BoydHave any of you people been a part of writing the US tax code? Because i see a moderately complicated thread getting stretched out and warped into something unrecognizeable to the thread topic.
So, business as usual?
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
Have any of you people been a part of writing the US tax code? Because i see a moderately complicated thread getting stretched out and warped into something unrecognizeable to the thread topic.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding I'm still not clear if what you're suggesting is really open access, public ownership of the ROW for the public good, something else, or something in between. Is that a bad thing to ask for clarification? My original post on June 14 stated this quite clearly: "it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW" So what do you not understand in those sentences? Fair enough. It is quite clear. You are advocating having the federal government seize the private property of the railroads and running them as they do in socialist countries in Europe. You'd have some sort of citizen's committee determine the price being paid and have federal troops clear out those who dared to challenge their constitutional rights to due process. The money for this would obviously come from raising taxes on who the committee determines are the wealthy. This whole scenario would be operated by a high level governmental bureaucracy- for the greater good of the working class. I'm glad that was cleared up. You know what? You (so does Euclid) need to learn to read. Instead you spout off with some political nonsense. I never said seize the railroads without compensation. I explicitly stated in the thread that the RoW would be purchased and that freeing up of assets would allow the freight rails make investments in equipment to operate more efficiently. You even said this in a reply to me in one of your posts: "OK, the taxpayers pay for the roads. So you're saying the taxpayers should buy the railroad ROW with tax dollars, and let the railroads use them without owning them or even leasing them." Of course you managed to overlook my statement that the private freight lines would compete to use and pay access fees. I guess you cannot even remember your own words? Perhaps with your ability to distort and spin facts, your talents are wasted in a lumberyard.
Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding I'm still not clear if what you're suggesting is really open access, public ownership of the ROW for the public good, something else, or something in between. Is that a bad thing to ask for clarification? My original post on June 14 stated this quite clearly: "it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW" So what do you not understand in those sentences? Fair enough. It is quite clear. You are advocating having the federal government seize the private property of the railroads and running them as they do in socialist countries in Europe. You'd have some sort of citizen's committee determine the price being paid and have federal troops clear out those who dared to challenge their constitutional rights to due process. The money for this would obviously come from raising taxes on who the committee determines are the wealthy. This whole scenario would be operated by a high level governmental bureaucracy- for the greater good of the working class. I'm glad that was cleared up.
schlimm Murphy Siding I'm still not clear if what you're suggesting is really open access, public ownership of the ROW for the public good, something else, or something in between. Is that a bad thing to ask for clarification? My original post on June 14 stated this quite clearly: "it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW" So what do you not understand in those sentences?
Murphy Siding I'm still not clear if what you're suggesting is really open access, public ownership of the ROW for the public good, something else, or something in between. Is that a bad thing to ask for clarification?
My original post on June 14 stated this quite clearly: "it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW"
So what do you not understand in those sentences?
Fair enough. It is quite clear. You are advocating having the federal government seize the private property of the railroads and running them as they do in socialist countries in Europe. You'd have some sort of citizen's committee determine the price being paid and have federal troops clear out those who dared to challenge their constitutional rights to due process. The money for this would obviously come from raising taxes on who the committee determines are the wealthy. This whole scenario would be operated by a high level governmental bureaucracy- for the greater good of the working class. I'm glad that was cleared up.
You know what? You (so does Euclid) need to learn to read. Instead you spout off with some political nonsense. I never said seize the railroads without compensation. I explicitly stated in the thread that the RoW would be purchased and that freeing up of assets would allow the freight rails make investments in equipment to operate more efficiently. You even said this in a reply to me in one of your posts: "OK, the taxpayers pay for the roads. So you're saying the taxpayers should buy the railroad ROW with tax dollars, and let the railroads use them without owning them or even leasing them." Of course you managed to overlook my statement that the private freight lines would compete to use and pay access fees. I guess you cannot even remember your own words?
Perhaps with your ability to distort and spin facts, your talents are wasted in a lumberyard.
So what do you not understand in those sentences? To be fair now, you need to pipe down a bit. Folks ask you questions and you insult them and say the answer's right there, and you don’t need to explain anything. And yet, without you answering any questions, we are, according to your logic, to interpret your thoughts on our own. So please pipe down now. We’re doing what you told us to do. If you don’t have any conviction in your ideas, why bother putting them forth? If it worth discussing, why not start a new thread about it and tell us what you mean. The lumber yard gig is working out pretty good. This is my 35th year and I’m the boss. Thanks for asking.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid schlimm I explicitly stated in the thread that the RoW would be purchased and that freeing up of assets would allow the freight rails make investments in equipment to operate more efficiently. Where exactly did you say that the RoW would be purchased? The closest thing I can find is your comment on page 3: "What the railroads would receive for their RoW would depend on its improved current value, possibbly not including the actual land if it was originally granted by the government. Details, details! The core principle is to allow the rails to do what they do best and get out of capital-intensive RoW ownership and maintenance, as was pointed out earlier. And no more real estate taxes, however much they actually are."
schlimm I explicitly stated in the thread that the RoW would be purchased and that freeing up of assets would allow the freight rails make investments in equipment to operate more efficiently.
Where exactly did you say that the RoW would be purchased? The closest thing I can find is your comment on page 3:
"What the railroads would receive for their RoW would depend on its improved current value, possibbly not including the actual land if it was originally granted by the government. Details, details!
The core principle is to allow the rails to do what they do best and get out of capital-intensive RoW ownership and maintenance, as was pointed out earlier. And no more real estate taxes, however much they actually are."
And my next post, same page:
UPRR carries on its balance sheet "Property, Plant and Equipment" minus "Accumulated Depeciation" ~ $30 bil. Of that amount, "Land & Improvements" is only $5.2 bil. Not enough to exactly strain a federal budget.
CSX's number for property, plant and equipment is similar ($30.4 bil.) but they don't break out land or accumulated depreciation.
So multiply $5 bil. x 4 = $20 bil., add another $8-10 bil for other lines in the 48 states, and you get ~$30 bil. total.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmI explicitly stated in the thread that the RoW would be purchased and that freeing up of assets would allow the freight rails make investments in equipment to operate more efficiently.
I explicitly stated in the thread that the RoW would be purchased and that freeing up of assets would allow the freight rails make investments in equipment to operate more efficiently.
Since this is a purchase with compensation, do you think that all of the private railroads would take the offer and sell? What if the government believes the railroads' price is too high?
Or perhaps more to the point, what you posted a little later:
schlimm CSSHEGEWISCH schlimm If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere. No. Not at all. It is a call for modernization and efficiencies on a scale that freight lines cannot and will not do.
CSSHEGEWISCH schlimm If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
schlimm If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
No. Not at all. It is a call for modernization and efficiencies on a scale that freight lines cannot and will not do.
And I repeat that there are ways this state of affairs might be brought about even without forced transfer of real estate or sale at artificially inflated or fire sale price. Large Federal subsidy combined with tax abatements might 'do' for the improvements without raising the spectre of Federal takeover; I think a case could also be made for providing some of the necessary dispatching support on a subsidized basis (much as is done with ATC, but not necessarily mirroring that specific model).
After what happened with the CASO I don't particularly trust private railroads to build or maintain strategic infrastructure, especially where it involves extra facilities (like double track) that are of more benefit to connecting entities, or in special circumstances or to accommodate future growth, than to themselves 'in the short run'. On the other hand, we've recently seen radical retrenchment in traffic that would increase the necessary or expected subsidy for larger capacity or a higher level of physical plant development.
It does sound quite simple. So the government would seize the U.S. private railroad track and right of ways without compensating the owners, leaving the owners retaining ownership of their locomotives, rolling stock, and facilities. Those companies plus newly formed companies would then share the nationalized track and way, and compete with each other for business of hauling freight. At the same time, the government would upgrade all of the nationalized track and way by using public funds from the taxpayers.
At this point, will the hauling companies be able to use the national track at no charge, or will they be required to pay a fee to the government? Perhaps the original owners would be able to operate on the system at no charge as compensation for having their track and right of way seized at the start.
schlimm My original post on June 14 stated this quite clearly: "it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW"
And how many billions of deferred capital investment does the 21st Century right of way owned lock, stock, and barrel by the US Government, commonly known as the Northeast Corridor have accrued, or, the Washington DC Metro, or the highway system in general?
Nationalization is a prescription for gridlock that only those intent on destroying the freight railroad system would advocate for.
Mac McCulloch
Thanks for a succint, fair, and comprehensive analysis.
It was pretty clear to me what he was saying, when he started out with the idea a few days ago. He was advocating that the government set fair standards for track, operations integrity, etc. -- and, I suspect, underwrite some of the development and stranded costs of the major improvements, like double track and incremental electrification. Since this would be viewed as a subsidy for private business if done while the railroad companies still had the right to run their own trains first and foremost, the quid pro quo for building up the "Optimized National Infrastructure" is to permit some form of fair access to the 'improved' routes and their operations (hence the relevance of references to ATC as air traffic controllers and not automatic train control).
Now, one of the problems is that the camel's nose of government interventionism will come creeping in as soon as some of the open-service 'providers' start bumping each other, or traffic recovers to the point the host railroad starts experiencing capacity restrictions (or HHFT mandated slowdowns, or whatever) and prioritizes its own operations over what was its own assets. I would be very surprised if the government does not intervene in some way, and more surprised still if there are not some social agendas cleverly implemented in the footnotes and quiet corners of the fairness directives as they come.
The next fun issue is the rollout 'roadmap' for the nationwide version of KP's two-tracking threads. Who sets the priorities ... and who makes de facto policy by allocating resources away from coal or oil traffic, prioritizing projects in key states, etc?
Make no mistake -- I'd like to see a federal-scale strategic asset investment project, preferably up to development of dual-mode access (I have some thoughts on best ways to do that in a road-slug/container world) and initiation of electrification on ruling grades. But we will not get very far if we keep insulting and yes-butting heads with arguments that do not accord with political and economic conditions in the foreseeable future.
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm Perhaps making a snarky comment re Euclid is less strenuous for you than having an open mind and engaging in some lateral or design thinking? Says the guy who reponded earlier in this same thread: "You figure it out. Enough of your pretense at questions." Your questions are like the stories of Scherazade - there's always one more.
Murphy Siding schlimm Perhaps making a snarky comment re Euclid is less strenuous for you than having an open mind and engaging in some lateral or design thinking? Says the guy who reponded earlier in this same thread: "You figure it out. Enough of your pretense at questions."
schlimm Perhaps making a snarky comment re Euclid is less strenuous for you than having an open mind and engaging in some lateral or design thinking?
Perhaps making a snarky comment re Euclid is less strenuous for you than having an open mind and engaging in some lateral or design thinking?
Says the guy who reponded earlier in this same thread: "You figure it out. Enough of your pretense at questions."
Your questions are like the stories of Scherazade - there's always one more.
schlimmYour questions are like the stories of Scherazade - there's always one more.
I'll admit the only reason I know who Sherazade is, is because of the pinball game Arabian Nights. I had an app on my Kindle that gave you that particular table for free (then you had to pay for the rest). To add relevence (like we give a crap about that anymore), I played that a lot during my engineer training/hotel stay.
schlimmRunning faster, shorter trains could recapture a lot of business from trucks. Think about it. Hint: It should be cheaper to haul 100 containers by one train 500-750 miles, even with short drayage, than 100 containers hauled by 100 drivers.
The problem is that you seem to think this 'bold new theory' is something amazing and new and would solve so much if only those hidebound so-called experts would get the lead out and adopt it.
Just as we've been discussing open access since the time of Kneiling's thoughts, we've been discussing the linked ideas of shorter trains and faster 'one-speed' trains. I first came across this -- I can still remember the day -- in my high-school library reading the Trains article on Weird Al Perlman's efforts to implement the idea on WP. (That was also the place I discovered that 3 SD40s in a lower run burned less fuel than 2 in Run 8 on the same tonnage at comparable speed...) There are reasons why it does not work that involve further details not in a simplistic model that assumes high dedicated traffic in lanes and a valuation of absolute minimum transit time or lowest quoted cost as primary. I know Buslist, who has extensive experience and distinctive competence in this field, has been trying to get some of the relevant points across -- maybe it sounds as if he is being curmudgeonly at times, but he really does understand why the idea has "issues" in United States practice.
One of the issues I keep seeing in this thread is the idea that train crews don't really need to be 'qualified' on the track they'll run over ... one person apparently thinking it would eventually be possible for crews to 'learn' the whole expanse of United States track as if it were an iron Interstate system. This is qualified by saying, with a little wave of the hand, that there would be 'pilots' for those stretches of track that need some alleged sort of special consideration or care. But we all know that with PTC mandated, college kids in charge of dispatching, and all sorts of electronics in the locomotives, how hard can it be to run trains without even having to steer them? (Next we'll be hearing how ECP control integrity should eliminate the need for brake tests, thereby facilitating regular saw-by of long trains as they switch 'fungible' conductors back and forth...)
European systems run freight at higher speed largely because of passenger scheduling requirements. While I'd certainly like to see much American trackage electrified, and faster one-speed acceleration done to improve equipment utilization, and see business requirements in lanes coordinated to facilitate just-in-time delivery with hundreds of intermodal containers delivered with 'short drayage' between disparate points, and while we're at it traffic density development (in this new millennial age where no one will supposedly own a car in 20 years, and easily rent an autonomous buggy or page Uber at either end of a HrSR or HSR link in a dense European-style fabric of rail routes) ... I'm going to have trouble figuring out where all the money to pay for it and then administer it will be coming from. And how to justify my using it for those purposes when there will be so many others who want dibs on the opportunity capital.
