Future of Railroading

[Anonymous]

One thing is for certian, thinking in this group is second nature, Excellent discussion, I am honored to be amoung you, long may this continue[tup][wow][tup][yeah]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

The railroads are the victims of their own success. Most route alignments were laid out in the middle of the 19th Century...when high speed was 30 MPH, a 'tonnage' train was 500 tons and earth moving equipment consisted of man, animal, pick, shovel and black powder. The engineers of the time laid out their routes in order to move the least amount of earth and built the least amount of bridges and tunnel and following all the water level grades available.. A consequence of this is the today, in metropolitan areas the railroads have no available room to expand to serve the needs of the metropolitan community they were instrumental in building and growing. The route alignments and terminal alignments contain grades and curvatures that make operating todays trains an operational nightmare, costly and inefficient; however, the cost of correcting these operating nighmares is well beyond the ability to todays railroads to finance.

The railroads have been rightfully proud of having built their own operating plants with private capital; however the needs to improve the operating situations within Metropolitan area affect not only the railroads and their customers but the entire Metropolitan area. For this reason the railroads should not shy away from feeding at the government money trough for those infrastructure improvements that are needed to benefit the railroads and the localities which they inhabit. The Chicago Corrider plan and the Long Beach Corridor project in Southern California are two such infrastructure improvement projects. Each metropolitan area has it's own needs and those needs are severe.

Very true. Witness the efforts by the KCS to get Congresional help to bypass VIcksburg, MS or the current major project proposed for Chicago. The trench to Long Beach/L.A. Harbor is another attempt to address some of the shortcomings.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Blue Ridge Front

On the NC transportation map it shows the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) running from Charlotte to Raleigh, and then to Beaufort on the coast. Two Amtrak train services in North Carolina (the Piedmont and Carolinian) are joint operated with Amtrak and the NCDOT. But Amtrak service on the NCRR only runs between Charlotte and Raleigh, not to Morehead City and Beaufort, and Norfolk Southern as well. What would be the reason for NS leasing the line to the state if not for their own partially funded passenger trains?

Just to make sure you are clear on this. The state of NC owns the NCRR and leases it to the NS, not vice versa.

LC

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Since NS leases the track, does NS pay for track maintaince or does NC pay for it?

I don't know for certain as I haven't seen the lease documents. Custom in such cases is for the railroad (NS) to maintain the track under the terms of the lease.

LC

[Train Guy 3]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Blue Ridge Front

On the NC transportation map it shows the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) running from Charlotte to Raleigh, and then to Beaufort on the coast. Two Amtrak train services in North Carolina (the Piedmont and Carolinian) are joint operated with Amtrak and the NCDOT. But Amtrak service on the NCRR only runs between Charlotte and Raleigh, not to Morehead City and Beaufort, and Norfolk Southern as well. What would be the reason for NS leasing the line to the state if not for their own partially funded passenger trains?

Just to make sure you are clear on this. The state of NC owns the NCRR and leases it to the NS, not vice versa.

LC

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Since NS leases the track, does NS pay for track maintaince or does NC pay for it?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by leftlimp

What I disagree with is the quickness to blame the railroads for not earning the cost of capital where the competition is subsidized and the customers are doing their best to usurp railroad revenues with BS ideas like "Open Access". I'll bet those big mines and mills wouldn't open their facilities for use by generic brands competing with them. Why should the railroads?

I think all the "Open Access" critics need to go back to school and study basic economic theory again (if they hadn't already). Monopolistic behavior breeds inefficiencies/competitive behavior creates efficiencies, any Economics prof will tell you that regardles of their political affiliation. What the railroads are today are basically "micro-monopolies" that severely limit access to the rail lines to the discretion of the owner-operators. They will not let any freight move over their tracks unless it is by their own operating divisions in their own inefficient way, and no one is going to force them to do it better via competition. Thus, we either have (1. The freight moves to trucks or (2. The shipper throws in the towell and moves to China or invests in the production of something other than heavy bulk commodities.

To suggest that an infrastructure company cannot charge a rail rate that will cover the cost of capital and leave some extra as profit is unproven, because it hasn't yet been done in the U.S. Whether there would need to be some "massaging" by government to make it work may be true, but it wouldn't have to consist of massive subsidies. Probably all that would be needed would be a legal caveat that recognizes railroad right of ways as public transportation corridors via proxy, which would eliminate property taxes and open the door to state and local discretionary taxpayer funding for selective infrastructure improvements that benefit all in that state or locality (e.g. bridges, overpasses/underpasses, transit needs, et al). The inherent efficiencies of rail transport (e.g. the ability to move large quantities of goods at speed) can overcome competition from subsidized highways (truckers can go at speed, but they can only move 100,000 lbs or so at a time) and waterways (they can move mass quantities, but at only 5 mph) if the rail owners allow the forces of competition to make them better.

I would also disagree with Mark H. in his contention that open access would eliminate service to all but the largest shippers. Open access would allow trucking firms to establi***heir own rail operating companies, and there doesn't seem to be a problem for any small shipper to get multiple rate quotes from any of the trucking companies. Put two and two together and we get the efficiencies of rail travel via TOFC/COFC/bi-modal with the comprehensive customer service provided by the trucking companies. Isn't that what is happening now to a small degree (relative to what it could be) with current TOFC movements today? Don't all these truckloads and containerloads include cargo from shippers large and small? Unfortunately, because of the monopolistic behaviours of the railroads, TOFC is only a fraction of what it could be if only the trucking companies had autonomy to run their own TOFC trains their own way, instead of being subject to the traditional ultraconservative, unimaginative, exclusively limited offerings of the railroads TOFC "service" today. I know from personal experience that railroads will regularly turn down new service proposals from third party shippers, even if that service was accessing underutilized rail corridors, simpy because there is no competitive motive to do so.

If on the other hand, the prevailing thought is that since railroads can't even cover the costs of their capital today therefore an infrastructure company wouldn't either, that in itself begs the question: Are railroads really the most efficient way to move bulk commodities at speed? If so (and all the transportation theory would state it as such), is there really a need to do so in a freight world that is more and more focussed on individualized truckload/containerload movements at speed OR cost sensitive bulk movements at 5 mph, rather than bulk movements at speed? If not, then there's no point in having railroads in the first place. We can just allow longer combination trailers and/or eliminate GVW standards for trucks in place of an average weight per axle standard on our highways to improve efficiency of highway movements. We can allow coal companies to switch to more efficient slurry pipelines to move their product from the mine to the power plant. We can authorize the Corps of Engineers to deepen and expand our waterways (after all, we can justify expending taxpayer dollars to do so since the waterways are "open access" to all the public!) to allow even greater efficiencies in moving cost-sensitive (e.g. not particularly time sensitive) cargos from the inland to our deep water ports. Indeed, who really needs a "land bridge" for containerized ocean cargo if ships can simply go direct to any port West Coast, East Coast, or Gulf Coast (once the Panama Canal is deepened for the post-Panamax ships) and lay anchor within a highway haul of their destination markets?

Until we can eliminate the monopolistic characteristics present in the rail industry today and let them become open access in some form with an equalized playing field with highways and waterways (in terms of government support of some kind), we really don't have enough real world data to answer that question.

Limp-

It is obvious to me that you are a theorist and not a practitioner who has ever operated a railroad. There are numerous failures in your theory. In reality, it simply doesn't work the way you theorize it does. This would doom you (or anyone following your theory) to failure.

1. Your concept that railroads seriously try to limit traffic moving on their lines is completely inaccurate. Most railroads welcome any traffic they can move that earns them revenue adequate to justify its carriage. With truck and barge competition there is precious little of that anyhow. There can be other limiting factors such as car availability or infrastructure limitations. There isn't a lot more traffic ready to ru***o the railroads that will earn a higher return to justify splitting away the infrastructure. There are far more costs added by creating a new bureacracy than are saved. Proving that an infrastructure company can't charge a rate capable of bringing a return of investment has already been done. If the integrated railroad system cannot support the infrastructure, the parts can't charge less. As Mark Hemphill has correctly stated railroads are already too lean. There isn't any surplus to cut now.

2. Your proposed "transportation corridors" provide nothing more than railroads already have the right to do under existing law except perhaps providing funding which as I already suggested is the missing ingredient.

3. The only thing that having a multiplicity of operating companies will do is ensure that the safety of everyone involved will be lessened by people cutting corners. Look at all the truckers on the public highways regularly caught in all sorts of violations from overweight to hazmat to drugs or alcohol. Who will step into the shoes of the State Police on the rails?? That is another major problem you haven't considered. There is a cost. Who will bear it? The infrastructure company? Who will dispatch trains? The infrastructure conmpany? Who will ensure that the infrastructure company doesn't play favorites? Perhaps all these questions have answers, but many add costs that are not now in the system. Customers are already trying to cut costs. Who will pay the additional costs. Sounds like RailTrack part 2.

4. Lets face it. You can call railroads monopolies all you want but on any given day a truck or barge can take most of what moves on the rails. That to me is not a monopoly except in the extremely limited circumstances of bottleneck captive customers. There is no need for open access now or later. It is a theory that doesn't work and no amount of rehashing or saying it will work makes it so.

LC

[BaltACD]

The railroads are the victims of their own success. Most route alignments were laid out in the middle of the 19th Century...when high speed was 30 MPH, a 'tonnage' train was 500 tons and earth moving equipment consisted of man, animal, pick, shovel and black powder. The engineers of the time laid out their routes in order to move the least amount of earth and built the least amount of bridges and tunnel and following all the water level grades available.. A consequence of this is the today, in metropolitan areas the railroads have no available room to expand to serve the needs of the metropolitan community they were instrumental in building and growing. The route alignments and terminal alignments contain grades and curvatures that make operating todays trains an operational nightmare, costly and inefficient; however, the cost of correcting these operating nighmares is well beyond the ability to todays railroads to finance.

The railroads have been rightfully proud of having built their own operating plants with private capital; however the needs to improve the operating situations within Metropolitan area affect not only the railroads and their customers but the entire Metropolitan area. For this reason the railroads should not shy away from feeding at the government money trough for those infrastructure improvements that are needed to benefit the railroads and the localities which they inhabit. The Chicago Corrider plan and the Long Beach Corridor project in Southern California are two such infrastructure improvement projects. Each metropolitan area has it's own needs and those needs are severe.

[jeaton]

I'd guess it would work the same way it does now when one line gets trackage rights on another. The owner is responsible for seeing the maintanence work get done, presumably covering the cost with the "rent" received from operating companies.

We can use Amtrak, as an example. They pay rent to the "host" railroads, and the railroads spend the money where ever they want.

[espeefoamer]

If the railroads go with open access,who would pay for track maintanence?

[jeaton]

Hmm-Railroads are "micro monopolies", yet all the freight could shift to alternate modes.

OK. I will go with open access if someone explains how this could be more efficient, or how it would generate more profitable freight. Oh yes, I see a lot of trucks on the road, but tell me, how many of them could be drayed to the railhead, loaded on a flat, moved on a train to another railhead, put on the ground and drayed to a consignee at a cost less than the cost for a straight truck haul.

[Anonymous]

thank you brother leftlimp! Real competition in the transportation industry would revolutionize the North American economy, but it will never occur without crisis. Government leaders and class one operators have been too cozy since Staggers, and neither will address major infrastructure issues.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I got that mixed up there. Thanks for clearing it up though.

[Anonymous]

What I disagree with is the quickness to blame the railroads for not earning the cost of capital where the competition is subsidized and the customers are doing their best to usurp railroad revenues with BS ideas like "Open Access". I'll bet those big mines and mills wouldn't open their facilities for use by generic brands competing with them. Why should the railroads?

I think all the "Open Access" critics need to go back to school and study basic economic theory again (if they hadn't already). Monopolistic behavior breeds inefficiencies/competitive behavior creates efficiencies, any Economics prof will tell you that regardles of their political affiliation. What the railroads are today are basically "micro-monopolies" that severely limit access to the rail lines to the discretion of the owner-operators. They will not let any freight move over their tracks unless it is by their own operating divisions in their own inefficient way, and no one is going to force them to do it better via competition. Thus, we either have (1. The freight moves to trucks or (2. The shipper throws in the towell and moves to China or invests in the production of something other than heavy bulk commodities.

