Trains.com

America's Freight Trains Are First-Class

3578 views
28 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 7:43 PM

Yes, I heard a rumor about dereg.   Their freedom of action is still limited.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
  • 2,148 posts
Posted by rrnut282 on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 4:52 PM

schlimm

With airlines, they receive corporate welfare for building airports and running ATCs, etc., but in turn, they do not have total freedom to operate as they wish without consideration of other factors.   

You do understand that domestic carriers are deregulated, right?  Other than a few restrictions at slot-limited airports, airlines are free to add/drop flights as they see fit.  They are also free to raise or lower fares, provided they are not colluding or violating any other provision of the anti-trust laws.

Mike (2-8-2)
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 3:20 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH

I may be a bit off-track here, but it appears that Harrison's willingness to grant reciprocal switching as a condition of a proposed CP/NS merger sounds a lot like the concessions that Stuart Saunders made to labor as a condition of the PC merger.

Sounds like bait and switch to me.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 7:12 AM

I may be a bit off-track here, but it appears that Harrison's willingness to grant reciprocal switching as a condition of a proposed CP/NS merger sounds a lot like the concessions that Stuart Saunders made to labor as a condition of the PC merger.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 2:59 PM

NorthWest

Is it not open acess that is being proposed with this merger, but reciprocal switching?

Which in today's world of contracted rates between carriers and customers - 'new reciprocal switching' constitutes open access.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 2:02 PM

Is it not open acess that is being proposed with this merger, but reciprocal switching?

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 11:40 AM

schlimm

 

 
CSSHEGEWISCH

Let's hope that futuremodal doesn't see those comments about open access.

 

 

 

He's the other poster who was before my time.   However, I believe that open access will happen, eventually leading to the national rail grid bought and maintained by a quasi-government corporation.  The railroads will become like trucking companies, operating competing services on a streamlined, efficient and partially electrified network.   The rails will use the proceeds to modernize beyond our current imagination.

 

Could happen but it's hard to see that there would be the Political agreement/will and public desire necessary for that much taxpayers money going to such a project.

 I imagine though that any future freight electrification would only occur in the context of some kind of public/private partnership scheme..

 I've found the discussions here over the years about Open Access very interesting but have always thought many of the proponents seem to overlook how and why open access has been successful in the areas where it has (i.e. in Europe);

 It is a solution that mainly came into vogue to replace direct Government operation of railways. The proponents arguing replacing the existing private system in the U.S have not, in my humble opinion, made very convincing arguments on why the current situation is not working. Some argue that open access would get more trucks off the roads and make there morning commute easier while others seem to wish for a return to some aspects of Pre-Staggers freight operations (small town branch railroading, intermodal handled like carload service, etc.).

 

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 11:12 AM

schlimm
 
CSSHEGEWISCH

Let's hope that futuremodal doesn't see those comments about open access.

 

 

 

He's the other poster who was before my time.   However, I believe that open access will happen, eventually leading to the national rail grid bought and maintained by a quasi-government corporation.  The railroads will become like trucking companies, operating competing services on a streamlined, efficient and partially electrified network.   The rails will use the proceeds to modernize beyond our current imagination.

 

Surprise Yikes!!!  With a statement like that, are you sure you aren't futuremodaL??? Devil


     Are you sure about not being familiar with MichaelSol and futuremodal?  Maybe you've just been successful at putting them out of your memory.  I know I've tried.

     My join date shows May, 2005.  Yours shows July 2006.  I'm fairly certin that Mike and Dave were around for several years after I joined this forum.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 9:29 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

Let's hope that futuremodal doesn't see those comments about open access.

 

He's the other poster who was before my time.   However, I believe that open access will happen, eventually leading to the national rail grid bought and maintained by a quasi-government corporation.  The railroads will become like trucking companies, operating competing services on a streamlined, efficient and partially electrified network.   The rails will use the proceeds to modernize beyond our current imagination.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 8:18 AM

Let's hope that futuremodal doesn't see those comments about open access.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, November 30, 2015 4:40 PM

wanswheel
.
“Up until now, American railroads have been fighting calls for open access tooth-and-nail. But Hunter Harrison, the Canadian Pacific’s larger-than-life, charismatic CEO, says that if his railroad is able to merge with Norfolk Southern, the new, bigger railroad will gladly grant open access to accommodate shippers that aren’t satisfied with its service.......

   If open access is such a good idea, why wait until the merger?  Why not open up CP tomorrow to show how serious you are?  In fact, if I was one of those shippers on CP that's not satisfied with my service, I'd be demanding just that.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Cordes Jct Ariz.
  • 1,305 posts
Posted by switch7frg on Monday, November 30, 2015 4:27 PM

In spite of all the best intentions, " The Good Old Boys Greed Graft and Corruption" shall and will  prevail. Money vs. power.

