John WR henry6I cringe when I hear or read "open access railroads". It would be a nightmare to set up, maintain, and operate! I'm not really advocating open access, Henry. The Government certainly can and does limit access on the transportation routes it owns and operates. I cannot get on my bicycle and ride along many state highways, any interstate highway or toll road. And restrictions on air ways and water ways are even more severe. Were the government to own our rail lines it certainly could restrict access as appropriate. For example, in the Northeast Corridor Amtrak allows freight trains but only during certain hours.
henry6I cringe when I hear or read "open access railroads". It would be a nightmare to set up, maintain, and operate!
I'm not really advocating open access, Henry. The Government certainly can and does limit access on the transportation routes it owns and operates. I cannot get on my bicycle and ride along many state highways, any interstate highway or toll road. And restrictions on air ways and water ways are even more severe. Were the government to own our rail lines it certainly could restrict access as appropriate. For example, in the Northeast Corridor Amtrak allows freight trains but only during certain hours.
Ditto. Given the pushback seen here however, it's unlikely it would ever happen.
But there are models that could be drawn from. Airports deal with a plethora of airlines and their aircraft every day. There is careful scheduling so everyone gets slotted. Hiccups do occur - if one major airport experiences significant delays, the ripples can spread across the country. As John alludes, there are stringent requirements for being a river pilot, or an airline pilot. In fact, there are stringent requirements for being a locomotive engineer - including knowledge of the territory. There's no reason that this would change.
The railroads have already done a version of open access, if you will, with Railbox - "next load, any road."
But the whole topic is fodder for another thread. As for nationalizing the railroads, nah.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
And when the government shuts down over a feud in Congress, the government owned railroad system would shut down, and the entire transportation system of the country would head for ,melt-down. Maybe not such a good idea.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
John WR zugmannI wonder what my pay would be as a gov't employee? Probably get more vacation time, that's for sure. Zugman, I don't know where you live. You could check out Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administraton, a local commuter railroad if your state has one and your state's Department of Transportation. I also don't know which railroad you work for. You may find out you are better off where you are or you might want to consider moving to another private railroad company. John
zugmannI wonder what my pay would be as a gov't employee? Probably get more vacation time, that's for sure.
Zugman,
I don't know where you live. You could check out Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administraton, a local commuter railroad if your state has one and your state's Department of Transportation.
I also don't know which railroad you work for. You may find out you are better off where you are or you might want to consider moving to another private railroad company.
John
I always keep my eyes open.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
schlimmno property taxes,
I suspect you'd see some pushback from the beneficiaries of property taxes - local governments.
diningcar As a counter proposal why not consider privitizing some segments of the federal government, eg, the Dept. of Commerce.
As a counter proposal why not consider privitizing some segments of the federal government, eg, the Dept. of Commerce.
Considering what is required for campaign financing - hasn't Congress already be privitized? The US has the best form of government money can buy; it is bought and sold daily at all levels.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Big business claims they don't want government interference or control and therefore would not accept or promote this idea, SCHLIMM. However, they have no trouble coming to the government, hat in left hand, right hand extended palm up, and ask for help while denouncing government interference to all within earshot. In effect, they would welcome something like this in the backrooms, work toward keeping it as quiet as possible but tout that they are willing to work with governments to solve problems. Clear?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
schlimm Personally, I think we should leave well enough alone. However, how about proposals to set up a quasi-government unit to maintain and build infrastructure, with specific segments having exclusive contracted operators (i.e., the Big 7 and/or other rail operators)? There would be no conflicts over rights and superiority in operation, as BNSF or UP or whoever would have exclusive use of a given route. There could be some major benefits to the railroads: no property taxes, no maintenance expenses in exchange for fees to operate.
Personally, I think we should leave well enough alone. However, how about proposals to set up a quasi-government unit to maintain and build infrastructure, with specific segments having exclusive contracted operators (i.e., the Big 7 and/or other rail operators)? There would be no conflicts over rights and superiority in operation, as BNSF or UP or whoever would have exclusive use of a given route. There could be some major benefits to the railroads: no property taxes, no maintenance expenses in exchange for fees to operate.
Again NO separation at all. Railroads are an integrated model and should remain an integrated model. Quit suggesting it.
