See Fred W. Frailey's story on the Friday newswire. Surprised that nobody has responded with a new post, I will start one myself.
Here, I believe, the railroads are being shown the potential cost of climbing into bed with Washington, whether for high-speed rail or capacity improvements. Given the expansive notion of government prerogatives exhibited by the Obama administration, it would not surprise me in the least if the carriers did not ultimately have to go to court for affirmation of their right to reject the kind of onerous terms proposed by the FRA.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
dakotafred See Fred W. Frailey's story on the Friday newswire. Surprised that nobody has responded with a new post, I will start one myself. Here, I believe, the railroads are being shown the potential cost of climbing into bed with Washington, whether for high-speed rail or capacity improvements. Given the expansive notion of government prerogatives exhibited by the Obama administration, it would not surprise me in the least if the carriers did not ultimately have to go to court for affirmation of their right to reject the kind of onerous terms proposed by the FRA.
Do you think you can make your point without the political slur?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
As someone who spent a career in the electric utility business, I have had a lot of experience with regulators. The trick in regulation is to get the balance correct. It must be smart regulation. If it isn't, it can produce a variety of unintended consequences.
A key weakness in the regulator process lies in the fact that most of the regulators, although not all of them, don't have the capabilities of the industry personnel that they are regulating. This was certainly true in our business. We paid two to three times what the regulatory agencies paid. As a result, we simply got better people, i.e. better education, better experience, etc.
I don't know much about the FRA, other than a few articles that I have read, nor do I know anything about the proposed high speed rail regulations, but if I were the CEO of a private carrier, I would be leery about any proposed regulation. I would want to be sure that the regulation, as well as the regulator, understood my business and was imbued with real world flexibility.
Sam:
Once again you and I agree on something.
Spooky, isn't it?
Phoebe Vet asks me above: "Do you think you can make your point without the political slur?"
For Vet's instruction, the point IS the "slur" -- or what Vet perceives as one. I would say, rather, that it is the OPINION of the loyal opposition that the Obama administration has been characterized by overreaching, as reflected in the proposed FRA rules. I could certainly give numerous other, non-railroad, examples -- but these would be off the subject and could be legitimately criticized as "political."
Let Vet lay out and defend his own opinions, if he can, and not take cheap shots at opinions on railroad subjects with which he may disagree.
Still, since I am here trying to understand what the thread originator intends by his opening remarks, the phrase, "...in bed with..." suggests more than a business or a regulatory arrangement or relationship, and sounds somewhat unflattering of those in business or in government. I don't think our hosts want to stifle creative expression, but this is a trite phrase that is often used in political discussions...and we know how our hosts feel about those. Just a thought...
-Crandell
selector Still, since I am here trying to understand what the thread originator intends by his opening remarks, the phrase, "...in bed with..." suggests more than a business or a regulatory arrangement or relationship, and sounds somewhat unflattering of those in business or in government. I don't think our hosts want to stifle creative expression, but this is a trite phrase that is often used in political discussions...and we know how our hosts feel about those. Just a thought... -Crandell
In other words, you personally don't agree with the implications posited by the thread originator, and so if it were in your power, you would stifle them; however, because you do not control the the website, you merely seek to alert the hosts to do stifle him for you. Subtle. You'd make a great bureaucrat. (a complement, by the way).
Just a thought....
dakotafredSee Fred W. Frailey's story on the Friday newswire. Surprised that nobody has responded with a new post, I will start one myself. Here, I believe, the railroads are being shown the potential cost of climbing into bed with Washington, whether for high-speed rail or capacity improvements. Given the expansive notion of government prerogatives exhibited by the Obama administration, it would not surprise me in the least if the carriers did not ultimately have to go to court for affirmation of their right to reject the kind of onerous terms proposed by the FRA.
Why would they have to go to court? Just reject any government money.
I have not read the Frailey article, but from the characterization of it in the first post, I did make exactly the same point several months ago in more than one thread. I would have to go back and dig up the archives for the specifics. I think it was in a thread about electrification and also in one or more on HSR.
My basic source for developing my opinion on the matter was a mission statement by the FRA that was released maybe a year or so ago. In that paper, the FRA seems to be saying that the best routes for HSR are exactly where many existing rail corridors are located. Therefore, the FRA expects freight railroads to host new HSR on their freight corridors because there is no better place for them. Presumably, the proposed HSR would not use the track of the freight railroads, but it would use the same corridor. Of course, even if new, dedicated track were built for HSR, the construction and operation would pose enormous complications and cost on the hosting freight railroads.
