Los Angeles Rams GuyLooks like we're back at Square One regarding KCS as they formally rejected the latest Blackstone Group offer.
Good for KCS!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Looks like we're back at Square One regarding KCS as they formally rejected the latest Blackstone Group offer.
charlie hebdoI proposed payment, not just compensation. Then we might get better ROWs and electrification where traffic is sufficient. The railroads would have a ton of money to use on new equipment. Any agreement would require that, not declare huge dividends to stockholders. Time to move into the 1980s at least, if not into the future.
Railroads have been reducing their car fleets over the last two decades. When watching passing trains look at all the car initials ending in X. Cars that once had railroad reporting marks.
The PSR model is about getting as much investment out of the railroads and into the hands of the stock holders as possible - by whatever feats of financial legerdemain they can create. As tightly as any 'thinks' they can tie up the money and keep it 'in the property' the PSR crowd perform legal dances on the pointed end of a pin and liberate it for their purposes.
charlie hebdo I proposed payment, not just compensation. Then we might get better ROWs and electrification where traffic is sufficient. The railroads would have a ton of money to use on new equipment. Any agreement would require that, not declare huge dividends to stockholders. Time to move into the 1980s at least, if not into the future.
I proposed payment, not just compensation. Then we might get better ROWs and electrification where traffic is sufficient. The railroads would have a ton of money to use on new equipment. Any agreement would require that, not declare huge dividends to stockholders. Time to move into the 1980s at least, if not into the future.
Where do you plan to put this electrification where traffic is sufficient? Are the expenses of clearance modification and removal worth the cost? You need at minimum 3' of clearance between 20'2" height and overhead line to prevent arcing.. Electrification is one of the reasons the Milwaukee Road had to abandon it's entire Pacific Extension, and eventually succumb to bankruptcy.. This isn't Europe.
charlie hebdo I'm not sure the railroads pay much in federal taxes ...........
greyhounds, with the railroad having a centralizing nature, do you see a future for it? It seems that the forces of decentralization have the upper hand.
Greyhounds: You simply state your opinions as though they were facts, without evidence.
Found some more info:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/21/2018-25388/csx-transportation-inc-lease-western-and-atlantic-railroad
Financial Arrangements. According to CSXT, no new securities will be issued in connection with the Lease. (Appl. 8.) CSXT states that, under the Lease, CSXT would pay Georgia a monthly rental of $1,008,333.33, which would increase annually by 2.5% compounded. Additionally, CSXT states that, by July 31 of each year, it would pay Georgia additional rent consisting of 50% of the revenue generated from all agreements, subleases, easements, or licenses attributable to the Line for the previous year. CSXT states that it will not incur any fixed charges as a result of the Lease. (Id. at 10.)
rdamonThe State of GA owns the ROW for the W&A and leases it to CSX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_and_Atlantic_Railroad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_and_Atlantic_Railroad
What is different in this case is that (according to Wikipedia) that line has been government owned since its inception. It has been leased by operators for the last 140+ years. It would be interesting to see the lease terms - does the state of GA put any money into the line, or do they just get lease payments from CSX?
In any event, not quite the same thing as having a government entity own and maintain the line for the benefit of any operator to use.
The State of GA owns the ROW for the W&A and leases it to CSX.
Count me among those that think large scale government ownership/ management of RR infrastructure is not a great idea. Having local goverment authorities own the ROW but having a designated (private) operator to run trains and maintain the ROW does make sense in some low density lines. Greyhounds makes good points about what open access can do to volumes.
jeffhergert There are actually railroad employees out there (I'm not one of them) who think the entire railroad, not just the ROW/signal infrastructure should be nationalized and government owned/operated. Jeff
There are actually railroad employees out there (I'm not one of them) who think the entire railroad, not just the ROW/signal infrastructure should be nationalized and government owned/operated.
Jeff
This is the one idea in this thread that has actually been tried in North America.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
charlie hebdoYes, I see the inability to discuss this in a rational manner. Some people operate on out of date assumptions or introduce them to end a rational discussion. Key word, as you point out is rights of way, not railroads.
Well, I thought it was being discssed in a rational manner. You, youself, are one of the posters who make rational discussions difficult, if not impossible. You tend not to respond to opposing thoughts. Instead, you lable them (as in "out of date assumptions") and dismiss them without further comment or specifics. What "out of date" assumptions? You don't say.
I'm against open access and especially against more government involvement.
Open access flies in the face of railroad economics and efficiency. It will make things worse. Railroad efficiency is driven by volume. In general, the more volume concentrated on a line, or in a train, the more efficient rail transport becomes. OA will split up the business and make aggregation in to train load volumes more difficult. This will drive up the rail cost per shipment and we don't want to go in that direction.
It needs to be understood that the unit of production in railroading is the train load. Except for single commodity unit trains the unit of sale is the carload/trailer load/container load. These units of sale need to be aggregated in to units of production. The quicker and more often that can be done the lower the cost of rail movement. OA will make the needed aggregation slower and reduce the size of the unit of production. That means costs will go up and that's bad outcome.
Getting the government involved will politicize things to no end and also reduce efficiency. There are some rail lines that need more capacity and they're being worked on where such investments can be justified. Often it is the government itself that blocks capacity improvements through their own cumbersome processes.
diningcarJeff, you, myself, MC plus others who have had boots on the ground have heard 'sand house' thinking but we would not allow our thinking to be influenced by theirs. There is questionable thinking and there is reasoned, responsible thinking.
There's also people that convinced themsleves they are comfortable with the status quo and don't want change.
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
"jeffhergert"]There are actually railroad employees out there (I'm not one of them) who think the entire railroad, not just the ROW/signal infrastructure should be nationalized and government owned/operated. Jeff [/quote]
Jeff, you, myself, MC plus others who have had boots on the ground have heard 'sand house' thinking but we would not allow our thinking to be influenced by theirs. There is questionable thinking and there is reasoned, responsible thinking.
daveklepper Tree, try and find one railroad investor, management person, or operating employee who favors government ownership of freight railroads' RoWs/ Find just one!
Tree, try and find one railroad investor, management person, or operating employee who favors government ownership of freight railroads' RoWs/ Find just one!
Actually, there may be a lot of investors who might jump at the idea. It would depend on how the user fees are structured. If the fees aren't set up to recover the full actual wear and tear for each user, they may be glad to be relieved of ROW maintenance costs for right of way and signals.
If ROW maintenance/signal costs are fully recovered through user fees, then probably investors wouldn't be interested.
zugmann daveklepper Tree, try and find one railroad investor, management person, or operating employee who favors government ownership of freight railroads' RoWs/ Find just one! I'll volunteer as tribute. Not like this current operating scheme is doing the industry any favors. I mean, a LOT of freight guys go to Amtrak (or attempt to). Don't see too many of the Amtrak peeps moving to freight.
I'll volunteer as tribute.
Not like this current operating scheme is doing the industry any favors.
I mean, a LOT of freight guys go to Amtrak (or attempt to). Don't see too many of the Amtrak peeps moving to freight.
David K: Let's strive for some accuracy instead of setting up a straw man argument.
I for one did not suggest a government-owned freight railroad.
daveklepperTree, try and find one railroad investor, management person, or operating employee who favors government ownership of freight railroads' RoWs/ Find just one!
Rational is spelled $$$$$$. Someone winning and someone losing. Guaranteed that the losers will be crying foul.
tree68 daveklepper Tree, try and find one railroad investor, management person, or operating employee who favors government ownership of freight railroads' RoWs/ Find just one! And now you see why FM was such a lightning rod... On paper, it looks like a doable idea. But, as I said (and many have pointed out), the devil is in the details. I really don't care one way or the other. As long as they keep running trains. As Balt notes - the government has a pretty poor track record on that kind of endeavor. New York state turned over perfectly servicable track to some folks who said they wanted to turn it into a trail... OTOH, many short lines run on tracks owned by local governments. I don't know that the local governments actually maintain the rails, generally leaving that to their designated operator.
And now you see why FM was such a lightning rod...
On paper, it looks like a doable idea. But, as I said (and many have pointed out), the devil is in the details.
I really don't care one way or the other. As long as they keep running trains.
As Balt notes - the government has a pretty poor track record on that kind of endeavor. New York state turned over perfectly servicable track to some folks who said they wanted to turn it into a trail...
OTOH, many short lines run on tracks owned by local governments. I don't know that the local governments actually maintain the rails, generally leaving that to their designated operator.
Yes, I see the inability to discuss this in a rational manner. Some people operate on out of date assumptions or introduce them to end a rational discussion. Key word, as you point out is rights of way, not railroads.
