High speed rail: In need of a break

Glad to hear that the carriers are protecting their capacity.  Most of them have sold the birthright somewhere for a mess of pattage and seem to have figured out it is a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Mac

Excellent assessment of the situation.  In the case of BNSF in the Pacific Northwest the railroad is getting lots of freight capacity improvements and passenger trains off the freight mains around Tacoma and partially around Vancover BC.  I have never understood why BNSF and UP, working with WSDOT and Sound Transit and FRA have ignored the potential of an upgraded ( and then double tracked)UP line between Seattle and Tacoma and keeping the BNSF main primarily for intercity passenger, commuter and local freight.  This would provide separate freight and passenger track between Seattle and Nisqually, almost 50 miles of congested territory.

Guru, I think I know the answer to your question. Neither BNSF nor UP wants to give the other railroad what you might call "delaying rights" in such a critical corridor. They both want control over their destinies. Plus, there are undoubtedly capacity issues and that gets you to capital budgets, which are being overwhelmed these days by positive train control costs.

Fred Frailey

We are already seeing some of the unintended (but not unexpected) consequences of Congress's absurd unfunded PTC mandate. It looked like an albatross when it became law, and it is proving to be so.

Fred,

Good points in responding to my comment.  However, let us not forget that the railroad is shared by both BNSF and UP from Tacoma to Portland; WSDOT is investing over $600 million in federal funds; and Sound Transit has invested well over $800 million.  That is why I think a multi-agency partnership with the two railroads, well maybe three if you include Port of Tacoma, is a logical step.

I've always thought that HSR should put a priority on speeding up the really slow areas--terminals, yard limits, junctions and bridges. When I last rode into Portland years ago, the Columbia River crossing was extremely slow for miles and the entrance to Portland Station was 5 mph with multiple stops for hand-throw switches. has it improved?

I don't get it when the carriers say they are at or near capacity when, during WWII, the same right-of-ways handled both passenger and freight trains on streetcar headways, dispatched by telegraphed train orders, with friction journal wheelsets on 90 lb. jointed rail and with multiple stops for coal and water. Have diesels, computers, radios, welded rail, roller bearings and increased speeds decreased capacity? What am I missing?  

One of the main criteria for getting the grants was being close to ready to actually put a shovel in the ground.  It's ironic that the administration is the one keeping the shovels unused!

Great article!

Jerry, one of the things you are missing is that more rail traffic is being handled on fewer track miles, with less infrastructure, and with fewer employees than during World War II. Look at a rail map from 1940 and compare it to a contemporary rail map; there's a lot that's been thinned out over the years.

From an economic point of view, it makes a tremendous amount of sense to not have capital tied up in resources that aren't consistently earning a return on investment. Those four-track main lines the NYC and PRR had in the Forties were impressive, but they became economically unsustainable at some point, and technology like CTC permitted the railroads to do more with less.

The elimination of redundant main lines (partly by abandonment and partly by merger and subsequent rationalization) gives the railroads better economies of scale; they can pour more capital into the remaining railroad and make it a powerhouse, as opposed to maintaining several redundant routes, none of whom by themselves have sufficient traffic base to justify major capital improvements. This "slimming" does have immense advantages, but it also means that traffic formerly spread on several routes now moves on the main corridors.

With less of everything, be it redundant routes, infrastructure or employees, the railroads, a well-managed railroad will have sufficient capacity for the traffic peaks they anticipate in the mid-term, but the railroads don't have the capital to build track just in case some new traffic develops 10 years from now. Any new traffic -- be it passenger or freight -- will either require capacity or service will suffer.

Perhaps the mistake was when redundant lines were eliminated, they should have been banked for the future.  If some of those can be reclaimed for rail, that could be a big help.

Cheap shot on California. We are not even close to third world status. Like every state, there are massive problems here related to the gigantic bust foisted upon us by Wall Street. But California is no worse off than Texas, New York, or even Arizona.

The acceptance of fed money by New England railroads is understandable based on the poor condition and low utilization of their present properties. The majority of the lines being upgraded have very little freight traffic compared to the other routes mentioned and can not handle today's heavier axle loadings. Much of the Vermonter route in Vermont is not signaled and will be limited to 59 mph. The present grant covers only track improvements.

Good article.  While the freight carriers are open to new passenger trains they will never agree when it will impede the ability to provide consistant service to their freight customers.  Right now rail freight is in a growth period and the carriers know this.  They would never allow themselves to be in a position that would cost them business.  

True HSR will require dedicated rights of way.  The Government should look at traffic studies of heavily traveled short distance commuter air flights and focus future HSR lines based in these lanes.  That is what HSR is intended to replace.

Al W: No doubt. The ex-B&O line east from Cincinnati is one that I've heard CSX wishes they hadn't ripped out.

However, I can understand the logic of abandonment. Look at the map of the C&NW or Milwaukee Road in Wisconsin or the IC in Illinois and Mississippi, and you'll see thousands of miles of branch lines that last earned a profit before the Model T and paved roads came along 90 years ago.

I'm no economist, but I can't fathom any scenario wherein these tiny bucolic branch lines would earn a profit in today's economy. Railroads do best when hauling freight long distances with minimal handling; the economies of scale simply aren't present with these tiny branch lines. We'll never bring back the economics under which those lines prospered.

It's somewhat of a different story with some of the lost main lines. Though there are some tragic losses, how many lines does Union Pacific need connecting Chicago and St. Louis, for example? Though there are dangers of putting all of one's eggs in one basket, there are a lot of advantages to having fewer trunk lines, but putting the capital into those lines and make them into super-railroads for whatever mix of freight and passenger traffic a demand exists.