Railroad to Freedom
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I cringe when I hear or read "open access railroads". It would be a nightmare to set up, maintain, and operate! How would you determine rights and superiority, who takes siding for meets and passes, and at what speed is permissible per train commodity? "Train whose owner pays the highest rate has priority over trains paying lower rate except if lower rate reflects discount from higher rates. If rates are equal the dispatcher will instruct the conductors of trains involved to flip a silver dollar provided by an independent source who must be present to oversee the coin toss. If no independent coin source can be found, then WWF rules will apply." Yeah, sure, open access would be a real treat. To watch and bet on.
ontheBNSFDon't turn railroads into an open access model it has failed everywhere it is tried.
True.
ontheBNSF tree68 John WRThe fact of the matter is that government does own all transportation routes with one exception: Railroads. And this walks right into what FM was preaching. Roads, waterways, and the airways are "open access." As long as you meet the appropriate requirements, you can use them (usually for a fee, one way or another). Railroads are privately owned ROWs whose use is restricted to the owner, save specific agreements. Don't turn railroads into an open access model it has failed everywhere it is tried. Railroads are integrated model. If nationalization were to happen it should be both the tracks and operations not just tracks.
tree68 John WRThe fact of the matter is that government does own all transportation routes with one exception: Railroads. And this walks right into what FM was preaching. Roads, waterways, and the airways are "open access." As long as you meet the appropriate requirements, you can use them (usually for a fee, one way or another). Railroads are privately owned ROWs whose use is restricted to the owner, save specific agreements.
John WRThe fact of the matter is that government does own all transportation routes with one exception: Railroads.
And this walks right into what FM was preaching. Roads, waterways, and the airways are "open access." As long as you meet the appropriate requirements, you can use them (usually for a fee, one way or another).
Railroads are privately owned ROWs whose use is restricted to the owner, save specific agreements.
Don't turn railroads into an open access model it has failed everywhere it is tried. Railroads are integrated model. If nationalization were to happen it should be both the tracks and operations not just tracks.
I think "failed everywhere it's been tried" is not exactly a fair statement as much of Europe uses the open access model, at least partially. But I grant you not all of the examples have been stellar succeses.
In the US most government owned transit systems are actually operated by private companies anyway, Amtrak obv. being an exception (although it competes for transit operations contracts as well).
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Irrespective of the merits of nationalization of the railroads vs. the current arrangement, which I favor, the federal government, with nearly $17 trillion of debt, would be hard pressed to find the money to nationalize the rails. If the national debt is not a show stopper, adding in unfunded liabilities of $46 trillion would do the trick.
henry6 First, stop comparing the US to Canada and other countries. The US is different than the others in terms of government, politics, social and other issues. Our people do not accept so much of what happens elsewhere because we are so independent of the world.
First, stop comparing the US to Canada and other countries. The US is different than the others in terms of government, politics, social and other issues. Our people do not accept so much of what happens elsewhere because we are so independent of the world.
Sure, tell that to the Arabs.
henry6 Could be a lot less...like zero as you could very likely be out of job, especially if you are below the top 5% of seniority on your roster...you may in fact be below 50% on a national roster!
Could be a lot less...like zero as you could very likely be out of job, especially if you are below the top 5% of seniority on your roster...you may in fact be below 50% on a national roster!
Yeah, I doubt it.
henry6But as far as a totally government owned and operated rail system? Never will happen. Nor should it.
I wonder what my pay would be as a gov't employee? Probably get more vacation time, that's for sure.
First, stop comparing the US to Canada and other countries. The US is different than the others in terms of government, politics, social and other issues. Our people do not accept so much of what happens elsewhere because we are so independent of the world. As for monopolies, we have them in our rail system in that with the Big 6 Class Ones there is very little town to town etc, but much more competition region to region and markets to markets. In towns where there used to be more than one railroad, there were usually competitive rates but today a town is held hostage by whichever Class One serves it or the shortline servicing it. Government agencies in states and municipalities might own the track and lease it to an operator but the Class Ones all own their own tracks, etc. We do have a hodge podge of rules, regulations and rails and philosophies contradicting and complementing inside the mix. But as far as a totally government owned and operated rail system? Never will happen. Nor should it.
Ulrich Well, agreed then, a monopoly would be in no one's best interest...even the monopoly itself wouldn't work well without some form of competition.
Well, agreed then, a monopoly would be in no one's best interest...even the monopoly itself wouldn't work well without some form of competition.
Something has to be made clear the government wouldn't be creating a monopoly or granting a monopoly of any kind. The government would take over an already existing monopoly the result of mergers. I wouldn't nationalize today's railroads but railroads they came as a result of further mergers. If there is only one railroad per region then in my view nationalization is justified. I would also support a program to restore service to areas that have lost it.
Ulrich carnej1 tree68 UlrichActually not a bad idea. Government and business can co exist. In the end it would probably depend on whether the government-run railroad became a political football (see: Amtrak) or not. If allowed to operate relatively free of government interference (including no government appointees), we'd probably never notice the difference. Who is we? Railfans???? If you are a shipper who currently has the option of shipping on more than one railroad (as intermodal shippers do) and then you only have a government owned monoply available you certainly would notice the difference.... What doesn't become a political football? Amtrak and the US Postal Service are both quasi -autonomous and they are unquestionably "footballs"... You confuse monopoly with government ownership. Here in Canada we had a government owned railway running alongside a private one for many years. It worked for 80 some years and would probably still work today. To imply that all government run organizations are necessarily corrupt and incompetent would be as silly as to say all private enterprises are honest and well run. It doesn't matter who owns it so long as it is well run. And yes, we is railfans.
carnej1 tree68 UlrichActually not a bad idea. Government and business can co exist. In the end it would probably depend on whether the government-run railroad became a political football (see: Amtrak) or not. If allowed to operate relatively free of government interference (including no government appointees), we'd probably never notice the difference. Who is we? Railfans???? If you are a shipper who currently has the option of shipping on more than one railroad (as intermodal shippers do) and then you only have a government owned monoply available you certainly would notice the difference.... What doesn't become a political football? Amtrak and the US Postal Service are both quasi -autonomous and they are unquestionably "footballs"...
tree68 UlrichActually not a bad idea. Government and business can co exist. In the end it would probably depend on whether the government-run railroad became a political football (see: Amtrak) or not. If allowed to operate relatively free of government interference (including no government appointees), we'd probably never notice the difference.
UlrichActually not a bad idea. Government and business can co exist.
In the end it would probably depend on whether the government-run railroad became a political football (see: Amtrak) or not. If allowed to operate relatively free of government interference (including no government appointees), we'd probably never notice the difference.
Who is we? Railfans????
If you are a shipper who currently has the option of shipping on more than one railroad (as intermodal shippers do) and then you only have a government owned monoply available you certainly would notice the difference....
What doesn't become a political football? Amtrak and the US Postal Service are both quasi -autonomous and they are unquestionably "footballs"...
You confuse monopoly with government ownership. Here in Canada we had a government owned railway running alongside a private one for many years. It worked for 80 some years and would probably still work today.
To imply that all government run organizations are necessarily corrupt and incompetent would be as silly as to say all private enterprises are honest and well run. It doesn't matter who owns it so long as it is well run.
And yes, we is railfans.
I do know the history of CN but what the original poster was suggesting would be a Government monopoly.
I didn't say or imply all government run enterprises are corrupt or incompetent, I would point to the Alaska Railroad as a good example of what you are talking about.
Having the US government take over CSX, NS, UP, and BNSF (and presumably KCS and CN/CP's US lines) is a whole other "kettle of fish"..
ontheBNSFIf the Class 1 railroads were to become larger than they are now where is only one railroad per region then in my view it would be best to nationalize them.
The fact of the matter is that government does own all transportation routes with one exception: Railroads. Roads, waterways and as a practical matter air routes are all owned by the government. There has never been a serious political effort to change this or to get the government out of the transportation business. That government should not own railroads (and I don't include rolling stock) is a contradiction in our transportation policy.
You suggest that we would be better off today if the government owned railroads. You don't address historical arguments and I will not. But if today government were to take over ownership of railroad tracks that would bring rail transportation policy into a consistent policy framework with all other transportation.
carnej1 Who is we? Railfans???? If you are a shipper who currently has the option of shipping on more than one railroad (as intermodal shippers do) and then you only have a government owned monoply available you certainly would notice the difference.... What doesn't become a political football? Amtrak and the US Postal Service are both quasi -autonomous and they are unquestionably "footballs"...
Bingo!
Actually, this is more or less something FutureModal pushed for quite a while, although his focus was on "open access."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.