Euclid Fred Frailey seems to look at China and see their success at building new railroads while assuming that we have not been successful in modernizing our railroads. Based on that observation, he speculates that we might be able to get China to share their success with us.
Fred Frailey seems to look at China and see their success at building new railroads while assuming that we have not been successful in modernizing our railroads.
Based on that observation, he speculates that we might be able to get China to share their success with us.
Didn't China use steam engines until recently. I remember a picture in the 90s(?) that showed steam engines in China being used for mainline service. So considering that the US RRs made the transition in the 50s, and have been improving since then, while the Chinese transitioned in the last two decades and introduced new technology to their RRs, the Chinese really aren't more successful than us, they just updated quickly all at once.
When you have two actual coast to coast railroads competing for intermodal traffic, and the traffic for most points between….
Fred, didn’t Holden resign yesterday?
So the Prez needs to hustle a new appointee in pretty quick if he wants the attitude to remain.
Schlimm, end to end is just what Don Phillips and Buffet discussed.
And those places served by two or more carriers now would still have the same service, maybe a different paint on the locomotive, but pretty much the same beyond that
And the business for shortlines and regionals would increase, I would imagine the number of places where they could access both mega roads would increase,
Even my little road would see more business, as it is right now, we receive about 75% of our business from the middle and western parts of the country, but an merger like this would open up the east coast to us more.
23 17 46 11
I think you are correct, Ed. It is the STB which has primary responsibility for merger approval and the issues involved are competition vs public benefits in terms of efficiencies. Conflict of interest has no bearing. Here is a scholarly article reviewing the UP/SP merger strictly in terms of claimed and actual benefits.
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/union-pacific/southern-pacific-rail-merger-retrospective-merger-benefits/wp269_0.pdf
Since the mergers discussed would be end-to-end, competition would not be reduced.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
edblysard Less interchange, less switching, faster transit times, less yard dwell time.
Less interchange, less switching, faster transit times, less yard dwell time.
All solid advantages of consolidation. However, all seven Class Ones are printing money in their present alignment, and I wonder if the impulse to tinker is very strong. Also, given the present clog of traffic, I'd think the rails need the digestion problems of merger like a hole in the head.
Maybe when things slow down again? In any case, Kyle is right that any Department of Justice similar to Eric Holder's would be all over a Big Two or Big Three.
Well, I am not going to argue it with you, since no matter what I or anyone else says, you will take the opposite viewpoint to continue dragging this on.
edblysard The two mega railroad idea is not new, been around for about a decade, Don Phillips discussed it in one of his columns around 2010, he had mentioned it to Warren Buffet, who had said it was a real possibility. If UP hooks up with, say NS and BNSF with CSX or the Canadians, then we would have a pair of true trans con railroads, coast to coast service on either carrier. There would be a lot of trackage right deals and agreements needed, but I think the economy of scale would, in the end, drive prices down. Less interchange, less switching, faster transit times, less yard dwell time. While I don’t see it happening anytime soon, within the next decade it might begin to form up.
The two mega railroad idea is not new, been around for about a decade, Don Phillips discussed it in one of his columns around 2010, he had mentioned it to Warren Buffet, who had said it was a real possibility.
If UP hooks up with, say NS and BNSF with CSX or the Canadians, then we would have a pair of true trans con railroads, coast to coast service on either carrier.
There would be a lot of trackage right deals and agreements needed, but I think the economy of scale would, in the end, drive prices down.
While I don’t see it happening anytime soon, within the next decade it might begin to form up.
However, one could argue with only two major RRs, the cost wouldn't go down even if the merger saves money, it could just be considered more profit. It could also lead to prices climbing because there is almost no competition to keep prices low which generally comes from competition.
Again, isn't there some law about conflict of interest? Even if the railroads sat down and agreed to merge, wouldn't that then have to be approved by the federal government? If something is going to happen, it sounds like it will take a lot of time.
Kyle Is it just me, or do you think Fred Frailey has gone crazy.
Forum rule #1. So now you are off-topic again by introducing the question of Fred Frailey's mental status. Credentials?
Forum rule #2. "No personal attacks or name-calling." If you weren't making a serious clinical judgement by your comment on Fred Frailey, then you were name calling.
Frailey is skylarking, particularly on open access. Slow news day? Again, so soon?
First Fred is talking about the Chinese investing in US railroads, now he is talking about all the RRs mergering into two major railroads. Doesn't the government have to approve of mergers, since they want to prevent a monopoly. Is it just me, or do you think Fred Frailey has gone crazy.
Also, in investing, isn't there a law that you can't buy large shares of competing companies. It is called conflict of interest I believe. All of this prevents a few individuals or companies from controlling the market and being able to unfairly raise prices. Different class 1 RRs keeps all of them honest and competitive so they have reasonable low prices.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm KyleFor one, it outlines how China's foreign policy is aggressive towards other nations, and they will walk over any nation they can. The Chinese are building up their military, which effects the security of the US, which directly effects US RRs. Not to mention it shows that the Chinese are trying to rival our military power, and try to show that they are just as strong if not stronger than we are. The way they were involved in the incident with te USS Cowpens shows that they want to act aggressivally torwards us. Open up your eyes and ears and read between the lines. "Directly affect US railroads." By your logic,anything and everything is directly related to US railroads: tourism in Paris, Ukraine, the ruins of Athens, the Dodgers, et al.. And your answer will be to not answer at all, but to simply continue on your soap box spouting your views on foreign affairs. YES BUT, indeed!!
KyleFor one, it outlines how China's foreign policy is aggressive towards other nations, and they will walk over any nation they can. The Chinese are building up their military, which effects the security of the US, which directly effects US RRs. Not to mention it shows that the Chinese are trying to rival our military power, and try to show that they are just as strong if not stronger than we are. The way they were involved in the incident with te USS Cowpens shows that they want to act aggressivally torwards us. Open up your eyes and ears and read between the lines.
"Directly affect US railroads."
By your logic,anything and everything is directly related to US railroads: tourism in Paris, Ukraine, the ruins of Athens, the Dodgers, et al.. And your answer will be to not answer at all, but to simply continue on your soap box spouting your views on foreign affairs.
YES BUT, indeed!!
Please explain how tourism in Paris, Ukraine, the ruins of Athens, the Dodgers, etc. affects US.
It doesn't! However world economics effect traffic and other aspects of US railroads. When we talk about the possiblity of the Chinese government (not a private company!) investing in US railroads, you must understand their foreign policy, and international incidents that would also show how they are thinking.
Will you kindly step off your soap box of trying to explain how this thread is against forum policy. This thread is within all forum policies.
You are ! Please do not post in this thread unless your post are solely about the topic (Chinese investing in US railroads). You are filling this thread with post.
schlimm 1. There are no restrictions in the US on investment in US corporations, other than some defense contractors. Changing that would require major legislation. Good luck with that.
1. There are no restrictions in the US on investment in US corporations, other than some defense contractors. Changing that would require major legislation. Good luck with that.
Are you sure about that? I really have no idea if there are restrictions when it comes to railroads, however there are restrictions on foreign ownership of US airlines.
http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/books-online/Aviationlawpt1.pdf
Edit. Never mind. I had not even thought about the Canadian roads owning and merging their US subsidiaries.
An "expensive model collector"
In his blog piece, Fred Frailey says this:
“So what should float into my line of vision but an idea from David Williams, a transportation consultant. David says: Let the Chinese finance and build the U.S. rail infrastructure that railroads say they cannot afford to build.”
I don’t think that basic premise of Fred’s blog holds water in terms of economics. If the demand for new rail transportation is there, and if it can be financed at a profit, the capital to do it will be there too; no matter whether it comes from investors in the U.S. or in China. But if the cost is too high to return the investment, there is nothing China can do about that problem unless they are willing to subsidize us. If they do that, the implications are bound to deepen the complexity of our relationship.
I think the topic China's world objectives do directly affect the rail industry and railroads. We are talking about an unprecedented new business partnership with China to revamp and expand our entire U.S. railroad system. Such a partnership must take into account all facets of our ongoing relationship with China, particularly where our mutual interests conflict.
Just because you started a thread to further your views about foreign policy viz a viz China with some specious relation to US railroads does not give you the right to proclaim "end of discussion." Your logic in regard to Fred Fraley and this forum escapes me. He is a paid writer for Kalmbach, If they gave him a blog to say whatever he wants, that does not mean those policies apply here. Apples and oranges. Given your history, I'm surprised you didn't make some tangential post about shooting people who violate rail crossings.
schlimm dakotafred C'mon, Schlimm. You don't want to play traffic cop like Sam1, do you? No, Fred. Sam1 had that role locked up because of accounting background. But I think it is wise for us to avoid politically charged posts which have rather little direct bearing on railroading. For example, a post about Chinese railroading is relevant to railroading, while a post about disputes over the Spratlies / Nansha/ Quần đảo Trường Sais/ Kapuluan ng Kalayaan islands is not, IMO. While I think free trade vs protectionism is a topic we should have had more of a national discussion on, it's not directly connected to railroads, only indirectly.
dakotafred C'mon, Schlimm. You don't want to play traffic cop like Sam1, do you?
C'mon, Schlimm. You don't want to play traffic cop like Sam1, do you?
Will you stop filling this thread with how you think this is off topic. If you really think that the moderators disapproved of this, contact them, and while your at it explain how Fred's blog is against Trains policy.
In my view, Trains supports Fred, they gave him his own blog area. If they felt this discussion was against their policies, they would have deleted it. So, this thread is acceptable.
End of discussion, from now on please post only things that are on the topic of the thread. If you would like to continue, please start another thread.
Please no post from now on in this thread.
schlimm EuclidOne facet of that relationship is our position on China’s assertion of disputed territorial rights. I assume that was Kyle’s point in citing the article on the South China Sea. How do Chinese activities in the S. China Sea DIRECTLY affect US railroads?
EuclidOne facet of that relationship is our position on China’s assertion of disputed territorial rights. I assume that was Kyle’s point in citing the article on the South China Sea.
How do Chinese activities in the S. China Sea DIRECTLY affect US railroads?
For one, it outlines how China's foreign policy is aggressive towards other nations, and they will walk over any nation they can. The Chinese are building up their military, which effects the security of the US, which directly effects US RRs. Not to mention it shows that the Chinese are trying to rival our military power, and try to show that they are just as strong if not stronger than we are. The way they were involved in the incident with te USS Cowpens shows that they want to act aggressivally torwards us. Open up your eyes and ears and read between the lines.
Leo_Ames We have a report function for posts that violate the rules in order to avoid this. Let the moderator's moderate, please.
We have a report function for posts that violate the rules in order to avoid this. Let the moderator's moderate, please.
schlimm4. Foreign policy in terms of Chinese activities in the China Sea is not directly related to railroads in the US. The is a violation of forum Terms of Use and the further explanation: "No political discussions or signature messages." "1.) Trains encourages discussion of government, regulation, public policy, taxation, and other elements of the U.S. political system as it directly affects the rail industry and railroads." I believe Euclid is quite in error in his citing of the above rule. It is quite clear.
When you talk about having China finance and build our infrastructure, our relationship with China is a very big issue. One facet of that relationship is our position on China’s assertion of disputed territorial rights. I assume that was Kyle’s point in citing the article on the South China Sea. And because this was about China building our railroad infrastructure, it seems to me that our interests in the South China Sea are related to the topic of railroads.
So it seems to me that this amounts a discussion of government, public policy, and other elements of the U.S. political system as it directly affects the rail industry and railroads.
And if so, this would be within this forum rule clarification:
1.) Trains encourages discussion of government, regulation, public policy, taxation, and other elements of the U.S. political system as it directly affects the rail industry and railroads.
I would welcome the moderators’ opinion on this matter.
If China (or any other nation) decides to invest in US railroads, I believe it will be limited to those railroads/lines leading from the natural resources that support their economy to the nearest deep water port (just like Fred’s Angola example). Canada’s natural resources and the Canadian railroads may also be attractive to China, although laws in Canada may impede foreign government investment. I am less certain China will have an interest in US railroads purely as an investment strategy.
