Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Two more articles on rail incapacity = trouble for RR's
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by rrandb</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by futuremodal</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by rrandb</i> <br /><br />Some one has Opinions confused with Facts. It ain't ED. But there is an obvious case of a rectal cranial inversion. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Someone has reality confused with fantasy. It is ed whose brain don't work unless it is stimulated by fecal matter, and you who has not thought this thing through. Eddyboy has now stated that one HAS to be employed by the railroad industry in order for his or her views to be counted as being in the railroad industry POV. <br /> <br />I guess that leaves TRAINS, Railway Age, ProgressiveRailroading.com, et al out of the mix, eh? <br />[/quote]These above posted publications all state that railroads are in the proccess of increasing there capacity. If they were "incapadable of doing so" then that would qualify as there "incapacity" to expand. Figure it out. I would love to see the facts that say unable to expand. Or are they just not doing so fast enough to make you happy. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Well, could you please point out where I said railroads were "incapadable of doing so" regarding the ability to increase capacity? Never said it. <br /> <br />What I have stated in past threads is that monopolistic actions are of a minimilist tendency. The profit for monopolists is predicated on careful control of the marketplace, prefering fewer customers with higher markups, e.g. high margins of small volume. The counter to this approach is the true competitive marketplace, where participants try and expand their customer base, making profit via small margins of high volume. <br /> <br />Since railroads are by their very nature high volume businesses, the monopolistic approach would seem counterintuitive to that end, but at the same time the anachronistic closed access system used by US railroads is predicated on that monopolistic approach. <br /> <br />What you get from this implicit internal polar opposite operational approach is the mess we have today - too few assets for the level of demand for rail services, a level of demand that was always there implicitly over the last few decades, but now is exhibited explicitly. <br /> <br />If only the rail industry had actually gone out over the last few decades and sold the use of those assets to those who would use them the way the potential user wanted to use them, and not necessarily use them the way the rail industry dictated it should be used. <br /> <br />Staggers should have instead paved the way for open access, then all those assets would have been preserved, and we wouldn't be here today facing a multi-billion dollar capacity deficit.
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy