Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Why do railroads run intermodal so fast?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I agree with you, futuremodal, especially the negative consequences of monopolistic systems. But when you draw the inference that "rejection of an ever expanding customer base has its roots in the monopolistic tendencies" you may be putting the cart before the iron horse, so to speak. To a large extent the public still thinks of RR management as a bunch of mustache-twirling Snidely Whipla***ypes (and so do I on bad days). But what we've got to remember is that, like most cyclical businesses, RR's are run by FEAR. They will always go with the done thing to make planning more logical and sequential and profits more predictable, if possible. That's why they tend to the monopolistic and sucking up to gov't whenever possible. (That's why I am anti- any more mergers.) Thus there is almost a cultural mis-match between a public that thinks RR's are EVIL and the RR management itself that thinks it is an example of prudent stewardship! But since RR industry is cyclical, dependent on phases in the industrial, agricultural and chemical cycles and to a much stronger degree than before to our interaction with other countries' economies, it is well that the RR's do not overspend. "Beware the perpetual trend," as economists would say. If your gasoline went up a dime a gallon last week and is going to go up a nickel a gallon next week, does that mean by Christmas, you'll be paying $4.80 a gallon? No, no more than a RR's having twenty percent more business and/or profit in 2004 than 2003 determines that the rampant trend will continue into 2005 or 2006. Foresight and daring go together: that's why it pleases me that the CP/Western mainline and former SP/El Paso to CA are laying double-track now. (Although, even without cash subsidies, you can be sure their two respective federal governments said it was pretty OK by them.) I vibrate very well to your observation that free-market tendencies in the US are often ostensible at best. Observe, for example, that in the last 40 years of "urban renewal," it's usually only the second- or third-worst properties that get torn down because the very worst are in unappealing locations. Frequently (Frankfort, KY is my example), businesses are closed and buildings destroyed because all levels of government are, in effect, banishing free enterprise to make room for corporate welfare "capitalism." So the local rooming house or something that might have made a Motel 8 gets blitzed and a new Marriott or Holiday Inn or whatever moves in. Why shouldn't it? Subsidies guarantee a profit for the first few years. Then about ten minutes after these alleged "training wheel" subsidies expire, Marriott and company are leaving the premises and inviting a new kind of high-class urban blight in its wake. Part of the monopolistic tendencies you cite are that corporations always seek a monopoly, whether thru product differentiation, gov't muscle, whatever. Fortunately people both on this thread and another having to do with subsidizing subpar lines or passenger trains are much more wary than Americans in general used to be about government stepping in to "stimulate the economy" or "revitalize downtowns" or "shore up the infrastructure" or whatever the hell rationales are used to persuade us that gov't spending on private enterprise is a good idea. But heck, I guess I'm preaching to the choir now. What I'd like to sincerely ask -- and to sway us back to the head topic a little quicker -- is what Class I's you consider to be the most "Snidely Whiplash" in their actions and which, if any, are more progressivistic in practice? Inquiring minds and all that . . .
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag