Privatized toll roads, how about toll railroads?

[XG01X]

International Mining would be the owner of the track.

[Overmod]

I'm a little surprised no one has brought up the Shellpot Bridge example.

Barriers to entry for most "toll" lines that would be structured to work like turnpikes will almost certainly be too high for most putative 'private' trainset owners. It's tough enough for a Detroit Edison to pony up the cost of full trainsets and locomotives as opposed to leasing stuff from an operating carrier -- I wouldn't be surprised to find that a 'condominium' allocation of cost for a given piece of track turned out to be higher than something worked out as a trackage-rights agreement, PARTICULARLY if accounting required full allocation of improvement costs, depreciation, etc. directly to the 'toll' users. In the Shellpot example, the large capital cost was directly paid by government, with anticipated revenue from railroad movements being set intentionally with a long payback period. I wouldn't expect a private for-profit company to be quite as 'enlightened' about TVM and similar factors here -- to say nothing of the drubbing that typical Wall Street 'analysts' would administer to any track/infrastructure owning entity that attempted something with the characteristics of the Shellpot project.

Might bear remembering, too, that many of the issues that came up with the original Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad might apply to a 'toll' railroad, particularly a single-track line with considerable traffic... I'd be more than a bit surprised to find very much enthusiasm for a private entity, not government, to conduct the actual improvements to put a piece of railroad into full service as a 'toll' line, the potential revenue streams being considerably lower for a variety of (easily-identified imho) reasons than an 'equivalent' toll road for trucks, which almost by definition would be the equivalent of a multitrack main line. and the economies of scale, capital utilization, etc. generally being in favor of private entities that own the means of handling trains as well as fixing up trackwork.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Details, schmetails. In a free market economy with the inherent efficiencies of labor divisions, it makes more sense for one person to come up with the ideas and someone else to work out the details. What you are suggesting is that we should be responsible for all aspects of integration. If that's the case, just make us the CEO of the company and be done with it.

What I'm suggesting is that a consultant that was hired for the survey and recommendations on a certain problem do more than just show up, look around, and dream up a few supposed methods for solution. They should "put their money where their mouth is" and actually PROVE their methods would offer a solution.

Changes to ANY operation is a dynamic situation. The person making the suggestions should be able to implement the changes, fine tuning the methods as each solution brings up its own problems. Otherwise, what are they doing to actually earn their money?

[Anonymous]

The inference derived from the topic title is one of quasi-open access lines converted from old unused or abandoned lines, wherein such ROW's can act as supplements to the current private rail infrastructure. That was one of the suggestions made a while ago as a way to introduce and test the concept of OA on the private closed access system. You can call it anything you want, TTX Infrastructure Co., Union Railway LLC., etc. but it's still a step in the OA direction.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

If the owner controls who gets access, it's not open access.

Yet it is a variation thereof. So what will you call your variation of the OA theme. Limited Non-Owner Access (LNA)?

Using that logic, if the railroad is able to let anybody run their trains on that line this very afternoon,then it allready is open access. Take a bow Dave-you've won them over without a fight.[;)]

[Anonymous]

Details, schmetails. In a free market economy with the inherent efficiencies of labor divisions, it makes more sense for one person to come up with the ideas and someone else to work out the details. What you are suggesting is that we should be responsible for all aspects of integration. If that's the case, just make us the CEO of the company and be done with it.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

If the owner controls who gets access, it's not open access.

Yet it is a variation thereof. So what will you call your variation of the OA theme. Limited Non-Owner Access (LNA)?

Of course, ed's topic title does suggest a rail version of the toll road, and I have not seen any toll road proposals that would allow the owner to discriminate as to who is and who isn't allowed to use their road.

No matter, because Tom says it CANT work because no one has worked out the details yet.

What you're talking about is "trackage rights."

And it can't work because no consultant has taken the time to figure out the details of HOW it will work. Typical for them though, all they do is come into a situation, look around for a couple days, make recommendations, then leave with a fat paycheck. They never hang around long enough to find out what works and what doesn't. Of course, management gets a warm fuzzy because they paid somebody from the outside to look at the situation. What they REALLY need is somebody to hang around long enough to MANAGE the change.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

If the owner controls who gets access, it's not open access.

Yet it is a variation thereof. So what will you call your variation of the OA theme. Limited Non-Owner Access (LNA)?

Of course, ed's topic title does suggest a rail version of the toll road, and I have not seen any toll road proposals that would allow the owner to discriminate as to who is and who isn't allowed to use their road.

No matter, because Tom says it CANT work because no one has worked out the details yet.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

If the owner controls who gets access, it's not open access.