The tone of the paper was that this cooperation was simply expected from the owners of the freight corridors because all the good corridors have been spoken for and they should be regarded sort of as a public good because the FRA predicates HSR as serving a national goal that goes far beyond just serving the needs of transportation. It makes it sound as if the freight railroads are going to be expected to participate in HSR by providing the use of their corridors. And in those two or three posts, I asked why the freight railroads would not be worried about this seemingly heavy handed attitude on the part of the FRA and the administration as they push for a full national system of HSR.
I don’t recall if I used the phrase, “climbing into bed,” but it does make the point rather well when you consider the implications of all this. If this were merely a business arrangement, the railroads would have a right to say no if they did not want to be involved with it. It seems to me that there was a linked source in the rail industry posted in those threads that did actually use that phrase.
dakotafred Phoebe Vet asks me above: "Do you think you can make your point without the political slur?" For Vet's instruction, the point IS the "slur"
For Vet's instruction, the point IS the "slur"
That is exactly my point. Political arguments are prohibited on this forum.
Others in this discussion are making thier points about the subject without provoking a political argument.
Phoebe Vetdakotafred For Vet's instruction, the point IS the "slur" Political arguments are prohibited on this forum. Others in this discussion are making thier points about the subject without provoking a political argument
dakotafred For Vet's instruction, the point IS the "slur"
Political arguments are prohibited on this forum.
Others in this discussion are making thier points about the subject without provoking a political argument
Apparently dakotafred is more interested in scoring some supposed political point than in a reasoned discussion on the specific rail-related issues. Phoebe Vet and Bucyrus, among others, show us how to discuss this without getting political. It is a tricky matter to have cooperation between private/public sectors.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
As I mentioned in a post above, last fall, I posted my comments in which I questioned whether railroads would be leery of the controls that might be placed upon them by government if they accepted “free money” from the government to upgrade their infrastructure in order to accommodate national public HSR. The same question arises in connection to the proposed use of rail corridors to accommodate a new power grid that is being planned.
When I consider the prospect of a publicly owned track infrastructure, a publicly owned power distribution system on the track corridors, a publicly owned HSR system on the track corridors, and a privately owned freight business operating on the track corridors; I wonder if the private freight business might be the minority player in this public/private business model.
Adding to this scenario, is the fact that the FRA and the Obama administration have announced plans for dramatic changes in the freight rail industry that include taking 80% of long haul truck freight off of the highways and placing it on rail; and electrifying freight rail with publicly produced renewable energy delivered over a publicly owned distribution system.
Here is the link that I posted with my comment last fall:
http://www.sj-r.com/high-speed-rail/x1938840934/High-speed-rail-spending-to-be-a-boon-to-freight-rail-companies
Here are some excerpts from the article, including a reference to "climbing into bed with Washington," as the original poster here called it. When you look at the whole context of this subject, I am sure you will agree that the comment is most apt:
New, publicly owned rail corridors could allow faster passenger trains, but would cost billions more than sharing track with freight companies. The challenge is figuring out ways to speed up passenger trains while also providing reasons for freight rail companies to become partners the government. In some cases, that boils down to taxpayers footing the bills.
The freight rail industry liked what it heard on Oct. 14, when Joseph Szabo, head of the Federal Railroad Administration, told a House subcommittee that the Obama administration is committed to a world-class freight rail system and that the public benefits when the government spends money on tracks owned by freight companies.
“I think freight railroads are an amazing success story, the way regulation was reduced and firms behaved,” says William Garrison, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at the University of California-Berkeley who is considered one of the leading geographers of the 20th century. “They’ve got good management, good attitudes. They understand their technology. They run tight ships. They know their markets.”
Garrison says he doesn’t believe high-speed passenger rail will prove either popular or cost effective, and he can’t understand why railroads would consider partnerships with the government after decades of fighting to be left alone.
“If I were a freight railroad, I would be very wary of this,” Garrison said. “In my judgment, they would no benefit. I think they’re getting in bed with the devil.”
(My emphasis added.)
Interesting article. There is no such thing as free federal money. It always comes with strings, often politically motivated strings like "must buy it in my district". Politicians are not very good at business decisions. They tend to think of every decision in terms of either votes or campaign donations, not business sense.
NCRR is owned by NCDOT. NCRR has owned the ROW from Charlotte, through Raleigh, to the Atlantic Ocean for more than 100 years. They have operating agreements with CSXT and NS to operate and maintain it.
There would be advantages to publicly owned ROW, but that would also require a public Rail Traffic Control system, and it would be very hard to make it revenue neutral, so it will probably never happen.
When a subject or an offshoot of one comes up I feel the need to contemplate the ramifications. This look at the down sides of RRs working with HSR certainly falls into that corner.
1. After reading the FRA guidelines I find that there is ambiguity in the base line for on time targets. That certainly would get any RR to sit up and take notice. It did me as well. These guidelines indicate that they may be subject to change. April's Amtrack performance results show that the other 4 class 1s have gotten their on times up to the BNSF performance figures that have been leadiing the others for the last couple years. However I believe that the class 1s were well aware that the higher on time figures were coming.
2. The indicator? All the PRIIA proposals on the Amtrak web site have a big chunk of the infrastructure improvements all directed toward better times. These were added at the insistence of the freight RRs Ex. CSX NOL - JAX; UP SLC - PDX; BN KCY - OKC; NS HAR - PIT: KCS? not involved so far. It has been hard for this poster to understand how infratructure that will be only be used for freight train benefits 21 hrs of a day does not get any consideration in the PRIIA reports. Suppose the UP/TP Fort Worth - El Paso route is upgraded for use of a passenger route (may an extension of Meridian - FTW) wouldn't UP benefit by not having to fleet trains on this siding challenged route?
3. Another item is at those locations where the passenger track will deviate from the freight route by going for straight up and down instead of the round about freight route to eliminate cant deficiency of the passenger trains. I can see that if these straight line HSR routes can support high HP, fast, light weight, intermodal freights the freight RRs could use them to compete more with highway freights such as UPS, FED EX, or others.
4. Also if an upgraded route is replaced by a higher performing route does the old route have to stay active for the 20 yrs from initial useage of the last improved segment? Ex. -- The BNSF Raton route?
The above being said there are items not mentioned that need clarifications:
5. Detours are not addressed.
A. Detours away from a route : The "A" line of CSX can be cut for weeks by the aftermath of a hurricane. Detouring the trains or annulled will that count against OTP?. What happens if a major RR bridge or tunnel is damaged or destroyed? Ex: the SP Thistle tunnel; any bridge over the Ohio or Mississippi rivers? Under those standards the Rhode Island Amtrak flooding in April would not meet the criteria.NEC service over CSX Springfield - BOS certainly did not even make regular timekeeping.
B. Detours onto a route. FRA Directed service or other same RR regular service. The SE HSR route anticipates using the "S" line Raleigh - SAV. If all "A" line traffic had to use it the Star would never make schedule. What if UP Springfield, Il. trafic is moved away from downtown?
6. Property taxes -- since the RRs will take possession of extra tracks they may not need; will local taxing authorities try to tax the tracks at a higher value? On the other hand if the tracks make the RRs more fluid would some tax increase be justified? See item 2,3,4?
7. Paragraph 25 of the FRA guidelines mention mergers, sale, dispossessions, transfers, etc not being allowed without FRA approval. That could affect locations such as Raton (NM Rail runner) or the Buckingham Branch.
8. There is also in the FRA guidelines a 1 yr moritorium on any downgrades to any route that is abandoned for passenger travel. Ex: the CSX NOL - JAX comes to mind if another hurricane.
9. Lastely all patents , copyrights, etc that come from the FRA upgrades are property of the FRA and FRA has full control of licensing, useage and release of any developments. Good or Bad? Many developments are hard now days to pin to a certain activity???
All comments and additions welcomed !!
With the question of re-regulation hanging over the railroads is it any wonder that they have concerns about their relationships with the federal government?
Mike O If Union Pacific and CSX hadn't mishandled Amtrak trains for the past decade, then perhaps these rules and regulations wouldn't have to be so strict. CSX's many delays of passenger trains usually seem due to incompetence and a lack of adequate infrastructure. Union Pacific's, on the other, have always seemed vindictive.
The FRA is blowing this one, plain and simple. I'm hoping Matt Rose can 'splain it to them and get a reasonable deal done. Otherwise, what seems to be a good approach to incremental passenger improvements is going to go down the drain.
The carriers have been abused for over 100 years by the United States Government. I hope they stand fast and do not accept government money with these strings attached.
Mac
Mike O Union Pacific's [delays to Amtrak], on the other, have always seemed vindictive.
Mike O CSX's many delays of passenger trains usually seem due to incompetence. \.
CSX's many delays of passenger trains usually seem due to incompetence. \.
Do you have examples of such with ALL the facts?
An "expensive model collector"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.