Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal The cost of keeping rails in place is a fraction of what it costs to rebuild an abandoned line or build a whole new line. Keeping a line mothballed for 20 or 30 years is much less costly than having to rebuild that line after abandonment. [/quote] But again, you're talking about a cost to a railroad that doesn't have enough money to pay the bills for the part that is operating. And the idea that you'll need a given line in 20 or 30 years is pure speculation. When your company is teetering on bankruptcy, you can't afford to speculate. [/quote] So were all the railroads teetering on bankruptcy when they engaged in whole hearted retrenchment? [/quote] No, but they were all lacking that crystal ball that told them which lines to keep, and which one to pitch. So, they did the only thing that anyone (you included) would have done. They analized current traffic, and predictable future business. They did what they felt was correct at the time, based on what they knew at the time-the same as you, or any other person would have had to do. To suggest otherwise, isn't quite realistic. [/quote] So how is it the railroads all got it so wrong, while every other freight transportation mode got it right and continued to expand and accumulate assets? [/quote] Because, they had something the other modes didn't have-miles and miles of excess trackage, in the wrong place, costing money; which the ICC would not let them get rid of fast enough. [/quote] "Excess" is in the eye of the beholder. Strictly speaking, most of the pre-1970's rail trackage was excess if and only if the traffic on that line ceased to exist. A played out mine, an old factory district converted into condos, that kind of traffic termination. Yet that wasn't the case, was it? Most of the types of products moved by rail continued to grow along with the general macroeconomy. If it was a case of rail related goods shrinking as a portion of the GDP (or for that matter in absolute terms!), then one could make a connection between the shrinking pool of traffic potential and a subsequent (not pre-emptive[;)]) retrenchment of the US rail network. But that's not what was happening in the economy. Oh, there was constant shifting of capital between and among industrial sectors - but it wasn't shrinking in a macro sense. (This is where I draw some disagreement with Michael Sol, artfbe, kenneo, et al.) So why did the railroads - ostensibly the most efficient way of moving this growing body of bulk commodities at speed (then and now)- give up on this traffic? Resistance to change? Resistance to inevitable technological evolution? No internal incentive to expand the customer base? A monopolistic preference to serve only premium customers? A desire of shareholders to shift investment to non-capital intensive industries? Or was it all the ICC's fault for repressing a desire to kick some a** (in a business sense)? PS - it wasn't "subsidized" trucks.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag