General Discussion

henry6:

We don't have good passenger service, let alone High Speed Rail, in this country because big business did not see a return on investment worth going after in the mid part of the 20th Century!  Unlike other countries which have figured out that a well planned, built and operated transportation network is good for the the overall economy of the country (i.e., private business as well as traveling public), we rely on stockholders needs to determine what we can and cannot have and do.  If you can't make a million for yourself, then it ain't worth the effort.  The public (and the economy and business prosperity[ current needs, and future existance]) be damned!   Even the Robber Barrons of Yore understood that a lot of what they were doing was aimed at the larger picture of industrial and social development of the Country as a whole.   Wait a minute, am I talking transportation or health care here?

You're not sure what you're talking about?  Well, that makes at least two of us.

You've made up an entirely new therory of economics that is unlike anything I ever studied.  I know I shouldn't let this stuff bother me, but it does.

I don't like it when people just make stuff up to support their own desires.  We can have good discussions on this forum when people are polite and stick to the truth.  Trouble happens when they resort to making stuff up, and IMHO you're sure doing that.

With exceptions, such as the Northeast and local commuter services where there are significant externalities that justify state/local (but not Federal) government funding, we don't have a significant passenger train network because the people largely decided they would rather drive and/or fly.  They had the trains as a good option and decided not to use that option.

This isn't your personal desired outcome, so I see you as fabricating a whole new wierd economic therory to justify changing by force an outcome you don't like.

To me, that's not honest.  And that bothers me.

Greyhounds, I am just stating what I see.  If you never heard of it before, so what?  If it bothers you, so what?   If its a different way of looking at things, so what?. As you point out, it doesn't seem to be some accepted acadamic or political theory, so what?  Why not look at things differently than everyone else has, why not start thinking 'outside of the box'?  Is it because it clashes with your learned theories and adopted political views?   If it raises questions, makes people think, or gets answers,.all the better. And if no one else ever asked the questions or thought the thoughts, so what?  Does that mean I am wrong?  Or is it just that it bothers you?

To follow your commuter train theory.  Federal aid does play a part in its existance.  And it was public monies spent on highway construction, at the expense of private enterprise, that did it.  What we have refered to as "the highway lobby" (and I'm not judging them here) helped make it happen.  It was marketed to the public while taking away the alternative.  And the East is not the only place such transit commitments have been made...stop blaming the east coast.  

You have attacked me and my integrity but you have not really corrected my thinking with concrete answers and rebuttle.  Show me where and why my questions are not legitimate?  I am not "changing by force an outcome" I don't like.  And I am not fabricating any "new economic" theory.  I do have to agree with your insinuation that I am apparently not bright nor intellegent, at least not enough to invent new economic theories!  If it came through my mind, someone else, somewhere, sometime, had to have planted it there.

I will add my own limited two cents at this point:  unless we look seriously at human behaviour, including economic behaviour, but also general commuting and moving for convenience and recreation behaviour, and use systems thinking in attempting to find a way to incorporate some considerable passenger rails that actually come partway toward paying for themselves, we might as well be counting waves on the shore.

As long as people can afford to buy cars, and replace them at times, and can afford a few liters of gas to get them within five blocks of their intended destination, there is zero incentive to use passenger rails.  Who wants to be forced to take what amounts to a two hour investment in rail service, but then have to deal with the time of local transit in order to actually get out to where they need to be?  And with the associated expense?

-Crandell

And Bucyrus, are you saying that if something doesn't make a financial profit, it shouldn't be done?  That's exactly one of my points.  If a bridge needs to be built across a body of water and building it won't provide a profit to the owner/operator, then are you saying it need not be built?  I don't buy that.  If commerce can be conducted by private business and industry which would both create jobs, enhance an economy and social structure, and make a profit for those businesses and industry, then why not have a consortium build it.  The consortium in place is government.  Should we keep inventing  new levels of bureaucies ( Authorities like NJ-NYPort Authory, et al.) and should they be private for profit companies or non profit government agencies? 

henry6:

And Bucyrus, are you saying that if something doesn't make a financial profit, it shouldn't be done? 

So then where is the line, the decision point, that a bridge or highway or airport or rail line need be provided?   If we know the value of each of those things, why is the railroad the only one we say has to be with private funds while the others might be publicly funded? 

I am of the opinion that there has to be a meeting of the minds as to what is good of the entire community, both business and people. So there has to be a point where government action is deemed necessary so that business can flourish which in turns allows people to flourish. 

This arguement that if I don't use it then I don't want to pay for it doesn't work anymore.  I don't use I80 west of Mt. Pocono, so why should I pay for it all the way to the West Coast?  Or I don't use airplanes, so why should I pay for the airports?  The list goes on and on.  But in the larger picture, those questions don't make sense.  Because I do, somehow, somewhere along the line, get the benefit, as does everybody.  Maybe it allows a certain manufacturer to exist in my community or to bring his product to me from another. The manufacturer in my community creates jobs and fuels the local economy; the manufacturer in another community has done the same there.  And the question here is how much is too much an investment in railroads...frieght and passenger...to no longer be a universal benefit?  Or in air ports and air traffic control?  Or highways?

henry6:

We don't have good passenger service, let alone High Speed Rail, in this country because big business did not see a return on investment worth going after in the mid part of the 20th Century! 

Henry, your statement is true but you need to ask why the railroads did not see any possibility of a return on investment in passenger trains after WWII.  First you should note that there WAS substantial investment in the immediate post war period, say 1946-1957.  I think that management made an error in making that investment, but pre war they had a modest operating profit on main line passenger service so perhaps they can be excused for not seeing the Interstate Highway Act of 1958.  Not sure of the date but the last new passenger equipment was ordered within months of that bill passing.

By the end of the war management could see almost 30 years of public investment in the highway system.  That investment decimated the short haul and branch line passenger service.  Passenger miles sold fell off a clif in the 1920's due to paved roads and the Model T.  Management knew this in 1945 and they should have been able to predict that highway investment would baloon after the war putting more pressure on passenger, and freight traffic.

The war did wonders for aviation technonogy due to the forced draft of defense purchases of bombers and cargo planes.  The pattern of governments at all levels investing in airports was well established by 1945.  Boeing introduced the 707 about 1957.

Management has a fiduciary duty to its stockholders and bondholders.  In plain language that means they have an obligation not to invest in things they believe will not make money.  Their decision to invest no more in passenger equipment and services, and then to get out as quickly as they could was correct.  The government could have chosen to subsidize privately operated passenger service.  In fact, they began a program to remove mail from the trains in the mid to late 1960's.  That was the death knell to some passenger trains and hurt all to which it happened, which was the vast majority.

The public left the passenger trains as soon as they had a better alternative.  The government did much to provide those altermatives by providing "free" rights of way.  Those rights of way were far from free in an economic sense, massive resources were committed to build them, but they were perceived, as intended by the proponents, to be free.  What are you complaining about??

Mac

greyhounds:

solzrules:

This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not.  I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid. 

Yeah.

Jim Wrinn has taken the magazine in a direction that I don't like.  It's been a part of my life for almost half a century.  I first subscribed when I was 12 (using my father's name.) with my paper route money.  I'll be 59 in November and I wonder if I'll renew.  My EX used to say that it was always a good day when the Trains Magazine arrived.  No more. 

Wrinn supports High Speed Rail in the US.  He's got a perfect platform to do the supporting.  But instead of publishing articles that present solid, reasoned arguments in favor of HSR, he chooses to basically denigrate those of his readers who think differently.  I'm "Howling"?

I believe Wrinn doesn't provide such articles because he can't.  1)  I don't believe a solid, reasoned argument in support of HSR is possible, and 2) he's not an analytical kind of guy.  In the November 2009 issue he tried to present an argument for forced, taxpayer funded, electrification of the US rail network.  The resultant article was an inane joke that claimed electrification would divert 83% of truck business to rail and add 175 million jobs in the US.  How he could possibly read that nonsense and publish it is beyond reason.  This leads him to lash out at those of us who disagree with him.  I respect people who disagree with me as long as they stick to facts and don't lie.  I don't respect those who can't deal with my disagreement and choose to denigrate me personally.  I'm "Howling"?

If he tried to do the same for HSR I think the result would be the same.  Another inane joke of an article. He simply doesn't focus on the "analytical aspect" of things.  He goes more with emotion and the artistic side of things.  If that's the way they want to go, that's fine.  It's their magazine.  But they might just wind up doing it without me sending them some money.

I think the December issue is decent.  But it's largely about taking pictures of trains rather than about the trains themselves.  Again, Wrinn is focused on the art, not the trains.

Check page 33.  The top photo.  There are two very interesting pieces of rail equipment in that consist.  That rotary snow plow was obviously fabricated by the BN (or a contract job shop) from a locomotive.  It would be nice to learn something about it.  But there's nothing written at all about the machine.  It's a nice photo.  And if you're interested in the photos instead of the trains I guess that will do. But I subscribe to Trains, not Photos.  (The other interesting piece of equipment is that Jordan on the rear of the train.  No mention of that either.)

The article on page 38 - well let's see, that's about taking pictures of trains instead of trains too.  We've got photos of the outside of a bar, the inside of a bar, a bed, some blured trains, a tale about getting stuck in a snow drift, etc.  The photo on pages 42-43 is nice.  But there's more information about the church than the train.  The train is incidental.  What train is it? Where is it going?  What is it hauling? What locomotives are powering it?  I want to know about the train.  That's why I subscribe to Trains Magazine.  (I did like the article, but it was only remotely about trains.)

The article on Page 46 is flat out about photography, not trains.

I could live with this artistic focus (if I must) if Wrinn and company would acknowledge legitimate opposing points of view.  His December editorial indicates he doesn't.  And I will not subscribe to a publication that prints outright lies such as forced electrification of the US rail net would add 175 million jobs. 

 

 

 

Points noted..Yet, you will continue to post on a free forum provided by that publication?..interesting

carnej1:

greyhounds:

solzrules:

This is the exact reason why I did not renew my subscription to Trains magazine and will not.  I got real sick of paying for a magazine that kept demanding that we pay even more taxes to fund an enormous investment in high speed rail for reasons that are just plain stupid. 

Yeah.

Jim Wrinn has taken the magazine in a direction that I don't like.  It's been a part of my life for almost half a century.  I first subscribed when I was 12 (using my father's name.) with my paper route money.  I'll be 59 in November and I wonder if I'll renew.  My EX used to say that it was always a good day when the Trains Magazine arrived.  No more. 

Wrinn supports High Speed Rail in the US.  He's got a perfect platform to do the supporting.  But instead of publishing articles that present solid, reasoned arguments in favor of HSR, he chooses to basically denigrate those of his readers who think differently.  I'm "Howling"?

I believe Wrinn doesn't provide such articles because he can't.  1)  I don't believe a solid, reasoned argument in support of HSR is possible, and 2) he's not an analytical kind of guy.  In the November 2009 issue he tried to present an argument for forced, taxpayer funded, electrification of the US rail network.  The resultant article was an inane joke that claimed electrification would divert 83% of truck business to rail and add 175 million jobs in the US.  How he could possibly read that nonsense and publish it is beyond reason.  This leads him to lash out at those of us who disagree with him.  I respect people who disagree with me as long as they stick to facts and don't lie.  I don't respect those who can't deal with my disagreement and choose to denigrate me personally.  I'm "Howling"?

If he tried to do the same for HSR I think the result would be the same.  Another inane joke of an article. He simply doesn't focus on the "analytical aspect" of things.  He goes more with emotion and the artistic side of things.  If that's the way they want to go, that's fine.  It's their magazine.  But they might just wind up doing it without me sending them some money.

I think the December issue is decent.  But it's largely about taking pictures of trains rather than about the trains themselves.  Again, Wrinn is focused on the art, not the trains.