To suggest that an infrastructure company cannot charge a rail rate that will cover the cost of capital and leave some extra as profit is unproven, because it hasn't yet been done in the U.S. Whether there would need to be some "massaging" by government to make it work may be true, but it wouldn't have to consist of massive subsidies. Probably all that would be needed would be a legal caveat that recognizes railroad right of ways as public transportation corridors via proxy, which would eliminate property taxes and open the door to state and local discretionary taxpayer funding for selective infrastructure improvements that benefit all in that state or locality (e.g. bridges, overpasses/underpasses, transit needs, et al). The inherent efficiencies of rail transport (e.g. the ability to move large quantities of goods at speed) can overcome competition from subsidized highways (truckers can go at speed, but they can only move 100,000 lbs or so at a time) and waterways (they can move mass quantities, but at only 5 mph) if the rail owners allow the forces of competition to make them better.

I would also disagree with Mark H. in his contention that open access would eliminate service to all but the largest shippers. Open access would allow trucking firms to establi***heir own rail operating companies, and there doesn't seem to be a problem for any small shipper to get multiple rate quotes from any of the trucking companies. Put two and two together and we get the efficiencies of rail travel via TOFC/COFC/bi-modal with the comprehensive customer service provided by the trucking companies. Isn't that what is happening now to a small degree (relative to what it could be) with current TOFC movements today? Don't all these truckloads and containerloads include cargo from shippers large and small? Unfortunately, because of the monopolistic behaviours of the railroads, TOFC is only a fraction of what it could be if only the trucking companies had autonomy to run their own TOFC trains their own way, instead of being subject to the traditional ultraconservative, unimaginative, exclusively limited offerings of the railroads TOFC "service" today. I know from personal experience that railroads will regularly turn down new service proposals from third party shippers, even if that service was accessing underutilized rail corridors, simpy because there is no competitive motive to do so.

If on the other hand, the prevailing thought is that since railroads can't even cover the costs of their capital today therefore an infrastructure company wouldn't either, that in itself begs the question: Are railroads really the most efficient way to move bulk commodities at speed? If so (and all the transportation theory would state it as such), is there really a need to do so in a freight world that is more and more focussed on individualized truckload/containerload movements at speed OR cost sensitive bulk movements at 5 mph, rather than bulk movements at speed? If not, then there's no point in having railroads in the first place. We can just allow longer combination trailers and/or eliminate GVW standards for trucks in place of an average weight per axle standard on our highways to improve efficiency of highway movements. We can allow coal companies to switch to more efficient slurry pipelines to move their product from the mine to the power plant. We can authorize the Corps of Engineers to deepen and expand our waterways (after all, we can justify expending taxpayer dollars to do so since the waterways are "open access" to all the public!) to allow even greater efficiencies in moving cost-sensitive (e.g. not particularly time sensitive) cargos from the inland to our deep water ports. Indeed, who really needs a "land bridge" for containerized ocean cargo if ships can simply go direct to any port West Coast, East Coast, or Gulf Coast (once the Panama Canal is deepened for the post-Panamax ships) and lay anchor within a highway haul of their destination markets?

Until we can eliminate the monopolistic characteristics present in the rail industry today and let them become open access in some form with an equalized playing field with highways and waterways (in terms of government support of some kind), we really don't have enough real world data to answer that question.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Blue Ridge Front

On the NC transportation map it shows the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) running from Charlotte to Raleigh, and then to Beaufort on the coast. Two Amtrak train services in North Carolina (the Piedmont and Carolinian) are joint operated with Amtrak and the NCDOT. But Amtrak service on the NCRR only runs between Charlotte and Raleigh, not to Morehead City and Beaufort, and Norfolk Southern as well. What would be the reason for NS leasing the line to the state if not for their own partially funded passenger trains?

Just to make sure you are clear on this. The state of NC owns the NCRR and leases it to the NS, not vice versa.

LC

[daveklepper]

You DO NOT see Hydrogen fuel cells in Green Goats! Batteries are less expensive and more efficient! So are flywheels, but they cost more than batteries.

[Anonymous]

Guess that's simple enough. [:p] Thanks.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Blue Ridge Front

On the NC transportation map it shows the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) running from Charlotte to Raleigh, and then to Beaufort on the coast. Two Amtrak train services in North Carolina (the Piedmont and Carolinian) are joint operated with Amtrak and the NCDOT. But Amtrak service on the NCRR only runs between Charlotte and Raleigh, not to Morehead City and Beaufort, and Norfolk Southern as well. What would be the reason for NS leasing the line to the state if not for their own partially funded passenger trains?

NS leases the line to run freight.

LC

[Anonymous]

On the NC transportation map it shows the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) running from Charlotte to Raleigh, and then to Beaufort on the coast. Two Amtrak train services in North Carolina (the Piedmont and Carolinian) are joint operated with Amtrak and the NCDOT. But Amtrak service on the NCRR only runs between Charlotte and Raleigh, not to Morehead City and Beaufort, and Norfolk Southern as well. What would be the reason for NS leasing the line to the state if not for their own partially funded passenger trains?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomubee

LC: Railroad bridges were built to last, but how long? How old is the MacArthur bridge in St. Louis? How old is the Merchant's brige? How old is the KCS bridge north of St. Louis? How old is the Illmo bridge or the bridge at Pine Bluff? How old are the Port Perry and Ohio Connecting bridges in Pittsburgh? How old is the former P&LE bridge at Monaca, Pa? The next question should be how long were they meant to last? The best maintained rail bridge in North America is the Huey P. Long bridge in New Orleans which was completed in 1932. Keep the faith, but I think now is the time to consider a balanced surface transportation policy that involves all methods of ground transport. I feel we've been lucky so far as rail bridges are concerned.

No doubt. As I said above rail bridges need help. So do highway bridges in many areas. Real thoughtful and focussed financial help for our rail system is needed. I have no disagreement with that. What I disagree with is the quickness to blame the railroads for not earning the cost of capital where the competition is subsidized and the customers are doing their best to usurp railroad revenues with BS ideas like "Open Access". I'll bet those big mines and mills wouldn't open their facilities for use by generic brands competing with them. Why should the railroads?

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Actually, I was trying to make a point about what can happen when the demand for the goods or services of a capital intensive business begin to outpace capacity. There is a tendency to think that open access would reduce rates because of added competition. It wouldn't necesarily be the case.

I, in fact, think that if the American railroads went to the split infrastructure-operating entities, the result would be comparable to the British experience. For whatever reasons, they have not had enough money flowing into infrastructure maintenance.

Underlining many of the suggestions on this thread is the idea that the railroads can save their way to prosperity. I think the cash requirements are too great for that to happen. I see three fundamental choices.

1. Increase taxpayer's money flowing to railroads.

2. Increase the share that trucks and other modes contribute to government maintained rights-of-way. (Results in increased charges for those modes and allows railroads to increase their rates on existing business).

3. Go home.

Take your pick.

A couple of comments both in reference to the above and also Mark Hemphill's comments.

1. This needs to happen no matter what. Historically, although railroads have been private businesses they have been formed by government charter, aided by government right of way grants and the legal power of condemnation associated with the charters. Police powers for railroad police forces. Financial assistance has been provided by the government in various ways. Direct grants, loans and land grants have all been provided at various times. The quid pro quo for this has always been the common carrier obligation required of a rail carrier in interstate commerce. Some of these government programs methods need to be revived in a meaningful and focussed way. A way that doesn't unjustly enrich the railroads and their shareholders and yet provides necessary infrastructure relief. My sense of the Congress is that in our post 9/11 world transportation issues are beginning to receive more notice. Look at H.R. 876 the short line sponsored tax relief bill that garnered as many co-sponsors in the House as any other bill with material provisions in this Congress.

2. Increasing the share paid by truckers is unrealistic. Trucking has even thinner margins than the railroads. They would go bust trying to pay it.

3. This will result in gridlock and disasters.

I have to respectfully disagree at least in part with Mark on the capability of short lines to wring some savings out of railroads previously operated by the Class 1s. If this wasn't possible many of the short lines that have been around for decades simply would no longer exist because they would have used up their infrastructure long ago. No doubt many short lines are using up infrastructure and not reinvesting adequately to preserve rail service in the long term. Those will cease to operate even with government assistance as their disinvestment causes customers to locate elsewhere or relocate. Short lines no longer have the major advantages in crew size and some of the more favorable labor conditions they have enjoyed in the past. Short lines still on average pay lower wages and fewer benefits than their larger brethren and have much fewer employees, short lines use older smaller and cheaper locomotives and draw their car supply from Class 1s and leasing markets that allow them to incur less cost than the Class 1s. All this adds up to a small margin which keeps most short lines viable.

LC

[Anonymous]

LC: Railroad bridges were built to last, but how long? How old is the MacArthur bridge in St. Louis? How old is the Merchant's bridge? How old is the KCS bridge north of St. Louis? How old is the Tennessee River bridge north of Chattanooga? How old is the Illmo bridge or the bridge at Pine Bluff? How old are the Port Perry and Ohio Connecting bridges in Pittsburgh? How old is the former P&LE bridge at Monaca, Pa? The next question should be how long were they meant to last? The best maintained rail bridge in North America is the Huey P. Long bridge in New Orleans which was completed in 1932. Keep the faith, but I think now is the time to consider a balanced surface transportation policy that involves all methods of ground transport. I feel we've been lucky so far as rail bridges are concerned.

[Anonymous]

I believe the NS leases a sizeable NC state owned line known as the North Carolina Railway. There are other examples of railroads leasing lines from state or local governments. This is very different from the government simply taking over.

LC

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Here is another thing I wonder about. SInce some railroads don't seem to be overly interested in maintaining the mainlines, what if the government control the mainlines and the railroads just lease access to it. Like trucking companies using the highways.

Railroads do a fine job of maintaining their lines overall. The concept you are speaking of is "Open Access" and would result in the end of the railroad industry as we now know it. Many customer groups pushed for this in the past. The railroad industry won't allow it, nor should it. It is largely a ploy by certain customers to get cheaper rates.

LC

At one point didn't the Southern Railway lease their track in the state of North Carolina or something to that extent?

[jeaton]

Funny thing. I have a number of family members employed in 100% government owned operations. These include a school system, the US Army and NASA. Of course, all of these have been subject to criticism ranging from reasoned to totally irrational rantings. Something like range of the complaints against railroads we can find on this forum. (Note to ALL members: You are not irrational, its somebody else.)

I'm not against taxpayers' money going to places where it is used effectively. All things considered, maybe government ownership isn't so bad. Chicago Metra has done a pretty good job of meeting my needs, and those of quite a few other folks.

Rather than buying out the whole thing, what about funding expansions, keeping ownership of the new facilities, and charging rent for the use. Isn't that something like what is done when one railroad grants trackage rights to another?

[Junctionfan]

What would you suggest should be done in order for the railroads to operate more trains and more people to use them. My desire is to make the highways less conjested, reduce the North American demand for non North American oil researves, reduce pollution, improve economy, improve safety and overall make the railroading business sucessful all at the same time.

[jeaton]

Actually, I was trying to make a point about what can happen when the demand for the goods or services of a capital intensive business begin to outpace capacity. There is a tendency to think that open access would reduce rates because of added competition. It wouldn't necesarily be the case.

I, in fact, think that if the American railroads went to the split infrastructure-operating entities, the result would be comparable to the British experience. For whatever reasons, they have not had enough money flowing into infrastructure maintenance.

Underlining many of the suggestions on this thread is the idea that the railroads can save their way to prosperity. I think the cash requirements are too great for that to happen. I see three fundamental choices.

1. Increase taxpayer's money flowing to railroads.

2. Increase the share that trucks and other modes contribute to government maintained rights-of-way. (Results in increased charges for those modes and allows railroads to increase their rates on existing business).

3. Go home.

Take your pick.

