Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd There are capacity constraints -- a lot of them -- on today's rail network, but most of the really bad ones are either being worked on by the railroads themselves, even as we chat here, or are really knotty problems which will take the cooperative efforts of several railroads, plus several levels of government, to solve. The Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, and Santa Fe transcons are lovely examples of the first instance; Chicago is the obvious example for the second. [/quote] Well, since you brought it up, the UP/SP/DRGW aggregation is one that comes to mind in context with this discussion. UP, in deciding to mothball tennessee pass and de emphasize Moffatt, routing as much traffic as they can onto their more efficient to operate Overland and Golden state routes, theoretically reduces transcontinential bandwidth, does it not? And adds traffic that could cross the country via those routes onto the more congested alternates.. Which is certainly their perogative to do, economices are theirs, to have and to hold. But, at the same time UP decided it wanted that railroad when it aquired it, didn't it? So, why not operate it? or sell it to someone who does want to operate it? My theory is that they DON'T want to sell it because the competition would pull away business that would give them additional "capacity" in the form of business lost to the competition. Which to me makes any appeal UP would make for public cost participation in solving their capacity problems on the golden state look flat out dishonest. If they've made an economically motivated decision to route traffic via a prefered route, then it should be them to pay for any resulting consequences.
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