Toughest Challenge for Railroads in Coming Years ?

[edblysard]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Murphy Siding

Railway Man

  I don't consider these potential changes in traffic to be even in the top 10 challenges, even if they do come to pass. [snip]

    What do you see to be in the top 10 challenges?  I guess we've already seen #1 listed.  What about the other 9?

I like that approach, to provide a little more focus to this thread - thank you, Murphy.   

And we seem to have gotten back on track anyway.  To continue with that, one of the items that I had listed in the Original Post for possible discussion was 'financing'.  I believe most of us can see a need for more capital improvement money in the railroad industry, whether it is to be used for electrification, intermodal terminals, multiple-tracking, better tunnels and bridges, HSR, etc., etc.

So yesterday I was perusing the just-released Pennsylvania DOT's Draft 'Rail Plan' - more about that later, maybe.  And I was pretty surprised - shocked, even - to see that for about the last 10 years or so, the FRA has been running a financing program called the "Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing", or 'RRIF'.  Here's an excerpt that describes it [emphasis added - PDN]:

Under this program the FRA Administrator is authorized to provide direct loans and loan guarantees up to $35.0 billion. Up to $7.0 billion is reserved for projects benefiting freight railroads other than Class I carriers.

The funding may be used to:

• Acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, components of track, bridges, yards, buildings and shops;
• Refinance outstanding debt incurred for the purposes listed above; and
• Develop or establish new intermodal or railroad facilities
  
  Direct loans can fund up to 100% of a railroad project with repayment periods of up to 35 years and interest rates equal to the cost of borrowing to the government.
  
  Eligible borrowers include railroads, state and local governments, government-sponsored authorities and corporations, joint ventures that include at least one railroad, and limited option freight shippers who intend to construct a new rail connection.

  [From: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/177 ] 

  So how much of this money do you think has been actually used by the railroads - note that up to $35 Billion is available ?

  Would you believe that only about $700 Million has been drawn down ?  (per PennDOT, and the list at the bottom of the above web page link - that seems about right to me, too)  Most of that amount was by short lines, regionals, and commuter or passenger carriers, etc. too - exactly none by the Class I's, so the entire $28 Billion that they are eligible for remains fully available.

  What's up with that ?  With terms like that, why not do multiple tracks, line relocations, electrification, and intermodal terminals as much as are needed ?  Look at the terms of those loans again - 100 % financing - 35-year term loans - long-term T-bill rates for the interest.  Perhaps a case could be made that railroad managements are being negligent or not fully performing their fiduciary duties to the corporation and shareholders, if they have or can identify projects with projected rates of return higher than that, and are not taking advantage of these loans to implement them.  But I'd rather see the projects implemented than legal shenanigans and machinations wasting everyone's time and money instead.

  I know that government, money, and railroads is a potent - even flammable - mixture here, that can lead to ''Great balls of fire !''.  But as greyhounds essentially said recently somewhere else on the Forum - ''Hey, if the Government is going to be lending out the money anyway -  even though I may think it's bad fiscal and tax policy, I'm going to get in line to get my share, too''.  So why haven't the railroads done that ?

  Comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc. ?  Thanks in advance !

  - Paul North.

Paul,

In truly simplistic terms...

You don't bite off more than you can chew, and in the world of railroading, you don't build something you don't need.

You already know most railroad capital projects you see being built now were decided on years ago, simply because of the legal process and logistics involved.

Again, simplistic, but what if a Class 1 borrows a few billion to build say, a yard or double track a major line, and traffic doesn't appear or is not sufficient to pay for the upgrade?

I mean, anything they build they have to pay property taxes on and they have to maintain, and its not like they can sell it in the classified if it doesn't work out, so .....

 

 

Don,

I don't see implementation of PTC as a problem so much as the financing of the program.

As RWM has pointed out in many other posting, the hardware and the software are pretty much a done deal, about the only glitch there is all the railroads reaching a consensus on how it should operate system wide....the real problem is deciding which locomotives get it, and who or how it will be paid for.

Public funding or private financing, how much of the cost will be passed on to the end user...things of that nature.

[Anonymous]

Paul,

Wouldn’t $34,300,000,000 still be available if only $700,000,000 were used?  Are those loan terms significantly better than what railroads could raise as private capital?  I am wondering if there is any advantage to borrowing the money just because it is offered.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Yes - but this is Government accounting . . .   More seriously, the reason that it's only $28 B which is available to the Class I's of the $35 B authorized is that $7 B of that amount is 'set aside' for the smaller railroads - that should be somewhere in the excerpt above. 

Yes - astoundingly so.  A brief comparison, 'off the top of my head':

Amount / proportion: Up to 100% - compared to 50% for most railroad's capital structures overall, maybe up to 80% for certain projects or equipment, 100% for some rolling stock (only) that is readily resellable and still subject to prompt repossession in the event of a bankruptcy, etc.

Term: Up to 35 years, compared to 10 to 20 years, max. - again, except maybe for some rolling stock obligations.

Rate:  Currently around 3.5 % - most corporations and Class I's are typically in the 5.5 to 6 % range - the STB recently determined that the cost of capital for the railroads is in the 11 to 12 % range, if I recall correctly.  I'll see if I can post something later on on this.

Yes - aside from the philosophical / ideological/ moral aspects.  On an overall 'enterprise' basis - Railroads need large amounts of capital.  In addition to what they've retained from prior earnings, the two principal other sources are long-tem debt and stock sales/ payments = 'equity'.  A debt/equity ratio of 50% - 50% is prudent and enhances* stockholder value by lowering the cost of that proportion of the capital structure, and most of the Class I's are around that ratio.  Just like your home mortgage, if a cheaper loan or source of capital is available, you're pretty much obligated - or at least 'incentived' - to go get some of it and use it - 'Other People's Money' - instead of a more expensive or scarcer source, such as your own money.

*'Enhances' means 'improves' through the financial principle of leverage, which is common enough - not 'maximize' through the same method, which leads to excesses and abuses.  The problems come when the leverage proportions get way too large - I believe the capital structure of like the now defunct Bear Stearns investment banking house were as high as 97 % debt.  EDIT-1:  In other words, this is like owing 32 times as much money as you have in the bank.  You can figure out the equivalent for a home mortgage's 'Loan-To-Value' ratio easily enough.

The difficulty comes in either of 2 scenarios:  1. Projects that you don't have enough money for; and, 2.  Projects or a capital structure that you do have enough money for.  The former can be justified and prudent as long as the credibly projected rate of return is appropriately above the interest rate on the borrowed money - no big deal there, as long as we're careful to weed out the marginal or really speculative/ wishful thinking kinds of projects/ investments - no, gambles. 

The latter is intellectually and emotionally the more difficult one - kind of like, "Even though I have enough money to pay cash for this house or new car, should I nevertheless get a loan for most of the purchase price, just like most people do ?"  The answer depends on whether you have something better to do with your money that would - with all probabilities considered - likely earn you more than the borrowed money will cost you in interest payments.  For the railroads, that may not be much of a challenge - they usually have lots of projects that need money and will return more than the cost of the money; it's a shortage of available money that forces them to ration the money out to those projects with the highest rate of return, but that still leaves a lot of worthwhile projects on the table.  Even if they do nothing more than buy back shares of stock with it, as long as nothing else changes that will likely yield a bigger return than the loan will cost.

EDIT-2:  But should you borrow the money just to buy a new car that you weren't needing or already thinking of buying anyway ?  No.  Nor should the railroad do that for a project that it doesn't already have a clear need for.

EDIT-3: Note that I have not mentioned the benefit of the U.S. Federal income tax deduction for the interest portion of the loan payments, for both a mortgage or a railroad.  Neither you nor the railroad should borrow money just to take advantage of that.  But if you need to borrow the money anyway - and that makes the economic cost of the loan less, and/ or the benefits of the project greater - then go ahead and use that as part of the business case for the loan.

- Paul North.

[Railway Man]

The RRIF program has been an imcomplete success from some points of view.  The issues with it are:

1. If you need the money, you are probably not eligible for a loan under the terms of the law
   
2. If you don't need the money, you probably don't need the loan
3. The loan paperwork hurdles are high
4. The FRA is a preternaturally risk-adverse agency (and not without good reason) so it is more concerned about making a loan that defaults than it is ensuring the economic health of the rail industry -- in other words, if the rail industry fails to expand or succeed economically, the FRA is unlikely to take a lot of heat, but if a loan goes bad, it's very likely that heads would have to roll.

RWM
 

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

RWM - As usual, it appears that you are so right. 

But ''heads would have to roll'' in any outfit I ever worked for - and I'll wager you and almost everyone else here, too - if after 10-plus years, and with a staff of about 52 persons - see http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/405#IFD - barely 2 per cent of the mission or assignment had been completed ! ($700 Million / $35 Billion).  And even for the last year or so, that's been in a 'pro-stimilus funding' political environment. 

Judging from this inadequate performance, it appears that this portion of the agency - the 'Office of Railroad Development' - needs a serious shake-up, in my humble opinion.  There are too many legitimate needs for railroads to not be able to take advantage of this opportunity.  I just can't believe that all the track and bridges on all lines are capable of carrying 286,000 lb. cars or ever 315K cars, that all grade crossings are fully equipped with the appropriate protective devices, such as flashers and gates, that the CREATE plan in Chicago is now fully funded, that all the commuter agencies and Amtrak have all the equipment they need, - and of course electrification, PTC and signals generally, etc., etc. . . .

- Paul North.

[carnej1]

blownout cylinder

henry6

But how about a major, high speed freight railroad from China to Europe for stack container trains?

I am curious about that myself----putting aside how that is to be financed (wouldn't that be a headache!!)---what routing would you take for that? Considering that there is/are certain issues that we need avoid there---

The route that seems likely to be developed could take in what was called the 'Silk Road'. Is that at all possible though?

 The big problem with this idea is the gauge break through Russia, which uses a 5 foot gauge while China and most of Europe use standard gauge..

[blownout cylinder]

carnej1

The big problem with this idea is the gauge break through Russia, which uses a 5 foot gauge while China and most of Europe use standard gauge..

Then add that to the list of items that'll have to be financed as well---

Then comes the dual gauge scenario----with the transfer stations and all that----OY

[henry6]

You cannot seperate "big problems" here at this time.  As a concept the problem is the whole and each part is a challenge or knot that has to be worked out.  Guage, customs, union rules, power, what would my mother say, mean nothing at this point.  Putting up arguments at this point are meaningless.  It can probably be done if it needs be done, if it could be done economically and effienently and operate the same.  So what if there are a zillion guages, all the easier to decide on one!  And of course there is al list of all the things that have to be financed.  Same with my house and my car!  You two have put up roadblocks where there is no road!  If too many people think like you, why bother thinking and trying to do anything?!!

[Railway Man]

Paul_D_North_Jr

RWM - As usual, it appears that you are so right. 

But ''heads would have to roll'' in any outfit I ever worked for - and I'll wager you and almost everyone else here, too - if after 10-plus years, and with a staff of about 52 persons - see http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/405#IFD - barely 2 per cent of the mission or assignment had been completed ! ($700 Million / $35 Billion).  And even for the last year or so, that's been in a 'pro-stimilus funding' political environment. 

Judging from this inadequate performance, it appears that this portion of the agency - the 'Office of Railroad Development' - needs a serious shake-up, in my humble opinion.  There are too many legitimate needs for railroads to not be able to take advantage of this opportunity.  I just can't believe that all the track and bridges on all lines are capable of carrying 286,000 lb. cars or ever 315K cars, that all grade crossings are fully equipped with the appropriate protective devices, such as flashers and gates, that the CREATE plan in Chicago is now fully funded, that all the commuter agencies and Amtrak have all the equipment they need, - and of course electrification, PTC and signals generally, etc., etc. . . .

- Paul North.

You could shake it until all the stuffing came out and it would change nothing because the problem is not isolated to this office, but endemic to the entire way people in this country think about the role of the government.  You would be asking people to do something that you would then have to punish them for doing.  Basically the public does not want to make loans to the railroad industry on any sort of terms that actually are feasible.  It only wants to feel good that it has done something. 

I think I'd have to digress into politics to discuss why the FRA does or doesn't do what Congress or others think it ought to or ought not to do.  Suffice it to say that in the FRA's judgement it has lots of risk if it makes a bad loan, and small risk if it doesn't make any loans.  And I think the FRA has assessed its risk with precision.

The RRIF loan law is, in plain talk, not a good method if the intent is truly to improve freight rail infrastructure in the U.S.  The outcomes the RRIF program has achieved are unsurprising.  There are probably better ways to accomplish the intent.  But there is either no support in the public for a method that actually accomplishes the intent because that creates other outcomes the public doesn't like, or, the public wants to have its cake and eat it too. 

RWM

 

[Railway Man]

Murphy Siding

Railway Man

I don't consider these potential changes in traffic to be even in the top 10 challenges, even if they do come to pass. 

      Traffic change is nothing new to railroading and it's dealt with it for more than 150 years, including the complete collapse of major industries, the global economy, and entire regions.  Railroading survived and came out stronger.  Dealing with traffic change is what we do.

    What do you see to be in the top 10 challenges?  I guess we've already seen #1 listed.  What about the other 9?

I don't know if I can come up with ten, but here are some in no particular order:

1. Local public opposition to everything that might have the potential to negatively affect their quality of life, property values, tax burden, or way of life.  This is broad-band throughout the political, lifestyle, social, age, and ideological spectrum.  It's usually blamed on "environmentalists and yuppies" but they are actually not the worst-offenders.  This opposition makes it increasingly impossible to actually operate a railroad, much less expand or improve one.
2. Positive Train Control post-implementation management without destroying rail capacity, reliability, and speed.  I can build a system that works on Day 1, but trying to keep it working on Days 2, 3, 4, etc., is difficult because you also want to make changes to infrastructure, equipment, operations, speeds, rules, etc., in the future.  And, you are trying to make these changes in many locations but PTC is very much a system that wants to know about everything, everywhere, in real time.
3. Use of the freight rail system for passenger.  How much future capacity for freight are we willing to disable in order to give it to passenger?  What happens if we need it back?
4. Land use planning. Are we going to design land-use policies that favor individual, short-term, wealth creation?  Or good of the whole economy policies?  Or what?  This very much influences what the business of America is going to be in the future.  If we choose individual wealth creation, then railway traffic will definitely decline because individuals are going to favor using free highway infrastructure over not-free rail infrastructure.

RWM

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Railway Man

  You could shake it until all the stuffing came out and it would change nothing because the problem is not isolated to this office, but endemic to the entire way people in this country think about the role of the government.  You would be asking people to do something that you would then have to punish them for doing.  Basically the public does not want to make loans to the railroad industry on any sort of terms that actually are feasible.  It only wants to feel good that it has done something. 

White man still speaking with forked tongue, eh ?  Which leads to agencies that are paralyzed by the resulting schizophrenia, it would appear.

Railway Man

  [snip] Suffice it to say that in the FRA's judgement it has lots of risk if it makes a bad loan, and small risk if it doesn't make any loans.  And I think the FRA has assessed its risk with precision. 

For those who are familair with it, Tom Clancy illustrated that dynamic quite well in a long paragraph in his 'Jack Ryan' series fiction book Executive Orders (2000), in the part about how the new United Islamic Republic's religious bureaucrats bucked all non-routine questions up to the Ayatollah himself for decision.  And he wondered why he was so overburdened with seemingly trivia, to keep things from grinding to a halt. 

