Since my signature is about open access, I better be acquainted with the subject. Would there be capacity benefits and increased availability for passenger trains?
If one-way running for freight is the best way to divide our existing infrastructure, could passenger go two ways?
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Free or "Open" Access to tracks only works if the Federal Government owns the trackage and they make a commitment to providing enough capacity, with "capacity" being the key word since once you separate ownership of the trains from that of the trackage you also separate the benefits. Indeed tight capacity allows the trackage owner to charge more for each bit of capacity, while a train owner wants to see lots of capacity since then he won't have to pay as much, and congestion and his cost will go down.
If the "track" was owned by the federal government or an independent third party, it could result in greater competition for freight and passenger services. Competition could improve service and lower tariffs. Only those operators providing high quality service at the lowest effective price would survive.
There is an example of how this model could work. In Victoria, Australia, where I worked for nearly five years, the electrical transmission lines are owned by an independent third party operator. Power generators rent space on the transmission lines to move their power to independent electrical distributors. To use the lines they must meet the transmission line operator's standards. The system is efficient and effective.
Would ownership of the "track" by the federal government or third party result in more passenger trains? Not if only one bloated operator, Amtrak, was permitted to offer intercity services. Moreover, if the owner of the "track" charged the fully allocated cost to use its system, passenger trains operators might find themselves paying more to use the system than Amtrak pays today, which means that they would have to reduce their operating costs below Amtrak's to offer better services.
Several studies have shown that Amtrak does not pay the fully allocated cost of moving its trains over the hoist railroads. Moreover, it does not pay the full cost for many of the stations that it uses, i.e. Dallas Union Station, Fort Worth Intermodal Transit Center, etc. Many of the stations have been taken over by city governments and refurbished with tax free municipal financing.
If any organization that met the system operating standards was allowed to run passenger trains, services in short, high density corridors could improve through the magic of competition. Faced with competitors Amtrak would have to squeeze out the inefficiencies in its operations or go out of business.
Irrespective of who owns the track the long distance passenger train could not survive without large subsidies. It is an unworkable model in the era of jet airplanes and comfortable family buggies.
Ownership of the rails by the government or an independent operator, with open access to qualifying carriers, could improve freight services. Again competition could work its magic to improve service and drive down prices. Moreover, it could place rail services on a more even footing with air and highway carriers in that all modes of transport would then be operating over rights-of-way owned by an independent third party.
Unfortunately, the federal government does not have the money to buy the "track". Moreover, the potential returns are not sufficient to attract private capital. And the railroads are opposed to the idea.
Early railroad promoters (1800's) thought there might be open access like described here. But since private industry actually built and owned the rail lines, open access never developed.
Where I have a problem in marketing here, I don't believe it will be solely on the shoulders of the service provider but shared with the track owner to deliver effeciently. I could have excellent equipment capable of a zillion tons at a trillion mph but if the company(ies) providing the track (signals,et al) will only support 60 tons per car at 25 mph, all my efforts are for naught. Therefore, I believe the owner of the track has to have a stake in the traffic and the owner of the traffic has to have a stake in the track in order to assure quality service.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The inadequate infrastructure Henry6 mentions is unlikely; this is a progressive idea that would probably only come about in utopian conditions anyway. Positive train control and electronic brakes would likely be part of this system, as would an idealized dispatching network. Indeed, let us assume it is a government-supported system, and the taxes are seamlessy accepted the same as we pay for highways. The system is maintained to a high standard.
It is my understanding that this system "works" in Britain, as well as their trains have ever worked I guess. Their passenger network is good but they have shorter distances and less frieght. Our freight system is an order of magnitude bigger.
Would one-way running need to be a part of this? For example, NYC Water Level eastbound, PRR "Broadway" westbound? Might passenger trains be forced on to other routes, such as Tennessee Pass? That would be a pity, I so love the Moffatt tunnel...
Oh, I did not respond to one point; I honestly just noticed this. -- Sam said, "And the railroads are opposed to the idea."
I would guess that different railroads would have different ideas. Let me guess -- BNSF and UP are against it, Pan Am is in favor. What if the rails in the mines and local distribution infrastructure were nationalized, but the mainlines remain private? Or vice versa?
henry6 Early railroad promoters (1800's) thought there might be open access like described here. But since private industry actually built and owned the rail lines, open access never developed. Where I have a problem in marketing here, I don't believe it will be solely on the shoulders of the service provider but shared with the track owner to deliver effeciently. I could have excellent equipment capable of a zillion tons at a trillion mph but if the company(ies) providing the track (signals,et al) will only support 60 tons per car at 25 mph, all my efforts are for naught. Therefore, I believe the owner of the track has to have a stake in the traffic and the owner of the traffic has to have a stake in the track in order to assure quality service.
