The Railroads are Dying

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andyjay

I've never met any teenager or college-age person who's expressed any interests in working a steam engine.

You haven't met me. I've always wanted to drive a steam engine, and not just as one time deal either. But an engineer is someone with tenure and experience. If you get hired to work on a railroad your not put in their engineer's seat on an over-the-road freight frist thing. You have to work your way up to that spot. I'm in my 20s and even us 20-year-olds will someday be driving the steam engines, some day, when we're past middle age probably. There wil always be someone out there to fill the shoes of those steam engineers who past on.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dblstack

Here's one to ponder.......If you asked 10 people on the street how the railroads are doing, I would bet that 8 or 9 would say that they're dying, they're a non-issue in America. Who uses them? What do they haul? The remaining one or two would have no data to even offer that much of an opinion. Does that prospect concern anybody?

I work in transportation and when newly-hired people sit in with me for orientation (since I'm the RR guy), a lot of them sheepishly ask, "Um, are the railroads still a viable way to move freight?" These are educated people who are starting a career in transportation.

I think a lot of this outlook that the RR's are on the way under is based on people seeing the branch line in their hometown being torn up and being made into a bike trail. People don't realize how the RR's have sort of mimicked the interstate highway system (their supposed nemesis) and have retrenched largely to a high-volume, hub-to-hub, corridor focused system (i.e. many fewer lanes, but more capacity and more trains in those lanes.) The average person has no idea about that. They've never seen the triple track at North Platte or Logan Hill in the Powder River Basin. They don't know about the BNSF Double-Track Transcon Main. They have no idea what it means that CTC was added to a line or sidings were added or lengthened. They just know what they see, which, with regard to RR's, frankly isn't much for most folks. The trains that they do see just appear as random things. No real rhyme or reason to them. No pattern. No big picture.

Do the RR's care that this perception exists. I've directly heard Sr. Execs from BNSF, NS, CSX & CN say no. When asked if this bothers them, they said that they wouldn't support any advertising to change this perception.

Did the Union Pacific "Building America" campaign do any good with regard to this issue. Well, it was flashy. It had some nice landscape shots. It even won some awards, but really, when you boil it all down, what did it say? "We're still in business!" Not much more than that, did it?

I've had stunned looks when I tell people that in the last 10-15 years, the RR's have moved more tons of freight, more miles than at any time in history (even more than during WW II.) They don't believe it. They just say "You're kidding, right?"

The RR's are satisfied to toil in obscurity. Maybe that's why they have such a hard time getting support for things like regional transit, Amtrak, public-private funding for infrastructure (i.e. intermodal ramps, grade crossing projects, etc.)

I guess if the majority of folks thought that my business was dying, I'd be concerned. I don't think that the RR's are. I've seen no showing of concern. Maybe that's just their arrogance. Would it bother you?[?]

I don't think it's anything to be concerned about and I wouldn't worry over it. I'd say So What? The railroads are doing fine and making a profit. I've come to find out over time that a majority of people are ignorant and apathetic. They don't know what goes on in the world and they don't care. They just don't pay attention. They don't watch the news or read newspapers. They get up, go to work, come home and find someway to be entertained. Most people don't listen to the radio anymore. When they get in their car they put in a CD. Most people are watching DVDs, videos, or cable TV. Then they get mad when a tornado comes through town and they weren't warned. Well, if they had been paying attention to the weather and turned off their tapes and turn on the local TV station or radio they'd know what the weather is going to be and what's going on in the world.

When I tell people of my rides on Amtrak they're first reaction is to get wide eyed and say "wait wait wait, stop, back up--- there are still PASSENGER trains?!?!?" People get aggravated at trains because it makes them late for work. People spend all this time and effort in trying to get to work or class or the store on time, but once they get to their destination they're not there 5 minutes before they're already thinking about leaving and how soon they can get off or how many breaks they can take in the next 30 minutes.

But that doesn't bother me except in the case when I have to work with such people because they're never focused on the task at hand. They get so distracted about what they're going to do later and not what they're doing now. It's all about going to a club or a party or constantly being on the phone because they can't stand where they are now so they need to be in touch with someone who is not where they are now.