Hedge funds exist to make money, lots of money. They see in the railroad an opportunity to control it and then sell it off in chunks. I have seen it in the paper mills in Central Wisconsin, look up Wausau Papers. They wont take over the KCS and do much if anything to intrastructure as that is costly. This line will not be worth it so they will sell it off. They sell off enough lines or routes and soon enough the Railroad no longer exists. But the shareholders are happy. BNSF is owned by Berkshire who has interests in growing the business and profits. When Warren Buffet passes, I will sell off my stake as their business model will also pass with him, IMO.
Government involvement, not going to happen as it would be too costly. The government can't control Amtraks purse strings how are they going to run a whole railroad. Neither party will invest in railroads and really why should they? RR's can handle their own. Interstate highways were built for the American people but trucking also grew. You want equality between rail and trucking. Increase or create rates that trucking has to pay into the interstate system for upkeep and improvements.
Tom
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...
tree68 jeffhergert Question. How will Government ownership be set up? Is Government ownership going to be ALL railroad trackage (except that belonging to customers) or just the major routes? Will ownership and maintenance be at the Federal level or like the highway system, owned and maintained by the states with Federal aid? Jeff As they say, the devil is in the details... I would opine that a quasi-government entity would be formed to run the system which the feds would own. Letting the states control the maintenance of the tracks leaves the possibility that a state with budget issues might let the ROW maintenance go (kinda like they do with highways) or hold the rails hostage, insisting on more money. One part of that entity would handle maintenance, one would handle traffic control (a la FAA), and a third would handle the billing. Many thruway authorities are going (or have gone) cashless, even removing all toll booths. That kind of accounting is already in place on the railroads, although the number of sensors would need to increase substantially. But, the details...
jeffhergert Question. How will Government ownership be set up? Is Government ownership going to be ALL railroad trackage (except that belonging to customers) or just the major routes? Will ownership and maintenance be at the Federal level or like the highway system, owned and maintained by the states with Federal aid? Jeff
Question. How will Government ownership be set up?
Is Government ownership going to be ALL railroad trackage (except that belonging to customers) or just the major routes?
Will ownership and maintenance be at the Federal level or like the highway system, owned and maintained by the states with Federal aid?
As they say, the devil is in the details...
I would opine that a quasi-government entity would be formed to run the system which the feds would own. Letting the states control the maintenance of the tracks leaves the possibility that a state with budget issues might let the ROW maintenance go (kinda like they do with highways) or hold the rails hostage, insisting on more money.
One part of that entity would handle maintenance, one would handle traffic control (a la FAA), and a third would handle the billing.
Many thruway authorities are going (or have gone) cashless, even removing all toll booths. That kind of accounting is already in place on the railroads, although the number of sensors would need to increase substantially.
But, the details...
We already see how Congress treats Amtrak with funding, and how they have done that for 49 years - what leads anyone to think that if the Government owns the operating plants of the railroads that they wouldn't apply the same lack of proper funding to maintaining those plants.
zugmann BaltACD Nobody on Wall Street is going to let any railroad that trades stock to 'give' their physical plant to any entity, government or others without those getting the plant paying real money for it. I think they'd jump at it. They're already trying to get rid of everything physical - think of the operating ratio if all they had to do was run trains and let someone else do the boring infrastructure part?
BaltACD Nobody on Wall Street is going to let any railroad that trades stock to 'give' their physical plant to any entity, government or others without those getting the plant paying real money for it.
I think they'd jump at it. They're already trying to get rid of everything physical - think of the operating ratio if all they had to do was run trains and let someone else do the boring infrastructure part?
The physical plant is a huge Capital asset - letting it go for nothing does not help the bottom line - the locomotives and rolling equipment are a relatively smaller fraction of the value of the company. Not paying for the upkeep of the physical plant will help the Operating Ratio, however the total value of the of the railroad will be a small fraction of what it was at the start.
Wall Street may believe in a lower OR, but they do not belive in vaporized value.
[quote user="charlie hebdo"]
"I'm not sure the railroads pay much in federal taxes (a lot of big corporations pay little or none) and how much the property taxes sre actually paid."
I'm not sure the railroads pay much in federal taxes (a lot of big corporations pay little or none) and how much the property taxes sre actually paid. Several years ago I tried to get a rough estimate of the value of land carried on the books for one of the US big 4. Not all that much. Maintenance is costly. The rails might well find getting out of that cost center well worth selling at a discount.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.