Users of the nation's highways, airways, waterways, etc., which are owned by the people, have input regarding how the systems are developed, built, and managed. What is different about a railway that would prevent the users from having similar input?
Sam1 Users of the nation's highways, airways, waterways, etc., which are owned by the people, have input regarding how the systems are developed, built, and managed. What is different about a railway that would prevent the users from having similar input?
Lets see...what per centage of today's highway bridges need replacement? Intermix of cars, buses and trucks restricts speed limits...What's this year's lotter number for the number of (restricting) pot holes on I 80?..How much of the gas tax goes to highway's? How much licensing fees for trucks and buses go for highway? How much general fund goes to highways? Do I get a vote? Do you?
No. No. Todays politically charged transportation system does not serve commerce or people well. There is no "renewal" program and "new" program except for political pork barralling. The market does not drive the system by any means. And air service? It is so unequal in quality and safety from place to place, as well as under funded and underdeveloped for what commercial airlines want and need. What is to say the rail system under similar political system would actually be any better, more market responsive, and cheaper. That is, as has been assumed above, that only the Federal Government would own the infrastructure.
Would private enterprise fare any better? After depreciation is taken and after a traffic downturn, maintenance is the first thing to be eliminated yielding slower speeds, lower equipment utilization, constant fatigue of small labor force, deteriorating service and higher costs. Then what? What makes one think that any kind of change would be any better? Put trust in the unregulated free enterprise system and let the market dictate the results? I'll get back to you after I've paid for the bailout of the U.S. auto industry, the failing banks, and the insolvent stock brokerages.
So, what would really be a good system for meeting (all) transportation needs of military, business and industry, and people of our country over the next 50 to 100 years? Many minds have to study, understand, design, find funding, and impliment a system with strictly adhered to regulations void of partisanship, parochialism, descrimination, predjudice, and politics, to make it work.
One drawback from open access would be you'd have a much harder time justifying improvements to track or equipment, particularly where the benefits are shared between the track owner and the equipment owner. Rail lubrication is a good example. It benefits the car owner and the track owner. A better grease might save the car and track owners each some money, but since the cost is borne by the track owner, it'd take some serious contract negotiations to get it done. The more hoops you have to jump thru to get something done, the less likely someone is going to bother.
A good example is Amtrak owning the NEC. It has completely stiffled any inovation for moving freight there. Rules, curfews, track structure, cab signalling, fees, etc. have made it nearly impossible to try anything there despite the northeast being a huge market. I just finished reading a Knieling article in a 1974 Trains and everything he predicted w.r.t. the NEC and freight, sadly, came true. He was advocating abandoning the box car and going with unit container trains into, out of and between NEC cities over a variety of routes - including building a new tunnel for frt under the upper harbor in NYC. He predicted a gov't takeover of the NEC and it's exclusive use for passenger.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I suggested as a possibility that a third party, i.e. the federal government or an independent third party, take ownership of the rails as a way to unlock the benefits of greater competition. If more than one carrier could run on rails owned by a non-carrier entity, many of the markets that are served by only one service provider could see more carriers, which could result in better service and lower prices.
The third party could be a government agency, an independent owner with no interest in an operating company (carrier), or even a consortium of operators, i.e. similar to the concept that was used to build some of the nation's union stations.
Robust standards for regulating the track system, i.e. tariffs, maintenance, rights of access, etc. would have to be developed, implemented, and maintained. It would have to be financed adequately, i.e. sufficient rents would have to be charged to the carriers to ensure the system is operated and maintained property.
Amtrak's ownership of parts of the NEC is not a good example. It has a vested stake (operational and financial) in its system. It has a built in bias to favor its trains at the expense of other operators or to maintain the system for its needs without necessarily considering the needs of others. This works the other way when Amtrak is operating over a hoist railroad.
Absolute separation of the ownership of the track from any carrier is the key. The owner of the track would have no ownership or control interest in any carrier.
A number of states and countries have an electric grid that operates similar to the concept that I have thrown out for discussion. In several Australian states the transmission system is owned independently of any power generator or distribution company. The rules for transmitting power and the charges for doing so are highly regulated. Access to the grid is controlled by the system operator under a strict set of technical and commercial standards. Moreover, the system operator's behavior is audited frequently by independent auditors. Violations of the transmission agreements are dealt with harshly. A similar concept is extant in Texas except the transmission lines are owned by the utilities. But they are tightly regulated, and they have to treat all comers equally.
Those who argue that commonly owned facilities would not work only have to look to a major airport. Every day hundreds of airplanes owned and operated by a variety of carrier's takeoff and land on common runways. They must follow the rules if they want to use the system. Is it perfect? No! But I don't know of any human system, including the present one that is perfect. If it can work for the airways, which are far riskier than running a train, it could work for a railroad.
Any cooperative system requires that the stakeholders communicate. They have to hammer out the terms of their contracts. And they must meet frequently to identify and resolve issues associated with the contrcts. Can it be done? You bet. It happens every day in the electric utility business. And with good results!
Henry6
All the fuel taxes and highway related fees collected by the federal government go to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). They are not sufficient to build and maintain the federal highways needed by the nation. So monies are drawn from the general fund. Last year, for example, the U.S. Government transferred approximately $34.5 billion to the HTF. An additional sum was transferred to the Mass Transit Administration. These transfers were not fuel taxes or highway related fees.
Some states transfer a portion of the fuel taxes to other government activities. In Texas, where I live, 25 per cent of the fuel taxes are transferred to the school fund. Then the state takes monies from the general fund to make up some of the monies transferred to the school fund.
Are there problems with our highways and roadways? You bet. But when I get in my car, as I will do tomorrow, and drive halfway across the state, if my prior experiences are an indicator, I will zip along the roadways without undue delay. I will have to slow for some construction sites, which are there because the owner (the people) is improving the system, which is what I want him to do.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that many of the country's bridges need to be rebuilt or repaired. They have a vested interest in hyping the issue. Spending on bridges, etc. would mean more jobs for civil engineers. They are not an independent inspection agency. Therefore, their assessment of the health of America's infrastructure is not bias free.
Following the collapse of the I-35 Bridge in Minneapolis, the Texas Depart of Transportation inspected the key highway bridges in Texas. It closed none. It did find some that need to be fixed, but most of them can be repaired over a reasonable time. I suspect these findings would apply to the country as a whole.
Politics plays a role in determining where and when highways are built or fixed. Corporate politics, by the way, plays the same role in the corporation's sphere of operations. Politics is part of the human condition. This is just as true for a private railroad as any other entity.
Yes you get a vote. Every time you vote for a state or federal representative, you are voting. And if you don't like what you see, you can write to your elected representative. Or visit him or her to express your concerns. When is the last time you did that? And when is the last time one of the railroads other than one you might work for or have worked for asked for your opinion regarding their track maintenance program?
America's airways system is the envy of the world. As a pilot with thousands of hours under my belt, I have had first hand experience with it. I know what works and what does not work. That is not to say that it is problem free or does not have things that need to be fixed. It has plenty of challenges, i.e. coastal congestion, new equipment requirements, etc., but to say that it is dysfunctional or dangerous belies the facts.
Airlines in the U.S. are not safe? In 2007 U.S. commercial airlines carried 678 million passengers. This unsafe system, as you call it, according to DOT preliminary statistics, had 44 passenger fatalities in 2007. The fatalities were associated with one commuter carrier accident. The legacy carriers had zero fatalities. The commuter carrier fatality rate was .038 per 100,000 flight hours. As has been true since the 1940s, flying is one of the safest forms of transport. The risk of dieing in an airplane crash is so low as to make a comparison with any other form of transport is laughable.
From October 2007 to September 2008 commercial airlines in the U.S. had an on-time arrival rate of 82 per cent. These numbers can be calculated from data provide by the FAA. Not surprisingly on-time performance during the winter months is considerably below the average. North America's relatively severe weather makes it difficult to have every plan arrive on-time. Good for the common sense shown by the pilots.
Sam1 I suggested as a possibility that a third party, i.e. the federal government or an independent third party, take ownership of the rails as a way to unlock the benefits of greater competition. If more than one carrier could run on rails owned by a non-carrier entity, many of the markets that are served by only one service provider could see more carriers, which could result in better service and lower prices. The third party could be a government agency, an independent owner with no interest in an operating company (carrier), or even a consortium of operators, i.e. similar to the concept that was used to build some of the nation's union stations. Robust standards for regulating the track system, i.e. tariffs, maintenance, rights of access, etc. would have to be developed, implemented, and maintained. It would have to be financed adequately, i.e. sufficient rents would have to be charged to the carriers to ensure the system is operated and maintained property. Amtrak's ownership of parts of the NEC is not a good example. It has a vested stake (operational and financial) in its system. It has a built in bias to favor its trains at the expense of other operators or to maintain the system for its needs without necessarily considering the needs of others. This works the other way when Amtrak is operating over a hoist railroad. Absolute separation of the ownership of the track from any carrier is the key. The owner of the track would have no ownership or control interest in any carrier.