We spend our days filling our minds with trains and consuming railroad data and there are some train enthusiaists who get surprised and upset when other railfans or non-railfans don't know what an SD40-2 is or who makes it or how old it is. It's just like baseball stats: not everybody follows baseball and not everybody who watches baseball doesn't know the career stats of every player.

I don't care that people don't care about trains. Trains are MY hobby, they are MY interest, I don't care that the "average man on the street" doesn't know the first thing about trains and I don't expect him to. And it really doesn't matter either. It doesn't affect anything. There are too many people out there that don't care a lick about anything, all they know is the universe revolves around them and there is nothing I can do to change their minds or thinking. You can't force someone to care about or educate themselves about something they have no desire to get involved in.

[Anonymous]

Oh, no, not another "the sky is falling" thread. Guys, the railroads will be here for a long time to come. I used to work with a crusty old head conductoir who loved to tell us how when he first hired out in the late 1940s people were saying the railroads were on their way out and that with the war over and rationing done cars, trucks, busses and airplanes would be the future of transportation. He always liked to sigh, and give us a wink and say, "the missus was sure counting on the railroad being gone so I could be home ALL the time. Thank god for the railroad boys, may she always run." Here's to ya Jack, hope ya make last call at that Golden Spike Bar two down from Heaven's Roundhouse.

LC

[jeaton]

PS:Any chance that the two railroads out of the game also have the highest paid CEO's. E-Mail me back that one if you want.

[jeaton]

dblstack- I'm pretty sure I got your point and though I have been away from the business for about 15 years, I think I know part of the story. When I started in the business of transportation pricing, the Interstate Commerce Act had a pretty tight hold on what the rates could be, and also how the rates were to be published. If you are able to look at any of the rate publications-tariffs-you would see that they were extremely voluminous with a lot of what, where, when and how much verbiage to define the charge for any given shipment. (Much like the way I tend to write). It was so complex that there were specialty business schools to teach people how to read them. It was common for many in the business to work a few years in the rate (pricing) department of a railroad and then get a job as a traffic manager (transportation buyer) for a shipper. Shipping companies needed this kind of expertise to get there goods moved. After the Staggers Act for railroads and laws for other modes "deregulated" the transportation industry, the function of buying transportation often went to the shipping department. Truck line reps had always gone around to the dock, because if a company was shipping by truck, there wasn't much, if any, difference in rates for any given product being shipped. Meanwhile, rail reps no longer had an old friend to call on, without the help of the Traffic Manager and his knowledge of how to ship by rail, there tended to be an attitude of "I don't to be bothered with all the complexities. I just want to get the freight out the door." At the same time the railroads made significant reductions in their sales force, and ultimately, there became what I would call a loss in the body of knowledge. I once did some estimating on this and figured that there may have been job reductions in the high tens of thousands. From the general view of business productivity this may not have been bad, but I think it is clearly a factor the attitudes you now find in the group you define as the shipping public.

Compared to the time and effort it took in the old days to get rates set and effective, (they even had to be published in the tariffs for 30 days before they could be used), I am amazed that there now are railroads ill equipped to get a price out promptly.

As I said before, unless there is a desire to change public policy, I don't think there is much need to "educate" the general public. But to blow off customers? That's dumb!

[Anonymous]

I think a few people appropriately understood my original post and a few jumped to a conclusion based on the subject line.

If you go back and read my original postIn my original post at the top of the thread, I mentioned that I spend time educating my new colleagues about the fact the RR's are not dying, contrary to what many people would believe. I subscribe to the AAR stats publications and watch the freight gradually growing all of the time.

I also mentioned above that the RR's have retrenched to a more viable core-route network. I think its a strategy that has paid significant dividends for them. To that end, thank God for intermodal being their outreach tool.

I guess in selecting the subject line for this post, I was trying to employ an old journalism trick to get interest in the topic: Make the headline sensational and they'll read it.

However, I'm continually dismayed and frustrated with perception by the general public and the shipping public about the rail industry. Too commonly, either the public has no data from which to form an opinion, or their opinion is negative. I rely on RR's for not only a hobby, but also for my livelihood. I'm in sort of an intermediary function and there are a huge lot of shippers who are VERY, VERY skeptical of RR's and the railroads, as an instituion have done virtually nothing to show that they're viable. I know that there are a lot of hard working men and women who give it their all every day to try to make it work... and often do.

Many larger, sophisticated shippers accept rail transit as a price-buy and as a simple economic reality. Many would rather truck it, if the economics were more favorable. Trade offs in everything I guess - service, speed and reliability vs. price.

At times, the RR's can often be their own worst enemy. Try getting a box car rate that internlines between two RR's... or God forbid, crosses an international border. The web application, of course, can't provide this rate. There's no actual number to call to speak to a live person. So you fish around the organization. Eventually you stumble on the right person but seldom if ever, in fact thus far, never actually find them at their desk, answering their phone. So you wait and wait and wait for a reply. I've been working on one rate for two weeks and now, some 15 calls later, I'm still waiting for part of the response. The preliminary numbers that I have would say this will be a greater than $2M revenue opportunity, but I can't get a reply phone call.

What would you say about a carrier that consistantly provides service at 30-60% on time..... but of course, expects to be 100% of the rate, 100% of the time? There was a time when the RR's published schedules for more than propaganda sake. They actually meant something. There are still 2 big US carriers who get it, but there are 2 who are soooo far out of the game, its just sad. Trains magazine columnists would say that market economics will sort this out. Not when the network has been so thoroughly consolidated that there isn't a 2nd choice of RR's for several hundred miles.

Maybe they are dying and we just can't all smell the decay just yet. [xx(]

[espeefoamer]

The reason railroads don't paint thier names or advertizing slogans on box or hopper cars anymore is not because they have nothing to sell.It is because of grafitti.Why should BNSF paint a slogan on a boxcar when it will only be covered over a week later by a bunch of gangbangers?[:(!]

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jwieczorek

Note to Kevin:

You state that railroads cost $1million/mile to build. Perhaps, but do you know that the cost to convert a two lane rural road (with ditches) to a four lane urban highway (with curb and gutter and storm sewers) is $3milion/mile. Who's paying for this? You and me, brother.

And you think the truckers are going to pay their share???????[}:)]

As has been beaten to death on other threads, ask the truckers to start shouldering their share of the tax burden and a lot of new sidings and spurs start popping up. In the mean time, the long distance efficiencies of heavy loads on rails keeps the rail lines running.........[;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
Congress and the White House are debating spending between $258 billion and $378 billion in a budget-busting highway bill that might go far beyond available gas-tax revenues. Yet they seem to begrudge every dollar spent on passenger rail.

from http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=9491

----Amtrak will be lucky to get half of what they are asking for by the sounds of it.


A lack of money doesn't seem to be the problem, it seems to be more about the people that are spending it.

[Anonymous]

Note to Kevin:

You state that railroads cost $1million/mile to build. Perhaps, but do you know that the cost to convert a two lane rural road (with ditches) to a four lane urban highway (with curb and gutter and storm sewers) is $3milion/mile. Who's paying for this? You and me, brother.

[vsmith]

considering that they just spend several million $$ to trench the main rail corridor from the port of LA to East LA so they could avoid grade crossings and run a qhole lot more trains seams to say that they are far from dying. Now they are crying that the Alameda Corridor East extension is in jeopardy thanks to the budget fiasco, they are screaming that the train/auto crosings will be gridlocked due to the number of trains they want to run itf they dont get the funding.

[Overmod]

Trainhearted --

What's happened is that much better approaches were substituted for a lot of the 'local' aspects. Note how quickly interurban railways disappeared with the introduction of automobiles and trucks. Local stores and farms are far better off with rubber-tired, go-anywhere vehicles capable of far more speed, and far better scheduling, and (let's face it) more effective fuel use than the alternative for their commodities or products, on the required schedules, in the quantities used. This is one of the real points of intermodal: you can't usually beat a truck for last-mile delivery, so you should optimize things so that the same load can ride by rail when that's best, and be transferred to a truck chassis when that's best. (Pity the 'real' intermodal world doesn't generally work that way, yet!)

Note how MUCH you'd have to pay, and how LONG it would take, to get to 'anywhere' from Brunswick if trains went there today -- even very fast trains. It's much easier just to get in a car and go, especially if you've already bought the car, and insured it, and provided the roads and fuel stations, etc. to run it, for other reasons. And there are a very large number of 'other reasons'. A train, on the other hand, even starts out being a compromise, and as soon as your 'network' of trains to different places gets complex you start having delays between trains, missed connections, etc. It's bad enough transferring between buses in NYC or LA. I could go from Memphis to Florida by train if I wanted to. Unfortunately, I have to go 23 miles downtown to catch the train south, then lay over in New Orleans, and I get into Crestview distressingly early in the 'morning' and then have to go south to Destin. Same sorts of problems going the other way: the time I get on, the time I get off, and the time I have to be changing trains are all pretty inconvenient, even though I love New Orleans. Oh yes: if I take the train I don't have a car, and I'm limited in my baggage, and I won't even mention how much I'm expected to pay. Meanwhile, my 12-cylinder car gets 26 to 28mpg on the trip, goes straight there except if I want to stop (and then stops exactly where I want, when I want), and carries as much stuff as my wife can jam in. Ignoring this sort of thing is to ignore precisely what has made life in America change so dramatically since 1900...

Now the attention goes to the 'new' transportation methods. It's hard to get enthusiastic about the romance of local trucking (;-}) but there isn't much question that there's enthusiasm about cars a lot of the time. There would be MUCH more romance and excitement if cars weren't so commonplace, and cheap in so many ways.

And, oh yes, did I mention the combination of turbine aircraft and discount pricing? I used to drive to the West Coast from Shreveport, but I did so because I was schlepping a whole bunch of stuff with me. I could have flown, at the time, for about what I was paying for gas to make the trip, and gotten there quickly and without exhaustion. I would not do well trying to sleep in a coach seat during the (slow) trip out on a train, and sleeper economics aren't very economical if you ignore the charm and nostalgia aspects...

One might say, tongue in cheek, that the introduction of standard time zones marks the beginning of the END of 'local importance.' Used to be that solar time in the important places was what counted. We are now quickly becoming a world in which quick, ubiquitous, and guaranteed data could make synchronization of such local time easy and relatively foolproof... if we'd had Internet and technical capabilities in the 1870s, we'd almost certainly have never found it particularly desirable to standardize time into zones.

Dave: GOOD CALL, and GOOD QUOTE.

[dehusman]

In the words of Mark Twain: "The report of my death was an exaggeration ...."

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

one thing that has died though is local importance I guess, maybe its just in a coma. When the B&O ran through Brunswick around 1900, you could take a train to anywhere, even to Niagra falls, get a ticket from the depot & hop on. Stores had their own spurs, and local farms loaded up at the freight station. now mainly only major corperations ship by rail, and you can only take the train to a limited number of places at certain times on certain days. And whatever happened to standard time being railroad time?

[Overmod]

Very clearly, railroads aren't dying. And the need for them is only increasing.

I sympathize with Dave's comments about MIT. When I was in the Princeton transportation program (in the mid-'70s), the Big Exciting Thing was people-movers. Lots of little computer-guided modules running around on multilevel concrete linguini. One might argue that these things, since they involve tracks, qualify as 'honorary railroads' at least as much as maglev trains and similar stuff.

Passenger railroading in the United States is growing where it's needed (or where it's adequately subsidized). Part of the perception problem, I think, is that the 'nostalgia' aspect of railroading is what most Americans think of (the Hooterville Cannonball, the Long Island Wail Road, etc.), and let's face it, it isn't easy to get excited about coal trains or the practical 'efficiencies' of how modern railroads get trains over the road. There is little "Casey Jones" type charm and appeal to the life of modern train crews -- viz. the recent KCS article in Trains -- and it's not easy to justify Amtrak if you don't ride it but then find out how much it costs.