And anything short of ongoing perfection in achievement, including the operating transition to the 'new and improved' model, is a far worse disaster than what we now have.
Yes, all these recent posts should be in a new thread with an appropriate title including "Open Access".
Progressive businesses (hi-tech, telcom, online retail, etc.)do not rely solely on snapshots of what was, which is what most beancounters measure. They also look ahead, at noew business, new revenue streams. Running faster, shorter trains could recapture a lot of business from trucks. Think about it. Hint: It should be cheaper to haul 100 containers by one train 500-750 miles, even with short drayage, than 100 containers hauled by 100 drivers.
schlimm Buslist schlimm Yes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere. . So let's look at one of those "elsewhere" places Europe. The World bank reports freight rates several times higher that North America and the EU freight roads have a 18-40% market share (depending on year) the North American roads 38-20%. Sure looks like we should change our business model? Any North American Transport Economists knowledgeable in railway cost structure that advocates your approach that you can quote? There's more to operation on a macro level than bean counters' numbers.
Buslist schlimm Yes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere. . So let's look at one of those "elsewhere" places Europe. The World bank reports freight rates several times higher that North America and the EU freight roads have a 18-40% market share (depending on year) the North American roads 38-20%. Sure looks like we should change our business model? Any North American Transport Economists knowledgeable in railway cost structure that advocates your approach that you can quote?
schlimm Yes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
Yes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
.
So let's look at one of those "elsewhere" places Europe. The World bank reports freight rates several times higher that North America and the EU freight roads have a 18-40% market share (depending on year) the North American roads 38-20%. Sure looks like we should change our business model? Any North American Transport Economists knowledgeable in railway cost structure that advocates your approach that you can quote?
There's more to operation on a macro level than bean counters' numbers.
such as? Any stats to support your views? Unfortunately businesses run on the basis of bean counters results.
looks like the Euclid "ya but" response
schlimm I would think the British government-owned Network Rail or in Germany, the DB Netz or in France, the Reseau Ferre de France, would be more comparable.
I would think the British government-owned Network Rail or in Germany, the DB Netz or in France, the Reseau Ferre de France, would be more comparable.
having worked with railways in both Australia and Europe, Australia is by far more comparable.
If a locomotive was like a car you could just put the gear selector in "P" and step on the parking brake. For good measure the engineer could put pennies on the rail on both sides of each engine wheel. But with so many rules you railroaders have to put up with, I bet the brakeman speaks up now and then to ask "are we there yet"? I once applied at a smaller local railroad but never got a call back. I don't think real railroading is for me. I enjoy switching. I need to clean off my train table and lay my new Gargraves stainless steel track.
THE LONG TRAINS WITH SHORT SIDINGS THREAD WAS PROMTED BY MEMORIES OF STORIES TOLD ME BACK IN 1953 ON THE BOSTON AND MAINE. IF THESE SORT OF THINGS DO NOT HAPPEN ANYWHERE, EVEN IN EMERGENCIES, TODAY, SO BE IT. AND THE FACT THAT THE THREAD HAS MOVED ON TO A POSSIBLY MORE RELEVENT TOPIC DOES NOT BOTHER ME.
Paul of Covington I'm just rambling here, so don't take this too seriously.
As are we all....
Going back to the airlines (and for that matter, the highways), any pilot who's worth his salt can take any airplane (at least that he knows how to fly) and fly from any airport, to any airport.
Along the way, all control is consistent. The navaids are all the same, including those needed for landing.
Yes, there are "those" airports. And there are "those" railroad lines. So you have to pick up a "pilot." Ships often use pilots for waterways the captain isn't familiar with. So do railroads, for that matter...
Bringing that back to the rails, signals would have to be consistent nationwide, and so would rules and procedures.
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...
tree68The railroad companies would cease to be "rail" road companies. They would become no different than a trucking company. If BNSF wanted to haul a train to NYC, they could. Just pay the tolls...
I was thinking along those lines, but don't you get into the question of having qualified crews? I guess they could contract with another road to furnish pilots or to run the trains for them. Eventually each road could have their own crews qualified all over the country, and eventually that might lead to more mergers. Then again, with much more elaborate signage and signals, maybe any crew could take a train anywhere the way it is with highways. We can go on and on.... I'm just rambling here, so don't take this too seriously.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.