I would disagree. Amtrak's employee and mgt stake in the operation and company finances on any ongoing basis are nill. Their only stake is the company's survival, which is almost politically bullet-proof, it seems. Amtrak is not actively soliciting the Conrail or Norfolk Southern to operate additional freight over their railroad at any price. Why? Why should they? Not a sole at Amtrak benefits in any way from doing this.
I have no doubt that thrid party ownership of track could be made workable. It's inovation that can get sqaushed. The latest inovation is top of rail lubrication. It's primary benefit is fuel savings. Rail wear and reduced maintenance alone won't justify it's cost. It's hard enough to push these kinds of improvements through when costs and benefits are unequally shared by departments within the RR (been there, done that, got the T-shirt), but sharing between companies makes it even more unlikely.
oltmannd Sam1 I suggested as a possibility that a third party, i.e. the federal government or an independent third party, take ownership of the rails as a way to unlock the benefits of greater competition. If more than one carrier could run on rails owned by a non-carrier entity, many of the markets that are served by only one service provider could see more carriers, which could result in better service and lower prices. The third party could be a government agency, an independent owner with no interest in an operating company (carrier), or even a consortium of operators, i.e. similar to the concept that was used to build some of the nation's union stations. Robust standards for regulating the track system, i.e. tariffs, maintenance, rights of access, etc. would have to be developed, implemented, and maintained. It would have to be financed adequately, i.e. sufficient rents would have to be charged to the carriers to ensure the system is operated and maintained property. Amtrak's ownership of parts of the NEC is not a good example. It has a vested stake (operational and financial) in its system. It has a built in bias to favor its trains at the expense of other operators or to maintain the system for its needs without necessarily considering the needs of others. This works the other way when Amtrak is operating over a hoist railroad. Absolute separation of the ownership of the track from any carrier is the key. The owner of the track would have no ownership or control interest in any carrier. I would disagree. Amtrak's employee and mgt stake in the operation and company finances on any ongoing basis are nill. Their only stake is the company's survival, which is almost politically bullet-proof, it seems. Amtrak is not actively soliciting the Conrail or Norfolk Southern to operate additional freight over their railroad at any price. Why? Why should they? Not a sole at Amtrak benefits in any way from doing this. I have no doubt that thrid party ownership of track could be made workable. It's inovation that can get sqaushed. The latest inovation is top of rail lubrication. It's primary benefit is fuel savings. Rail wear and reduced maintenance alone won't justify it's cost. It's hard enough to push these kinds of improvements through when costs and benefits are unequally shared by departments within the RR (been there, done that, got the T-shirt), but sharing between companies makes it even more unlikely.
All of us have T shirts. They tell others, amongst other things, that we are captives of our experiences. That's good for doing things the way they have been done. But its one the biggest barriers to change.
Most of us, after having spent decades working in a field, have difficulty imagining a better way to do things. Mercifully, younger people with little baggage come along. They don't know that doing things better, faster, cheap won't work. They give it a go. Innovation!
The landscape is littered with the remains of business organizations that failed to change. It was their way or the highway. Their managers knew absolutely that the alternatives were unrealistic and would not work. It is one of the reasons that less than 10 per cent of the 1900 Fortune 500 is doing business today.
The problem is that we believe the NARP factoid that "one railroad track has the capacity of 20 freeway lanes."
Let's see, suppose the New Tokaido Line can dispatch 16 car trains with average 80 seats each train car every 5 minutes. I guess that works out to about 6 freeway lanes worth of passenger seats.
Again, all of these favorable capacity estimates assume double track and all of the traffic pretty much going with the flow of traffic. Perhaps the New York subway can max out at 20 freeway lanes per track. For CTC single track, passing sidings, and a mix of freights of varying speeds, a daily Amtrak train may be all it can take. Don Oltmann has promised to research and share what he finds about "slots" and what realistically is the capacity of a railroad line.
There is a line of thinking within the advocacy community "Yeah, the freight railroads are growing in traffic? They are going to need billions and billions of capital spending to meet the demand, I tell you, and where are they going to raise that amount of money on Wall Street? The government is going to have to "invest" money in new freight railroad "infrastructure", don't you know it", with the implication that if we get the railroads "on the hook" this way, they will have to do a better job "giving priority" to Amtrak and running passenger trains on time.
Nice theory that fits in with the world view of many in the advocacy community -- crisis in transportation, need for government to step in and spend money on trains. If there is continued traffic and hence revenue and profit growth on the freight railroads, current downturn one hopes as a short-term setback, the freight railroads will be able to raise investment capital for expansion thank-you-very-much.
Perhaps a more realistic approach is to figure out what you want in terms of level of passenger service, and then to negotiate with the freight railroads what that would take in terms of line improvements to pay for it, and then come up with the money.
One thing within, perhaps, the abilities of the advocacy community, however, is to make some independent determination of what really are the capacity limits on railroad lines. With our penchant for scanners and train schedules and Rochelle Web cams and train watching and knowing the right industry insiders, doing this kind of research may be a worthwhile project. Instead of simply blaming the freight railroads for "not giving Amtrak trains priority", perhaps we could better understand the limits under which those railroads operate and what it would take to run more Amtrak trains faster.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic There is a line of thinking within the advocacy community "Yeah, the freight railroads are growing in traffic? They are going to need billions and billions of capital spending to meet the demand, I tell you, and where are they going to raise that amount of money on Wall Street? The government is going to have to "invest" money in new freight railroad "infrastructure", don't you know it", with the implication that if we get the railroads "on the hook" this way, they will have to do a better job "giving priority" to Amtrak and running passenger trains on time. Nice theory that fits in with the world view of many in the advocacy community -- crisis in transportation, need for government to step in and spend money on trains. If there is continued traffic and hence revenue and profit growth on the freight railroads, current downturn one hopes as a short-term setback, the freight railroads will be able to raise investment capital for expansion thank-you-very-much. Perhaps a more realistic approach is to figure out what you want in terms of level of passenger service, and then to negotiate with the freight railroads what that would take in terms of line improvements to pay for it, and then come up with the money. One thing within, perhaps, the abilities of the advocacy community, however, is to make some independent determination of what really are the capacity limits on railroad lines. With our penchant for scanners and train schedules and Rochelle Web cams and train watching and knowing the right industry insiders, doing this kind of research may be a worthwhile project. Instead of simply blaming the freight railroads for "not giving Amtrak trains priority", perhaps we could better understand the limits under which those railroads operate and what it would take to run more Amtrak trains faster.
Do you realize that a major part of today's "advocacy community" is the railroads themselves? BNSF, CSX, UP, NS, AAR, et al, have all stated openly the want and need government(s) aid in the coming century as private capital will not meet total projected demand for infrastructure and service. But that, so far, does not mean green lights for Amtrak.
Open access is a neat idea. And if the ROW owners maintian a high level of infrastructure for speed, accomodation of services, and safety complimented by service providers with proper equipment to apply to given service, maintained for high quality service (no on the road failures), with complete safety, then there might be a good chance of the scheme surviving, even prospering. But one glitch on either party's part and the whole thing collapses. (As I look this over, the one's who will make out best will be insurance companies with high premiums and the attending attorneys for all parties! Probably will price the whole shebang out of the market!)
Yes, the capacity question is central -- but there are the huge variables of PTC and ECPB. Also, since two more teenagers will be getting their cars soon, we need MORE freeway lanes.
As for a minimum level of passenger service, I suggest most of the current "non-corridor" routes need two trains per day, and abandoned routes need to be restored; that's just an arbitrary figure, without research. My research time last night was reading Washington State's 2006 Long-Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades. I will see improvement in corridor service (although the Skagit station parking shortage is not mentioned). But the plan explicitly ignores long-distance trains, so the migrant workers in Wenatchee are stuck riding the dog. Not everyone in America lives in a "corridor," and not everyone can afford a car.
With the amount of money that needs to be spent on the Vancouver, BC to Portland, OR corridor, the state might as well just buy the track. But ports, railroads, and even whole nations are fighting over freight capacity here. Too much improvement is not welcome.
I hadn't previously noticed this thread, and I'm a little late to it. However, what I didn't see is any discussion of the very unfavorable experience (particularly on the freight side) in foreign countries where forms of "open access" have been attempted. If the U.S. government were to purchase the existing rail system from its private owners and operate it primarily for passenger trains, it's certainly not going to benefit freight shippers, either in pricing or in service.
One downside of open access: When anybody has the right to serve any location on the network, nobody HAS to serve any location on the network. I could see a situation where a lot of branch lines and secondary main lines would have few to no operators on them and a lot of intermediate points on primary main lines would be unserved.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.