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Another theory that sounds good on paper, but falls apart when you go to figure out how to put it into practice.

Hmmm, isn't that what the original opponents of representative democracy once said? And yes, there are similarities between representative governments and intracompetitive business models.

There is no logical reason why a toll railroad concept cannot work as well as a contemporary toll road concept.

Just as long as they install some EZ Pass tracks at the toll booths. I wonder what the per-axle charges would come to?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Another theory that sounds good on paper, but falls apart when you go to figure out how to put it into practice.

Hmmm, isn't that what the original opponents of representative democracy once said? And yes, there are similarities between representative governments and intracompetitive business models.

There is no logical reason why a toll railroad concept cannot work as well as a contemporary toll road concept.

Similar statements don't mean that you're comparing apples to apples. The reason they CAN'T work is that the people that promote the idea have only that----an idea. None of them have taken the time to figure out the details of how it will work. As soon as you progress to that step, the whole thing falls apart.

And work as well as toll roads? Hate to break the news to you, but the oldest one in the US, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, doesn't cover all its costs from tolls.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Another theory that sounds good on paper, but falls apart when you go to figure out how to put it into practice.

Hmmm, isn't that what the original opponents of representative democracy once said? And yes, there are similarities between representative governments and intracompetitive business models.

There is no logical reason why a toll railroad concept cannot work as well as a contemporary toll road concept.

[TomDiehl]

Another theory that sounds good on paper, but falls apart when you go to figure out how to put it into practice.

[Anonymous]

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

A consultant's work is never done...........

[Murphy Siding]

Maybe, a similar type thing would work? Contract hauling: My railroad will haul cars from your yard in Council Bluffs, to your yard in Rock Island (or wherever to wherever) for a set price. Would something like that work, when capacity gets tight?

[rrnut282]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now.

ANOTHER place you seem to know more about railroad operations than the railroad itself. You're starting to sound like a Consultant. LOTS of ideas and theories, but no experience actually putting them into action.

Careful, you might be insulting the wrong person.[;)]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

narig:
When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately.
ed

[(-D]

"He laughs best who laughs last", or something to that effect, lumberboy. Now that the French have finally capitulated to allowing OA run throughs through their precious countryside, European 3pl's now can run their own trains spanning all of Europe. The boom is now at hand.

BTW, have you noticed your wholesale lumber prices going up?

My laughter wasn't about the "open access" part, it was about the "peaceful" part.[(-D]

Wholesale lumber prices move up, and down constantly, based soley on supply and demand. The transportation cost factors into the producers cost of goods, but not nearly as much as you think. As a goodwill gesture to Ed, who started an interesting thread, forget I mentioned this.[:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

narig:
When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately.
ed

[(-D]

"He laughs best who laughs last", or something to that effect, lumberboy. Now that the French have finally capitulated to allowing OA run throughs through their precious countryside, European 3pl's now can run their own trains spanning all of Europe. The boom is now at hand.

BTW, have you noticed your wholesale lumber prices going up?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

narig:
When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately.
ed

[(-D]

[narig01]

Personal Opinion: If own the railroad you can run it any way you want to these days within a few limits.(FRA rules on maint & Hours of Service).
If you really want to see anything goes try the trucking industry, everything from common carriers who'll haul anything & have the operating authority to do so. The company can haul themselves, load on their trailer, send by rail, send behind someone else’s truck, get someone else to haul it (broker the load out). Look at the Landstar group of companies or C.H.Robinson.
To operations like Kraft Nestle, & Wal-Mart that have their own trucks & use everyone elses trucks, & railcar’s & whatever else is available to move their goods.
The smart operators in my opinion are the ones in the logistics business, ie that do things like figure out how to move, & store goods from factory to consumer. They make the decisions about how to move what.
Regards
narig01

[MP173]

narig:

Thanks for the email regarding RDC.

When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately.

ed

[narig01]

Who's paying? Re PT Barnum line bout a sucker born every minute, just not a lot of rich suckers, I will make this remark : Rich Suckers with money don't stay rich forever.

[Anonymous]

sounds like you definately thought that one through. it's interesting hearing how quite a bit could change if all that were to happen. in my own uneducated opinion i'd like to see the kcs+dme/ice without CN. nothing against CN and i'm not a hater, rather i would like to see a strong midwestern US railroad rise up instead of fall under another bigun's umbrella.

[Zwingle]

Jeff, that does make sense. Had CSX bought the line, I would think IAIS would have had difficulty getting into Chicago. Do you know about Metra? Maybe Maytag divested the real estate holdings into a subsidiary. Would make sense. Maytag itself is about to be aquired by Whirlpool for $1.4 billion. Seems Maytag itself is nearly $1 billion in debt.

MP, CN would be interested in PR, which DME has already been given prermission to build and extention to. I believe the battle now lies with investers and landowners. The following scenarios would likely occur only if the PR extension is built.

Consider this: CN buys DME-ICE, giving CN direct access to KC, as well as a KC-Twin Cities line that isn't that much more indirect that BNSF's line, actually parallelling it for quite aways along the Mississippi. After this is done, KCS might enter the picture. In the unlikely event that CN would spend money on KCS before a PR-enriched DME-ICE, KC-Chicago traffic would be routed via KCS/CN's old GM&O route into illinois. Regardless, this line will probably be preserved, or put on "ice" so to speak for future transportation needs. Railroads seem more reluctant to abandon future potential. Like UP's hanging onto the old Rock Island KC-St. Louis line.

All things being untouched, DME-ICE would move PR coal east and then south to Lyle, MN, southwest moving to trackage rights over the Iowa Northern to the SE, then rejoining the ICE track east of Mason City. Trains would then move south at Marquette and then East at Savanna, http://www.iowarail.com/pdfs/RRS_Hwy_04.pdf If CN takes control, this traffic will continue straight south-east at Lyle, cross the ICE track at Charles City, and join the CN main in Waterloo. A beautiful connection exists there I discovered recently on Google Earth http://earth.google.com/. If this scenario happens, look for the ICE track between Charles City and Marquette through the Bloody Run valley to become a nature trail, connecting with the existing trail from Calmar, IA to Cresco.

Anyway, the question then becomes, what would CN do with PR trains at Dubuque? Would they use their original line, or would they abandon the bridge there in favor of the one at Savanna, which can be approached from both directions? The CN bridge in Dubuque must be approached from the north only. In addition, I believe the route through Savanna is better engineered and possibly shorter. In any case they would pick up again at the CN-ICE crossing at Genoa, IL. I know in the past BNSF has expressed an interest in the Galena-Chicago CN line for overflow (or future needs). CN could sell off that line to recoup some of the expenses if they wanted.

Worst case scenario, the line between KC and Louisa Generating Station would be abandoned, and Muscatine would exist on the end of an industrial spur.. ::shudder:: I really do not think this would be the case. That ICE KC line has too much future potential as a Twin Cities connection; especially being part of the Nafta rail. http://cn.akanda.com/cn/

[MP173]

I am not sure what they would offer, other than a route to Kansas City and perhaps a lot of coal coming out of PR. However, if DME gets access to the coal, then the rates would surely drop and the return on investment wouldnt look so hot.

ed

[Murphy Siding]

Ed: What would ICE/DME have to add to a merger of CN / KCS?

[MP173]

deep:

What is your opinion on a CN/KSC/ICE/DME merger? It would sort of make sense,giving CN a clear NAFTA route, but the route would be pretty slow, as ICE/DME are not exactly high speed routes. Of course, the coal is the wild card inthis.

Not sure whether the best routing for CN to KSC would be via ICE or down the old IC to Springfield and then to KC on the old GMO. That would take a lot of work, but the ICE route would require a lot to get thru Chicago from CN.

ed

[jeffhergert]

CSX, originally operated by the B&OCT, did not buy the line to Bureau. They have a 50 year lease on the line. The lease had a stipulation that any railroad buying the tracks west of Bureau would be allowed trackage rights to the Chicago area. This is why the Iowa Railroad did not run trains east of Bureau. The IRRC only leased the track. The IAIS/Heartland actually bought the tracks and thus were allowed access to Chicago.
On another list, someone had listed parts of the STB document for the IAIS to sublease part of the CSX trackage. I don't remember the exact name for the listed owner, but it wasn't Maytag, who succeeded the Chicago Pacific Corp. It may be a company acquired by Maytag and now only exists on paper, I don't know. I remember doing a limited search to find out about the company and didn't find anything.
Maytag has let go of the rights to the RI logos. The RI Technical Society I heard was trying to obtain the rights.
Jeff

[karldotcom]

Funding
The $2.4 billion Alameda Corridor was funded through a unique blend of public and private sources. Revenues from user fees paid by the railroads will be used to retire debts. Railroads will pay $15 for each loaded 20-foot equivalent unit (TEU) container; $4 for each empty container, and $8 for other types of loaded rail cars such as tankers and coal carriers. Over a 30-year period, fees will increase between 1.5 percent and 3 percent per year, depending on inflation.


http://www.acta.org/newsroom_factsheet.htm

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Alameda Corridor in LA if you want an answer to the subject header. ever heard of CREATE?[}:)]