I just can't let that witless crack about 'tracks wearing out like the one-horse shay' pass without some comment. The Eighth Air Force found out as early as 1944 that it was much easier to rebuild railroad track than concrete roadways. We found out the same thing, at least in New York, Delaware, Louisiana and Arkansas (to mention four out of the four states where I'm familiar with road rebuilding). Which is more expensive: laying ribbon rail and panelized switches with welded-in-place rail, or breaking up and removing a reinforced concrete slab and pouring another one?

Now, if you have a Highway Trust Fund to pay for the latter, you may not care about the $$$ and years that it takes to keep rebuilding concrete Interstates. (I won't mention asphalt ones, as they become worthless within months of heavy truck traffic). But note that the same investment in rail track is considerably better. Even Class IIs would often benefit from concrete ties and modern lining/surfacing/ballasting equipment. Note that the issue isn't about the poky branch lines, etc. -- it's about any place where operating rail reduces either the congestion on nearby roads, or the need to expand them expensively. Yes, there should have been a rail connector in the 'Big Dig' project. I guess folks from Massachusetts can't design much better than they drive ;-O) But they'll have to live with the result. Compare this with Philadelphia's center-city rebuilding (much as I hated to lose Reading Terminal as a working facility) and the airport connections via heavy or light rail in so many places. If this is 'dying', somebody call George Romero!

In addition, the use of modern equipment and materials may contribute dramatically to a number of aspects of track design and maintenance. One example is the 'magic wear rate' (which is imho a good approach to fixing martensitic and gauge-corner cracking). Lighter and faster grinding trains, reasonable hard-coating technology for zones on the railhead, better air-brake control and modulation, portable wheel-grinding equipment, etc. may be capital-intensive to implement, but produce increasingly valuable results.

Now if only we could find more railroad executives with style and flair to get railroading to the forefront of public notice again! It was interesting to watch the turnout in a couple of the small towns along the ex-SSW when 3985 made its way through. Very few of those people were "railfans" before. Be interesting to see how many might be now -- or if there are other ways to reintroduce the perception of romance, whether historical or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Railroads will never die unless someone develops an instant transporter, and I don't think we've seen anything come of th transport ideas in Star trek. Yes, the industry has become a more private, more big busness focused industry, that has become less attractive to the general public. I live in a town built by the B&O railroad, but if you ask someone around here what the most important transportation industry is, you'll hear tractor trailer from most people, and Most people haven't even been to the station. Hey, most people either don't know that Brunswick has a museum, or thinks the museum is in the station (Which its not, MARC still uses the station)

As for the youn folk and steamers, working at a railroad museum, I see many people, anywere from 3 to 20 and up, asking questions about steamers, asking why the museum has none, and asking were to see them.

[Train Guy 3]

Take the "dying" railroad away. And we will see what else starts to die.

[jeaton]

I agree that most stats on railroads, except the return of the cost of capital show some pretty dymanic growth. I also agree that the railroads have no particular obligation to anyone not a shareholder , employee or user of the service. I think the basic issue being raised is that if people getting an education to get into transportation related careers THINK that railroads are dying, what would one expect to be the perception of the general public. So should I really care? I do not fall in any of the above categories.

What I was suggesting is that IF railroads want changes in public policy to get things such as government funding to help improve the infrastructure, and other changes the may be of benefit to the users and shareholders, then they are going to have to do more than toot their horn at 3:00am at crossings in residential neighborhoods. OK, some things are done. UP's steam program and operation lifesaver come to mind. On the other hand, if they don't want help to the tune of a $ Billion for the Chicago rationalization plan or $ 7 or 8 for the for the "help the I 95" plan, let them wrap up the bucks they get and move on.

As Mark H. mentioned, commuter rail has grown and improved dramaticly, but it came because public money-tax dollars-got kicked in to do the job. That didn't come because a CEO said hey we need a little help here.