Check page 33.  The top photo.  There are two very interesting pieces of rail equipment in that consist.  That rotary snow plow was obviously fabricated by the BN (or a contract job shop) from a locomotive.  It would be nice to learn something about it.  But there's nothing written at all about the machine.  It's a nice photo.  And if you're interested in the photos instead of the trains I guess that will do. But I subscribe to Trains, not Photos.  (The other interesting piece of equipment is that Jordan on the rear of the train.  No mention of that either.)

The article on page 38 - well let's see, that's about taking pictures of trains instead of trains too.  We've got photos of the outside of a bar, the inside of a bar, a bed, some blured trains, a tale about getting stuck in a snow drift, etc.  The photo on pages 42-43 is nice.  But there's more information about the church than the train.  The train is incidental.  What train is it? Where is it going?  What is it hauling? What locomotives are powering it?  I want to know about the train.  That's why I subscribe to Trains Magazine.  (I did like the article, but it was only remotely about trains.)

The article on Page 46 is flat out about photography, not trains.

I could live with this artistic focus (if I must) if Wrinn and company would acknowledge legitimate opposing points of view.  His December editorial indicates he doesn't.  And I will not subscribe to a publication that prints outright lies such as forced electrification of the US rail net would add 175 million jobs. 

 

 

 

Points noted..Yet, you will continue to post on a free forum provided by that publication?..interesting

I am looking forward to reading Wrinn’s editorial, but I can’t find the magazine yet on the newsstands.  I happen to agree with most of Greyounds' views on the direction of the magazine, but I don’t see how that is inconsistent with posting in their free forums.  In fact, if I were publishing a magazine, I would sure want feedback, both positive and negative to help me match the market preference as well as possible.    

Participation here is a perk of subscribing to the magazines.  His subscription has evidently not run out and he is just saying that he does not plan to renew.  Until the delivery of his final issue he is free to post.

henry6:

Participation here is a perk of subscribing to the magazines.  His subscription has evidently not run out and he is just saying that he does not plan to renew.  Until the delivery of his final issue he is free to post.

You do not need to subscribe to any of the magazines in order to post here.

Perhaps the editorial direction of Trains is changing because of the current harsh realities of the publishing industry.  Is it possible that the magazine management believes they have more to gain from going in this (new?) direction than they do from being a magazine of statistics and information with a neutral editorial content?

Secondly, perhaps the aging demographics of the magazine's readership tell us that "new ocassions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth."  I'd rather that Trains not only survives, but flourishes, and that may well mean a new editorial direction.  I don't know.

I will say, again, that it always dismays me to read here comments from "railfans" who seemingly dislike passenger trains for financial reasons.  So if the magazine wishes to promote high speed rail, and doing so helps it survive the very dismal state of magazine publishing today, then so be it.

NKP guy:

I will say, again, that it always dismays me to read here comments from "railfans" who seemingly dislike passenger trains for financial reasons. 

What dismays me is railfans who are willing to overlook financial irresponsibility and ruinous public spending if they get new trains in the deal. 

NKP guy:

I will say, again, that it always dismays me to read here comments from "railfans" who seemingly dislike passenger trains for financial reasons. 

Oh those pesky financial reasons.  The Government says I can have a big house, even though I can not make the payments.  That worked so well we are ratcheting up the debt machine and passenger service is a minute part of it.  When the rest of the world figures out that US government paper is no better than derivitaves of mortgaged backed securities we will see a depression the likes of which this country has never seen while the Government raises taxes ever higher to try to cover all the entitlements.  Who do you think is going to pay for it?  A few years ago I read "Atlas Shrugged" and thought it was quite fancifull.  Today I think it is a prophecy.

A few of us are trying to point out the financial consequences of government decisions.  It seems to be a lost cause both here and in general.  I hope to die before the economy really collapses, but I am not optimistic since I am only 60 years old.  Thank God I do not have any kids to worry about.

Mac

 I do appreciate your ideas but I disagree.  You are entirely right about passenger service being "a minute part of it."  That is exactly my point.  Don't sweat the small stuff when we're talking about the national debt (cue to PhoebeVet).

Also, I'm older than you (61!) and I have thousands of children to worry about...they're my former students who need a competitive transportation system for their, and their children's, future.  Growing the economy is the best way to pay down our national debt.