• Journal of the Korean Society for Railway
• /
• v.9 no.2 s.33
• /
• pp.212-221
• /
• 2006

This paper examines the outcomes and tasks of U rail privatization especially focusing on the rail safety. Earlier research which focused on the rail safety had little knowledge of the explanations for recent changes of safety scheme. Moreover, they had difficulty making a direct comparison of safety between national rail and the privatized rail. Therefore we are left without a good explanation which has a comprehensive perspective. I attempt to show the outcomes of safety in the rail privatization process and its tasks focusing on the recent fatal accident. This paper argues that the UK's rail safety has a framework which is too complicated with overlapping responsibilities that brought about inefficiency, increasing costs. Especially infrastructure enterprise did not come to play an appropriate role. However, after 2000, the government took charge of setting the strategy for railway safety, and the Office of Rail Regulation covered safety, performance and cost. I explain that these changes present a good opportunity to solve the problem of passing the buck for rail accident. Through the analysis, I find that outcomes of rail privatization in safety are improved comparing the national rail. However, safety performance, for example the collision of structures of cars and looseness of rail should be improved. In future, the problems of fatal accident and a bit of duplicate safe system should be addressed.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Railway
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.81-94
• /
• 2008

Recently, most of countries have been adopting the policies that aim to deal with the Problems of road congestion, environmental problems and the decreasing the volume of rall. A vital important subject is the reform of railways. Actually, the reform of railways has been carried out in various kind of ways, however the most epoch-making policy has been privatization of railways. Historically, Japan made the first step when it carried out regional privatization, unifying the infrastructure and operation. It created a 6 passenger enterprises and 1 freight enterprise. Meanwhile, in the case of the UK, discussion about rail privatization started the middle of 1980 and was implemented in 1994. It was implemented according to a functional division based on a separation of infrastructure and operation, creating a lot of different enterprises. With regard to the UK and Japan, there have been some debates about the methods of privatization, in particular, some scholars suggest that the rail accidents in the UK are a result of division of the infrastructure and operation. In addition to, some insist that the accident which occurred on 27th April 2005 at Hukujiyama in Japan was also attributable to the emphasis on profitable management. This paper examines the process and outcomes of rail privatization between the UK and Japan, especially focusing on different methods of privatization. This paper may provide some lessens for rail privatization policy. First, the rail privatization policy needs a enough time to complete the scheme. Second it is require to participate in the consumer, mass communication and rail of ncers who are involved the operation. Third, it is essential to have a huge investment, high technology and strong organization to drive.

• Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
• /
• v.24 no.2 s.88
• /
• pp.91-100
• /
• 2006

This paper examines the situation and tasks of UK rail privatization, especially focusing on after the Hatfield rail accident. Earlier research which focused on the UK's Privatization had little knowledge of the explanations for recent changes. Moreover they had difficulty making a direct comparison between national rail and the privatized rail. Therefore we aye left without a good explanation which has a comprehensive perspective. I attempt to show the change in the rail privatization Process and its outcome, focusing on after the Hatfield rail accident. This Paper argues that the UK's vail privatization process has a regulatory framework which is too complicated with overlapping responsibilities that brought about inefficiency, increasing costs and a superficial safety regime. Especially the planning of rail and infrastructure maintenance did not come to play an appropriate role. However after 2000, the government took charge of setting the strategy for railways, and the Office of Rail Regulation covered safety performance and cost. explain that these changes present a good opportunity to solve the problem of passing the buck for poor performance. Through the analysis, I find that the passenger rail network is well-suited to deliver long distance business and commuters and that the subsidy from the government is decreasing. However, performance, for example punctuality and reliability. should be improved. Especially the Hatfield rail accident caused a reduction in the satisfaction of passengers. In future. the problems of rising costs and monopoly franchise system should be addressed.