[Junctionfan]

I myself don't see a problem in it. Australia seems to think it is a good idea and it works so I can't see why the U.S and Canada can't do it. With very little railroads remaining do to mergers, I would have thought that it would have been easier for competition since most of the action would only see NS, BNSF, CSX, UP, CN, CP and possibility or KCS. The sprinkling of Amtrak trains is already taken into consideration. The only trains that would really compete with each other are the intermodal traffic. Most of the coals trains already use trackage rights on some lines in order to get where they are going. I am sure that not just NS and CSX run coal to the Toledo Ore Docks. For security purposes, it mean that more police and law enforcement can patrol that area. Instead of keeping watch of many lines they watch a few. The only thing I would advise is to get rid of the railroad crossings. 200 trains a day down a triple track mainline all whistling for a crossing could be quite annoying. I feel sorry for those living in Fostoria where the trains all whistle and they have very few bridges. Not to mention the road traffic backing up if multiple trains go through at once.

[Anonymous]

Here in Victoria (australia) most freight trains have had driver only operation for a number of years. Trains that actually run direct from one place to another with no switching etc only need a single person to drive it. I dont know about the states but it is also dependent on the locomotive type and some locomotives arent permitted to be operated as driver only. These locos are usually seen only as a trailing unit running in multiple with a lead unit that can run driver only.

Also over here the rail network has been for years goverment controlled and up until the mid '90s or sometime was when the state and federal govenments started to privatize. As a result (for one example) there is only a single direct route between Australia's two biggest cities - Melbourne and Sydney. The various rail operators all have track arrangments with the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) an organisation established as an agreement between the state and federal governments. The ARTC manages the national rail network and assigns track slots to the various operators. This has lead to the creation of many rail operators here because it means you can run trains without needing any train track. Thanks to leasing companies you also dont need any locomotives or cars. The ARTC also provides dispatching for all the tracks that make up the interstate rail network with a central dispatching center in Adelaide.

The ARTC monitors all traffic between Melbourne and Sydney (amongst other cities) and controls remotely from Adelaide all the signalling, passing sidings etc. Trains are still given certain priority over others (not sure how this is determined) but operators are free to compete for traffic anywhere in the country that they want to send their trains.
An example of the competition on the network might be a scenario similar to this:

Southbound intermodal train departs Sydney at 9pm for the overnight trip to Melbourne. This train might be operated by Toll Logistics with Pacific National motive power.
At 9:30 another intermodal train might depart Sydney also for Melbourne operated by Patricks Corp using motive power provided again by Pacific National.
At 10pm yet another intermodal train might depart Sydney for Melbourne this time operated by Specialised Container Transport (SCT) with rolling stock and motive power provided by Freight Australia.

The three example trains would all be running on the same track by different operators but actually operating in direct competition with each other. This gets played out every day all across the country. Why could this not be done in the US? Would allow the abandonment of thousands of miles of redundant trackage, with only the tracks with the best gradients, alignment, etc remaing. Save millions of dollars in infrastructure costs would it not?

Just a thought. Feel free to poke it full of holes about why it wouldnt work [;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Right now, I would like to be an infrastructure owner, especially a transcon line. Given that these lines may be near capacity, I would be selling slots for trains to the highest bidders. Talk about an oppurtunity to make big bucks...

The major problem with this idea is that railroads don't earn their cost of capital, meaning that rail rates are not high enough to maintain all the infrastructure as it should be maintained and still earn a profit. Accordingly, there certainly isn't enough revenue for both an infrastructure and an operating compan to realize a profit without cutting corners somewhere. This gets you into the situation that resulted in Great Britain where RailTrack the infrastructure company went bankrupt and rail service went way downhill requiring a government bailout after the split between the infrastructure and operating companies.

It just doesn't add up unless you can substantially increase rates. Given that the customers who are behind open access in the first place want LOWER rates, not higher rates the open access idea is doomed to failure one way or the other...

LC

[TH&B]

I dont think it is as simple as that, as far as i've heard about the "franchizing" or "privatizing" of some state owned railways in Europe and other places the infrrastructre owners become the loosers. For some reason there is no money in it, only expenses. Similar to the those who own our hiways, the government that is, looses money and needs to raise rates and taxes to keep our hiways in good shape because they can't seem to earn it all.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Right now, I would like to be an infrastructure owner, especially a transcon line. Given that these lines may be near capacity, I would be selling slots for trains to the highest bidders. Talk about an oppurtunity to make big bucks...

Thats the idea the railroads should take. Not just run your trains, let others run trains and make money from them to maintain your tracks.