[Modelcar]

....I believe there is a young group following the interest too...Some years back when we used to get several big steam excursions come into Muncie here there was always plenty of "young" folk around the operation. Units such as 611, 765 etc....

[Anonymous]

One thing I've wondered is, are there any younger people who know how to, or have any interest in, driving a steam locomotive? Steam trains still seem to be popular as tourist attractions throughout the world. Heck, look how many theme parks have them running. But whenever I go to, say, Disneyland, even there the engineers on their steam engines mostly seem to be elderly. What's going to happen when they die? I've never met any teenager or college-age person who's expressed any interests in working a steam engine. Obviously if we want to have steam engines running throughout the world into this new millenium, some people are going to have to "take the throttle".

[Anonymous]

I noticed that most railroads have been changing to spartan paint schemes to save costs. They just look uglier, today I had a chance to see CSX bright and dark future geeps right next to each other and you can guess what one I liked more.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The only people the railroad is concerned with caring if the RR is in business are the shippers and potential investors. And they seem to be well aware of how the railroads are doing since business (and the stock) is up.

Dave H.

I agree that the only 'people' railroads are concerned about are the shipper/consignees that furni***he freight and the revenue that keeps them in business and the investors. That being said, railroads do not have broad based investment because they do not do anything to combat the public perception of railroads being a dying rust belt industry, The investment in railroads is controlled by the institutional investors that do not care about the overall health of the industry or of individual propertys they are invested in. They only care about what the bottom line reads THIS QUARTER. That forces rail managment to make short term decisions to bolster the bottom line THIS QUARTER that work to the long term detriment of the industry as a whole and to the detriment of individual companies.

[Modelcar]

...I suppose I'm one who can't quite figure why a corporation [railroads], continues to prefer to do business in the "dark". Arrogance seems to be closely associated with railroads since their early beginnings...I'm refering to management end of it all. Just seems to be something about the structure of it all that it has been done this way since the early years [when they were practically a monopoly in transportation], and want that concept to continue and disregard the transportation industry changes that now are in place. I'm one that finds it hard to believe keeping the workings and benefits of their service in absolute secrecy is going to be an advantage for their survival. It is my hope they DO survive....Just don't understand the position they take to secure that survival.

[kenneo]

For a good lesson in why modern railroads really really want to stay out of the public eye, research your railroad history starting with the construction of the UP up through the USRA in the early 1920's. They absolutely do not want to repeat any of that.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Constant repairs... is that a joke? thats like putting a patxch on the road.. anyone ever find the patch is worse then the pot hole? you can only put so many patches beofre the road looks like a disgrace... OR... the entire road needs to be repaved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the railway industry "re-pave" the entire road, so to speak, when it becomes necessary.

Your post reminded me of the article "The plight of the shortline railroad" Trains, March 2004, pages 30-39

It seems that the Class Ones have been doing a pretty good job of "re-paving" the roads; through the decades railways (particularily the class ones) have been constantly up-grading their rails to keep up with the increasing weight of freight cars. In this case the railroads are not just patching, but in fact replacing the old rails with new ones on a fairly consistant basis, throughout the past centruy. It's not as if the railroads are still using the same rails and infastructure that they were in the 1900s, with some minor upgrades or "patches" to the rails that have worn down.

But, you point does seem valid towards the smaller class two and three railroads that don't seem to have the money to be up-grading to the more heavy duty track, necessary to move the more modern 286,000lb cars (soon to be 315,000lb?)

If you havn't read the aformentioned article already, definately do, it's a good indicator of the near future to come in railroading.

[Anonymous]

Couldn't agree with any of you any less

Railroads are Dying, and if they are not, they are violation phsical law #3 of the universe which we live in, that states, that everythign will deteriorate over time, and everyhting has. They were usefull in one time period or another, But now, Laying down new track costs a million a mile, litterally. You have the kind of money? Railroads are highly expensive to opperate, And busses are a lot cheaper

For all of those who say Railroads aren't dying, you've either Failed physics or have never taken it.

