Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Monopoly key for rail regulator

Wednesday 11 January 1995 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The main role of the rail regulator, who will be a key player in the industry once privatisation starts in a year's time, is to counter the effects of monopoly, writes Christian Wolmar.

He is not, like other regulators in the privatised industries, primarily concerned with prices. Instead, his focus is competition and ensuring that both passengers and rail companies do not suffer because of monopolies within the industry.

While sometimes this may involve protecting the passenger, at other times he will be looking at the interests of train operators. Railtrack is a monopoly supplier of track and infra-structure and therefore he will try to ensure it does not abuse this position.

James Ballingall, who heads the rail privatisation team with City solicitors Theodore Goddard, said: "He isn't there just to help the passenger. He may act in a way which can be for or against the interests of passengers."

This is well illustrated by the row over the 294 core stations put forward in yesterday's consultation paper. Mr Swift's paper argues it is too expensive to continue the present arrangement of having over 1,300 stations where broadly most tickets are available. But clearly, from the passengers' point of view, this is highly desirable.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in