Have it your way, but you and DakotaFred state a lot of assumptions/political preferences and call them facts.
2. You state "the majority of Americans oppose allowing Chinese to expand US railroads." Cite the evidence for that, please.
3. Fred Fraley's blog is his. He can follow the rules Kalmbach gives him, We must follow the Forum rules.
4. Foreign policy in terms of Chinese activities in the China Sea is not directly related to railroads in the US. The is a violation of forum Terms of Use and the further explanation: "No political discussions or signature messages." "1.) Trains encourages discussion of government, regulation, public policy, taxation, and other elements of the U.S. political system as it directly affects the rail industry and railroads." I believe Euclid is quite in error in his citing of the above rule. It is quite clear.
5. DakotaFred seems to want a return to a protectionist policy since "Buy American" campaigns have had little success, especially when many product sectors have no manufacturers in the USA. good luck with that!
I don’t see anything about this topic that would violate the rules, considering this clarification posted in the top thread on forum rules:
CLARIFICATIONS ON RULES FOR TRAINS FORUMS:The rules Angela posted, above, are from Kalmbach Publishing Co.'s website. They have not changed recently.
There are a few clarifications or interpretations we would like to add, however.
The prohibition on political discussions is meant to prevent blatant electioneering or partisan political discussions. Members of both major political parties in the United States have supported and railed against railroads in their own times. The same political parties also work to elect their members to political offices that set policy, appoint judges, pass laws, and make regulations that deeply affect the rail industry and its customers.
dakotafred gardendance dakotafred well, that's more U.S. treasure transferred to their account Please explain this? Are we offering them subsidized investment? Despite Kyle's entreaty I didn't read the article, but as long as their investment is at market prices I don't see how it's US treasure transferred to their account, any more than if a US resident, or corporation, invested would be US treasure transferred to the resident's or corporation's account. Just as when China sells us a shirt or pair of shoes, the money earned for building additional capacity for a U.S. road would leave the United States instead of sticking around to recirculate, as would happen with a U.S. contractor or if the railroad did the job itself. The United States is currently on the short end of international trade to the tune of almost half a trillion dollars a year. This horse hockey has been going on for 30 years, with the blessing of all learned economists and the leadership of both political parties (but not of millions of Americans who have been beggared in the process).
gardendance dakotafred well, that's more U.S. treasure transferred to their account Please explain this? Are we offering them subsidized investment? Despite Kyle's entreaty I didn't read the article, but as long as their investment is at market prices I don't see how it's US treasure transferred to their account, any more than if a US resident, or corporation, invested would be US treasure transferred to the resident's or corporation's account.
dakotafred well, that's more U.S. treasure transferred to their account
well, that's more U.S. treasure transferred to their account
Please explain this? Are we offering them subsidized investment? Despite Kyle's entreaty I didn't read the article, but as long as their investment is at market prices I don't see how it's US treasure transferred to their account, any more than if a US resident, or corporation, invested would be US treasure transferred to the resident's or corporation's account.
Just as when China sells us a shirt or pair of shoes, the money earned for building additional capacity for a U.S. road would leave the United States instead of sticking around to recirculate, as would happen with a U.S. contractor or if the railroad did the job itself.
The United States is currently on the short end of international trade to the tune of almost half a trillion dollars a year. This horse hockey has been going on for 30 years, with the blessing of all learned economists and the leadership of both political parties (but not of millions of Americans who have been beggared in the process).
This is why we need to buy products MADE IN THE USA!!! Sure the Chinese stuff is a few bucks cheaper, but that is because their workers don't get paid as much. If American works want more pay for their work, they have to be willing to pay more for products. If we buy products made in the US, we will keep the money here. Most factories will move back here. We can also sell natural resources like coal, lumber, etc to China and other countries to bring money back to the US. Exporting manufactured goods and heavy machinery will also boost the economy. If we want to contine to be the wealthiest and most powerful country, we need to buy stuff made here in the US, and improve education. We should also remind the fast food worker that flipping burgers isn't a career, it is a job for people who are young, and working to get a career. If they want higher wages, they need to advance to their career faster.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.