Y6bs evergreen in my mind

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Monday, November 30, 2015 3:05 PM
The article’s main point: please let our Railroader of the Year(s) make a merger happen.
“Up until now, American railroads have been fighting calls for open access tooth-and-nail. But Hunter Harrison, the Canadian Pacific’s larger-than-life, charismatic CEO, says that if his railroad is able to merge with Norfolk Southern, the new, bigger railroad will gladly grant open access to accommodate shippers that aren’t satisfied with its service. In short, competition is a good thing — something North America’s freight system has long known.”
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,018 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, November 30, 2015 2:15 PM

CMStPnP
That has to do with your school district.

Pretty much standard practice for all school districts here, actually.  Spring break provides the overflow cushion for the 4-5 days (I think) they already allow for snow days.  It's been that way for the almost 40 years I've lived here, and aside from kids wanting the whole snow day, there aren't many complaints.

Gotta remember that we're in the lake effect belt.  That weighs heavily on snow day planning around here.

And - many times, the only reason for delaying the start of school is so the custodial crews can get the parking lots cleared off, and the highway crews can do their magic.  I can usually tell if school's been cancelled by what time the plow goes by my house...

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, November 30, 2015 8:42 AM

tree68
While those who live in non-snow states might not experience it, those of us familiar with "snow days" know that more often than not, the schools open late (rather than closing entirely) so they can get in their required days - otherwise they won't get their "state aid," a major portion of their annual budget.

That has to do with your school district.    The public High School I attended in Wisconsin had a floating last day of school and an estimated 4 snow days.   If they exceeded the 4 snow days they would push the last day of school back, if they did not use all the 4 snow days they would move the last day of school forwards.    Easy to do with teacher contracts and really you should be all over your school district if they are not doing this because the other methods are stupid.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, November 30, 2015 8:33 AM

schlimm

Why should taxpayers give grants to any private businesses uness there is some demonstrable social benefit to those taxpayers? 

With airlines, they receive corporate welfare for building airports and running ATCs, etc., but in turn, they do not have total freedom to operate as they wish without consideration of other factors.    

Well three items here I agree with that need to be fixed in my opinion.

Bankruptcy Laws:   How can Verizon form an offshoot company called Idearc which would only ever generate $1.2 Billion a year and whose business is clearly declining and then move over $8 Billion in debt to it?    Any level headed person or business Executive could see that would fail and cause a good portion of the bondholders to lose their money.    This happened.     Now zero in on the small businessman, is he able to do the same thing?   No.   Because most creditors will force a small businessman to sign a personal guarantee which overrides the rules of "unlimited liabilty" that a C Corporation offers.   Forcing the small businessman into the very severe Chapter 7 bankruptcy if they go bankrupt (vs Chapter 11 for large C Corps).   Why Congress allows this to happen is anyones guess but it is a huge discrepancy between the large guy C Corporations and the small guy C Corporations.   The rules are NOT the same for both.........which is unfair.

Second Industrial Revenue Bonds and Tax Incremental financing:     In my opinion when states are allowed to use these tools to compete against each other to attract a company........the taxpayer always gets screwed because in the larger U.S. Economy we are just shifting deck chairs on the Titanic with the taxpayers money being lost in two areas (area losing the company plus the area gaining the company) with no real benefit except to the company itself.     So in my view Congress should outlaw the use of both tools unless it is used to attract overseas companies located overseas........in which case, 50% of the loss is eliminated.   Plus there should be rules on how generous these packages should be so they do not go overboard.    There should be some tax benefit to the attracting community within 10-15 years in my opinion.     The agreements that go over that limit are just stupid.

Last item, TORT REFORM:, need to cap how much an individual and/or Corporation can sue to recover damages for specific items.     I would put a inflation adjustment on the caps of course but we need caps.   Awarding an individual $100 million for something is ridiculous..........if anything I would cut it to $20 million and if the rest is needed to make the corporation pay attention, have it pay into a local Community fund or mandate a chairitable contribution.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,018 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, November 30, 2015 8:18 AM

schlimm
Public schools are funded and also controlled by the local community quite tightly.

Yeah, right.  

While those who live in non-snow states might not experience it, those of us familiar with "snow days" know that more often than not, the schools open late (rather than closing entirely) so they can get in their required days - otherwise they won't get their "state aid," a major portion of their annual budget.

And then we get into unfunded mandates - the stuff the state says the schools have to do, or else...  But which they don't fund...  The impact is significant.

The corporate welfare thing also bleeds into the private sector.  You'll find that many malls, even when built with zero taxpayer support, don't charge much rent, or anything, to the "anchor stores" because they are a major attraction to the mall.  The smaller stores then benefit from that attraction.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, November 29, 2015 10:08 PM

schlimm
Sports stadia are one of the worst cases. Numerous studies have shown the local governments are net losers.