Although I don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, The world is evolving, Railraods are going like typewritters.

When i use the term Railroads, I mean Metal wheels, Steal track.. i'm Not including the ICE or high speed rail , or the Train in Japan that moves really really fast, which eventually will have an amazing impact on our Economy.

Although I will admit to you that RRs are the best way to ship Goods and merchnadise, What I can say is withing the next 50 to 100 years, the bill for the RR structure upkeep will either be almost unafordable, or send an RR right to bankrupty protection

Laying down RR tracks is like installing a row of 1000 light hulbs, One switch opperates this entire row of light bulbs, hence, All the lighbulbs have the same amount of opperation time, and when 10,000 hours closes in, they will all burn out within a few days of each other.

The same thing is going to ahppen with the RR's.. and i don't want to sound like one of those sue-sayers or Cleo whatever he name is, But RRs , when things are laid down simoltaniously, the break simoultaniously. Each mile of tracks has ahd roughley the same amount of wear & tear put on it as the mile before that, and the mile befroe that...

So within 50 tom100 years, I have a gut feeling that this sytem, which we have come to know and love, could simoultaniously implode on itself.

Constant repairs... is that a joke? thats like putting a patxch on the road.. anyone ever find the patch is worse then the pot hole? you can only put so many patches beofre the road looks like a disgrace... OR... the entire road needs to be repaved.

I have a feeling that could happen shorter then we plan.

And nothing in this world defys itself, Everyhting WILL age, you me, the lamp post, your cat, your neighbors cat, the road.. And inferstructers don't take well to aging, especcualy where the sea air is present, that tends to age things at an excellerated rate du to all the sodium-chloride which eminates from the sea, Everyhting, usually, becomes more brital like plastic, and becomes more faulty.

Yuo can't disagree with that, because that is a universe fact..

But anyways.. i'll pass the soap box on to anyone else..

[edblysard]

Dave H hit on the head...
Railroads dont want to sell themselves to you, the railfans, or John Q Public.
Why would they?
Unless your the shipping agent for Dow Chemicals, or the rep from the local GM plant, you have nothing they want, unless your looking to invest a few million or so in that railroad.
Wonder why the billboard boxcar is gone?
Remember when the covered hopper had the users name and product advertised on it?
They dont need to attract you, your not going to ride their passenger train, they have none for you to ride.
They are not selling you the product in the rail car, because most of the products you can or would buy are shipped by truck.

They are flying under the public's radar on purpose, because they dont want the public involved in their business, and all the rules and regs, both operational and financial, that would then happen.
I am not saying railroads are, or will do anything illegal, but, unless your stuck at a crossing, or are a railfan, most folks ignore railroads, and that suites the railroads just fine, they can go about their business without worring about what the public thinks of them, because John Q normally dosnt.

Amtrak has to attrach the public, after all, they are the customer in the truest sense or the word.
True, you are a railroad customer also, directly or indirectly, but most folks dont realize that, or care.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

OUR COUNTRY IS RUN BY SPECIAL INSTREAST NOT THE PEOPLE BAN SPECIAL INSTREAST

[daveklepper]

Mark, would you dare editorialize on the facts of just why Milwaukee is NOT spending the money? How far away in time is the overdue extension of Chicago commuter service to Milwaukee? Then possibly you could extend this analysis to why the "Big Dig" did not include the rail connection? Why has New York City shied from light rail, where it would solve some specific problems as on 42nd street and in downtown Brooklyn, even with the successful New Jersey Line an example across the Hudson River? And why were other cities successful? Chicago, now even looking at streetcars? The California cities? I've heard some very interesting stories about what derailed for a long time some rail freight projects in New York. The case of a couple of feet of connecting track in the Harlem River Yard that Conrail wouldn't install until the State or City agreed to pay for it until they derailed a freight right across the Mott Haven junction tying up a commuter rush hour and Metro North said NO MORE! This might be a particularly important story with the new govenment in California and many railfans might wonder what the future there might be and what they can do in a positive direction. Dave