had and Eurostar UK as a 26th operator. freight market) and each carrier is very suffered from 20 years of chronic under- • Four freight companies were specialized (combined transport, investment, by transferring responsibility established: English, Welsh & Scottish nuclear, aggregate, etc.). to the private sector; and the desire to Railways (EWS, the most important), reduce the ‘paralyzing’ influence of the Freightliner, Direct Rail Services transport unions. Although privatization (DRS), and Combined Transport Ltd. Railtrack—A Private Monopoly was legitimized by the new European (CTL). policy of opening the rail sector to • Three Rolling Stock Companies Before being taken into administration on competition and separating infrastructure (ROSCOs) were established. They 7 November 2001, Railtrack was the sole Copyright © 2003 EJRCF. All rights reserved. Japan Railway & Transport Review 34 • March 2003 17 Railway Reforms in Europe owner of the railway infrastructure. It was responsible for major repairs and provided a core of guaranteed slots (firm created by the 1993 Railways Act and was maintenance, assuming the time slots permitting train operations), initially organized under public statutes. responsibilities incumbent upon an which were tacitly renewed unless a TOC The company was privatized in May 1996 owner. The proper operation of the system wished to reduce them. Requests
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Railfreight in Colour for the Modeller and Historian Free
    FREE RAILFREIGHT IN COLOUR FOR THE MODELLER AND HISTORIAN PDF David Cable | 96 pages | 02 May 2009 | Ian Allan Publishing | 9780711033641 | English | Surrey, United Kingdom PDF Br Ac Electric Locomotives In Colour Download Book – Best File Book The book also includes a historical examination of the development of electric locomotives, allied to hundreds of color illustrations with detailed captions. An outstanding collection of photographs revealing the life and times of BR-liveried locomotives and rolling stock at a when they could be seen Railfreight in Colour for the Modeller and Historian across the network. The AL6 or Class 86 fleet of ac locomotives represents the BRB ' s second generation of main - line electric traction. After introduction of the various new business sectorsInterCity colours appeared in various guiseswith the ' Swallow ' livery being applied from Also in Cab superstructure — Light grey colour aluminium paint considered initially. The crest originally proposed was like that used on the AC electric locomotives then being deliveredbut whether of cast aluminium or a transfer is not quite International Railway Congress at Munich 60 years of age and over should be given the B. Multiple - aspect colour - light signalling has option of retiring on an adequate pension to Consideration had been given to AC Locomotive Group reports activity on various fronts in connection with its comprehensive collection of ac electric locos. Some of the production modelshoweverwill be 25 kV ac electric trains designed to work on BR ' s expanding electrified network. Headlight circuits for locomotives used in multiple - unit operation may be run through the end jumpers to a special selector switch remote Under the tower's jurisdiction are 4 color -light signals and subsidiary signals for Railfreight in Colour for the Modeller and Historian movements.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Accident Report
    Rail Accident Report Penetration and obstruction of a tunnel between Old Street and Essex Road stations, London 8 March 2013 Report 03/2014 February 2014 This investigation was carried out in accordance with: l the Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC; l the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003; and l the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.raib.gov.uk. Any enquiries about this publication should be sent to: RAIB Email: [email protected] The Wharf Telephone: 01332 253300 Stores Road Fax: 01332 253301 Derby UK Website: www.raib.gov.uk DE21 4BA This report is published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, Department for Transport. Penetration and obstruction of a tunnel between Old Street and Essex Road stations, London 8 March 2013 Contents Summary 5 Introduction 6 Preface 6 Key definitions 6 The incident 7 Summary of the incident 7 Context 7 Events preceding the incident 9 Events following the incident 11 Consequences of the incident 11 The investigation 12 Sources of evidence 12 Key facts and analysis
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2001: the Government's Expenditure Plans For
    Annual Report 2001 The Government’s Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Office of the Rail Regulator Office of Water Services Ordnance Survey Presented to Parliament by the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury by command of Her Majesty March 2001 Cm 5105 £30.00 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone 020 7944 3000 Internet service www.detr.gov.uk Acknowledgements Cover and inside: Yellow cleaner – Association of Town Centre Management. Cover and Inside: House and children – Rural Housing Trust and Colchester Borough Council. Inside: Landscape – South Downs Conservation Board. © Crown Copyright 2001 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication (excluding the Royal Arms and logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. The source of the material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document must be included when being reproduced as part of another publication or service. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to HMSO, The Copyright Unit, St Clements House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected] Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to The Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commercial & Technical Evolution of the Ferry
    THE COMMERCIAL & TECHNICAL EVOLUTION OF THE FERRY INDUSTRY 1948-1987 By William (Bill) Moses M.B.E. A thesis presented to the University of Greenwich in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy October 2010 DECLARATION “I certify that this work has not been accepted in substance for any degree, and is not concurrently being submitted for any degree other than that of Doctor of Philosophy being studied at the University of Greenwich. I also declare that this work is the result of my own investigations except where otherwise identified by references and that I have not plagiarised another’s work”. ……………………………………………. William Trevor Moses Date: ………………………………. ……………………………………………… Professor Sarah Palmer Date: ………………………………. ……………………………………………… Professor Alastair Couper Date:……………………………. ii Acknowledgements There are a number of individuals that I am indebted to for their support and encouragement, but before mentioning some by name I would like to acknowledge and indeed dedicate this thesis to my late Mother and Father. Coming from a seafaring tradition it was perhaps no wonder that I would follow but not without hardship on the part of my parents as they struggled to raise the necessary funds for my books and officer cadet uniform. Their confidence and encouragement has since allowed me to achieve a great deal and I am only saddened by the fact that they are not here to share this latest and arguably most prestigious attainment. It is also appropriate to mention the ferry industry, made up on an intrepid band of individuals that I have been proud and privileged to work alongside for as many decades as covered by this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Access Integrated Ticketing Report May 2018 1
    SURFACE ACCESS INTEGRATED TICKETING REPORT MAY 2018 1. Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 1.1. Introduction 3 1.2. Methodology 3 1.3. Current Practice 4 1.4. Appetite and Desire 5 1.5. Barriers 5 1.6. Conclusions 6 2. Introduction 7 3. Methodology 8 4. Current Practice 9 4.1. Current Practice within the Aviation Sector in the UK 11 4.2. Experience from Other Modes in the UK 15 4.3. International Comparisons 20 5. Appetite and Desire 25 5.1. Industry Appetite Findings 25 5.2. Passenger Appetite Findings 26 5.3. Passenger Appetite Summary 30 6. Barriers 31 6.1. Commercial 32 6.2. Technological 33 6.3. Regulatory 34 6.4. Awareness 35 6.5. Cultural/Behavioural 36 7. Conclusions 37 8. Appendix 1 – About the Authors 39 9. Appendix 2 – Bibliography 40 10. Appendix 3 – Distribution & Integration Methods 43 PAGE 2 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Introduction This report examines air-to-surface access integrated ticketing in support of one of the Department for Transport’s (DfT) six policy objectives in the proposed new avia- tion strategy – “Helping the aviation industry work for its customers”. Integrated Ticketing is defined as the incorporation of one ticket that includes sur- face access to/from an airport and the airplane ticket itself using one transaction. Integrated ticketing may consider surface access journeys both to the origin airport and from the destination airport. We recognise that some of the methods of inte- grated ticketing might not be truly integrated (such as selling rail or coach tickets on board the flight), but such examples were included in the report to reflect that these exist and that the customer experience in purchasing is relatively seamless.
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed Rail
    House of Commons Transport Committee High Speed Rail Tenth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume III Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 24 May, 7, 14, 21 and 28 June, 12 July, 6, 7 and 13 September and 11 October 2011 Published on 8 November 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North) Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uk's Privatisation Experiment
    THE UK’S PRIVATISATION EXPERIMENT: THE P ASSAGE OF TIME PERMITS A SOBER ASSESSMENT DAVID PARKER CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 1126 CATEGORY 9: INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION FEBRUARY 2004 PRESENTED AT CESIFO CONFERENCE ON PRIVATISATION EXPERIENCES IN THE EU NOVEMBER 2003 An electronic version of the paper may be downloaded • from the SSRN website: www.SSRN.com • from the CESifo website: www.CESifo.de CESifo Working Paper No. 1126 THE UK’S PRIVATISATION EXPERIMENT: THE PASSAGE OF TIME PERMITS A SOBER ASSESSMENT Abstract This chapter looks at the UK’s privatisation experiment, which began from the late 1970s. It considers the background to the UK’s privatisations, which industries were privatised and how, and summarises the results of studies of performance changes in privatised companies in the UK. It looks at the relative roles of competition, regulation and ownership changes in determining performance improvement. It concludes by looking at the wider lessons that might be learned from the UK’s privatisation experiment, including the importance of developing competitive markets and, in their absence, effective regulatory regimes. Keywords: UK, privatisation, competition regulation, lessons. JEL Classification: L33, H82, L51. David Parker Cranfield University School of Management Cranfield Bedfordshire MK43 0AL United Kingdom [email protected] Introduction The Labour Government of 1974-79 arranged the sale of some of the state’s shareholding in the petroleum company BP. However, this sale was dictated by budgetary pressures and did not reflect a belief within government that state industries should be privatised. Indeed, the same Labour Government took into state ownership two major industries, namely aerospace and shipbuilding.
    [Show full text]
  • UTSG Paper Template
    January 2012 COWIE: GB Rail Freight Privatisation UTSG Aberdeen Rail Freight in Great Britain – has privatisation made a noticeable difference? Title: Jonathan Cowie Position: Lecturer in Transport Economics Institution: Edinburgh Napier University, SEBE/Transport Research Institute Abstract This paper briefly outlines the main changes brought about by the Railways Act 1993 with regard to the rail freight sector and then examines development of the sector since that time. It finds that although rail freight levels have increased, these in the main have been as a result of changes that have occurred outside of the industry. It also finds little evidence of new operator entry into the rail freight business despite the removal of legal barriers to operation. The paper then gives an overview of the main medium and longer term effects of rail freight reform, principally through a literature review on US railroad deregulation, before examining productivity and scale effects within the British industry since privatisation. What it finds is that in the case of the former productivity has been rising from negative values at the start of the period reviewed, and economies of scale whilst significant should not be viewed as a major barrier to entry and hence do not account for the low level of entry that has occurred since privatisation. The over-riding conclusion is that policy needs to do more and be more innovative in incentivising the industry otherwise long term decline could very quickly set back in. Introduction With open access to rail freight operations introduced in the early 1990s and full privatisation of the industry achieved in 1996, now seems a relevant time to examine the performance and production economics of rail freight in Great Britain.
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECTIONS and GUIDANCE to the Strategic Rail Authority
    DIRECTIONS AND GUIDANCE to the Strategic Rail Authority ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STRATEGIC RAIL AUTHORITY 1. The Strategic Rail Authority (“the Authority”) has been established under section 201(1) of the Transport Act 2000 (“the Act”) as a body corporate. PURPOSES OF THE STRATEGIC RAIL AUTHORITY 2.1. The Authority is to provide leadership for the rail industry and ensure that the industry works co-operatively towards common goals. This objective should underpin the whole range of the Authority’s activities. The Authority will set priorities for the successful operation and development of the railway. It will work with other industry parties to secure continuing private investment in the railway, and to deploy public funding to best effect. To this end, the Authority has been given a wide range of statutory powers and duties. 2.2. Section 205 of the Act sets out the Authority’s purposes as: • to promote the use of the railway network for the carriage of passengers and goods; • to secure the development of the railway network; and • to contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport for passengers and goods. 2.3. Section 207 of the Act requires the Authority to exercise its functions with a view to furthering its purposes and it must do so in accordance with any strategies that it has formulated with respect to them. In so doing the Authority must act in the way best calculated: • to protect the interests of users of railway services; • to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development; 1 • to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing railway services; • to promote measures designed to facilitate passenger journeys involving more than one operator (including, in particular, arrangements for the issue and use of through tickets); • to impose on operators of railway services the minimum restrictions consistent with the performance of its functions; and • to enable providers of rail services to plan their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance.
    [Show full text]
  • Freight Rail Usage and Performance 2019-20 Q4 Statistical Release Publication Date: 28 May 2020 (Revised 24 June 2020) Next Publication Date: 24 September 2020
    Freight Rail Usage and Performance 2019-20 Q4 Statistical Release Publication date: 28 May 2020 (revised 24 June 2020) Next publication date: 24 September 2020 Freight moved by rail (billion net tonne km), Great Britain Background This statistical release 1991-92 to 2019-20 contains information on rail freight usage and performance in Great Britain with the latest quarterly and annual data to 31 March 2020. The statistics cover freight moved, freight lifted, freight delivery metric (FDM), freight delays per 100 train km, freight train km by operator and freight market indicators. Data are sourced from The total volume of rail dropped to 16.6 billion net tonne Network Rail, Freight freight moved Operating Companies kilometres in the financial year 2019-20, its lowest total in 23 years. This is a 5% (FOCs) and the decrease from the total in 2018-19. The total amount of freight lifted fell to 68.1 Department for Transport million tonnes, which is a 10% decrease from 2018-19 and is now the lowest (DfT). total since 1984-85. The Freight Delivery Metric (FDM) recorded its lowest quarterly percentage (91.1%), down 3.9 percentage points from 2018-19 Q4. The quarterly FDM moving annual average (MAA) was 92.8%. These Q4 freight statistics have been affected by the Coronavirus (Covid- 19) pandemic, although the impact is small given the number of days affected up to the end of March 2020. We expect to see a more noticeable impact in the next statistical release, 2020-21 Q1 (April to June 2020). Author: Stephen Pottinger Responsible Statistician: Jay Symonds Public Enquiries: Email: [email protected] Media Enquiries: Tel: 020 7282 2094 Website: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/freight-rail-usage-and-performance/ 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Members and Parish/Neighbourhood Councils RAIL UPDATE
    ITEM 1 TRANSPORT COMMITTEE NEWS 07 MARCH 2000 This report may be of interest to: All Members and Parish/Neighbourhood Councils RAIL UPDATE Accountable Officer: John Inman Author: Stephen Mortimer 1. Purpose 1.1 To advise the Committee of developments relating to Milton Keynes’ rail services. 2. Summary 2.1 West Coast Main Line Modernisation and Upgrade is now in the active planning stage. It will result in faster and more frequent train services between Milton Keynes Central and London, and between Milton Keynes Central and points north. Bletchley and Wolverton will also have improved services to London. 2.2 Funding for East-West Rail is now being sought from the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) for the western end of the line (Oxford-Bedford). Though the SSRA have permitted a bid only for a 60 m.p.h. single-track railway, excluding the Aylesbury branch and upgrade of the Marston Vale (Bedford-Bletchley) line, other Railtrack investment and possible developer contributions (yet to be investigated) may allow these elements to be included, as well as perhaps a 90 m.p.h. double- track railway. As this part of East-West Rail already exists, no form of planning permission is required; however, Transport and Works Act procedures are to be started to build the missing parts of the eastern end of the line. 2.3 New trains were introduced on the Marston Vale line, Autumn 1999. A study of the passenger accessibility of Marston Vale stations identified various desirable improvements, for which a contribution of £10,000 is required from this Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Eprints.Whiterose.Ac.Uk/2271
    This is a repository copy of New Inter-Modal Freight Technology and Cost Comparisons. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2271/ Monograph: Fowkes, A.S., Nash, C.A. and Tweddle, G. (1989) New Inter-Modal Freight Technology and Cost Comparisons. Working Paper. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds , Leeds, UK. Working Paper 285 Reuse See Attached Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ White Rose Research Online http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Institute of Transport Studies University of Leeds This is an ITS Working Paper produced and published by the University of Leeds. ITS Working Papers are intended to provide information and encourage discussion on a topic in advance of formal publication. They represent only the views of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views or approval of the sponsors. White Rose Repository URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2271/ Published paper Fowkes, A.S., Nash, C.A., Tweddle, G. (1989) New Inter-Modal Freight Technology and Cost Comparisons. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds. Working Paper 285 White Rose Consortium ePrints Repository [email protected] Working Paper 285 December 1989 NEW INTER-MODAL FREIGHT TECHNOLOGY AND COST COMPARISONS AS Fowkes CA Nash G Tweddle ITS Working Papers are intended to provide information and encourage discussion on a topic in advance of formal publication.
    [Show full text]