 

"Welcome to the American dream: a billionaire using public funds to construct a private playground for the rich and powerful."  -Mr. Burns (The Simpsons, episode 428).

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

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, November 29, 2015 9:45 PM

The question is control over the way the subsidy/corporate welfare is used.  There are some parameters to grants, but much of the way it is used is up to the recipient. Public schools are funded and also controlled by the local community quite tightly.

Murphy makes a good point about 'economic zones' and TIFs.  Incentives are made to corporations to relocate a factory or office in return for grants and no taxes for some time period.  Yet often they leave again just before the tax holiday ends.

Sports stadia are one of the worst cases.  Numerous studies have shown the local governments are net losers.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, November 29, 2015 8:43 PM

schlimm

Why should taxpayers give grants to any private businesses uness there is some demonstrable social benefit to those taxpayers?  

 The social benefit generally put forth is bringing *new* jobs to the area.  Actually, the jobs just move from one location to another.  I would prefer that we cut out all tax incentives aimed at simply stealing jobs from any other area.  It's counterproductive and illogical.

     Many times I've read where government money was used for rail expansion projects for the demonstrable social benefit of getting freight off the hiways so that tax money doesn't need to be use to add new lanes, etc..

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:08 PM

schlimm
Why should taxpayers give grants to any private businesses uness there is some demonstrable social benefit to those taxpayers?

I believe that can also be applied to public enterprises as well. For example, our educational systemfrom K-12 right up through the unversities. When the young aren't getting an education is there any social benefit?

Politics, here we come. SoapBox

Norm


  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, November 29, 2015 3:55 PM

schlimm

Why should taxpayers give grants to any private businesses uness there is some demonstrable social benefit to those taxpayers? 

With airlines, they receive corporate welfare for building airports and running ATCs, etc., but in turn, they do not have total freedom to operate as they wish without consideration of other factors.  

Why should localities attempt to enhance there receptiveness to creating jobs in their jusrisdictions using tax funds.  Because they believe more jobs will generate more business and more tax revenue in their areas.  Business investests in areas that will enhance their return on investment.  Localities do the same.  Some 'deals' are better than others.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, November 29, 2015 2:40 PM

Why should taxpayers give grants to any private businesses uness there is some demonstrable social benefit to those taxpayers? 

With airlines, they receive corporate welfare for building airports and running ATCs, etc., but in turn, they do not have total freedom to operate as they wish without consideration of other factors.   

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, November 29, 2015 2:35 PM

My issue isn't that the railroads are going after tax money.  My issue is that this article starts out with a disingenuous statement of they don't do that.  and then goes on to show how they, in fact, do that.

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

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, November 29, 2015 2:30 PM

Corporate welfare.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, November 29, 2015 2:14 PM

zugmann

In the first paragraph we have: 

"All at an unbeatable cost to taxpayers — nothing. The railroads own, maintain, and pay taxes on their infrastructure."

------------

 

Then later:

"The freight system, as cost-effective as it is, does require some government funding. Many of the intermodal terminals are financed through public-private partnerships. The railroad puts up most of the money to build the terminal. State and, on occasion, federal dollars complete the package."

 

Hmm.

The railroads are going after the low hanging economic development grants and programs that local juristictions are offering to spur economic development in their areas.  If there is 'free money' available the carriers would not be honoring their fiduciary obligations if they didn't make an effort to secure it.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, November 29, 2015 1:27 PM

In the first paragraph we have: 

"All at an unbeatable cost to taxpayers — nothing. The railroads own, maintain, and pay taxes on their infrastructure."

------------

 

Then later:

"The freight system, as cost-effective as it is, does require some government funding. Many of the intermodal terminals are financed through public-private partnerships. The railroad puts up most of the money to build the terminal. State and, on occasion, federal dollars complete the package."

 

Hmm.

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

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, November 29, 2015 12:56 PM

zardoz

An interesting, well-written, and WELL INFORMED article from the Boston Globe regarding the nation's railroads. Article also includes links to many quite interesting (at least to me) articles.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/11/29/america-freight-trains-are-first-class/YVAziNmLeoBLOatqIu7nMN/story.html

 

 

William C. Vantuono is editor in chief of Railway Age magazine.  Would be the reason that the article is well writtena and well informed.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
America's Freight Trains Are First-Class
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, November 29, 2015 11:46 AM

An interesting, well-written, and WELL INFORMED article from the Boston Globe regarding the nation's railroads. Article also includes links to many quite interesting (at least to me) articles.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/11/29/america-freight-trains-are-first-class/YVAziNmLeoBLOatqIu7nMN/story.html

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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