Note that I think the term ''public'' as you used it above and elsewhere is a 'constructive' fiction = such public is 'deemed' to exist, where none really does.  The actual public is ignorant of such things - as are most of its elected 'representatives' - except for the comparative handful in each group who have chosen or been forced to be familiar with such matters.  Heck - even among the participants in this Forum who are knowledgable or interested in such aspects of the business, who besides you even knew about the RRIF before my post about it ?  And what about the executives in the industry ? 

But I don't fault you for using that term - someone introduced and supported the RRIF legislation, and that was the elected representatives of the 'public', after all.  After that, though, the RRIF program appears to have become an orphan of sorts.  Interesting - and disappointing - how that happens.  You would think that after the Congress went to the trouble of introducing and passing the 'enabling legislation', and then authorizing, and actually appropriating the necessary funds, that would be all that would be needed to express and implement 'the will of the 'people' - what more or else are they waiting for ?

- Paul North.

[oltmannd]

henry6

oltmannd

henry6

Without defining the application for the word "greed" we are left up in the air. 

Greed involves a zero sum or negative sum game. The winner gets more than the fruits of his labor at the expense of somebody else. A "golden parachute" could be described as greedy (exec gets at the expense of stockholder, perhaps). The decisions to pare Conrail down to an efficient and profitable railway most certainly were not based in greed.

You double speak and contradict yourself.  By your own definititons and limits above, CR's action certainly was an act of greed. In your words: "the winner gets more than the fruits ofhis labor at the expense of somebody else."  CR certainly deprived many communities of rail service in general, mainline service in particular, by building upon the PRR and NYC bases while depriving many LV and EL communites and lines the same quality of service they had been used to having. That conclusion from your definition.

Lets try an analogy. You own two grocery stores in two adjacent towns. You are losing money. One store is in a stable neighborhood, the other store is in an area with declining population and income. Ten years ago, both made money, but now the first store is losing a little money and the second store is bleeding red ink. Your market research shows that if you close the second store, half the customers will travel to the remaining store and you will have a sustainable business, so you close the second store. That's greedy? What I said greed was, was when the winner got MORE than the fruits of his labor AT THE EXPENSE of someone else.

[Railway Man]

Paul:  The "public" may not know diddly about RRIF loans, but it has very specific ideas about how, when, and why money should be given to private entities, and in my experience from testifying at dozens of public meetings the public has very specific ideas about what the government should be setting as economic and social priorities.  I see no evidence that the design or execution of the RRIF program is incongruent from the general public's expectations of what government should do and how it should do it.

RWM

[gabe]

RWM,

I know I am asking you to open Pandora's box via this question.  For that reason and others, I would not blame you at all for simply not answering.  But, for what it is worth, I am not being socratic or attempting to set up a deeper conversation to use this as spring board to pontificate about my political beliefs--I am not sure I even have an opinion on the topic.

But, with that having been said, is there a country or a political system that successfully avoids the, for lack of a better term, "problem" that you are very interestingly explaining to us? 

Gabe

 

[Railway Man]

No, there isn't, in my opinion.  Governing is messy in a democracy.  If clean-cut decisions are the priority, command-and-control structures are an option. 

We have the worst possible system except all others.

RWM

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

For what it's worth, I happen to agree with oltmannd/ Don that the USRA and ConRail 'system' people had to make some difficult 'triage'-type decisions to amputate some parts of the railroad 'corpus' = body just to save the rest.  I'm sure that we all wished - then and now - that it could have been different, but those were the tough cards those guys were dealt, and they had to play them.  I think they did as well as could have been expected.  I don't see where any individual or company got 'rich' in any sense of the word as a result - mere survival was their goal, and they barely achieved it.

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

gabe

  But, with that having been said, is there a country or a political system that successfully avoids the, for lack of a better term, "problem" that you are very interestingly explaining to us? 

Is there any other country that has the same large scale and proportion of its 'general' freight-hauling capacity on rails (not limited to a single commodity, as with mining railroads in Australia, for example), and which is owned and operated by independent and competing private corporations ?  Other than Canada, I can't think of any. 

I take it that the 'problem' that Gabe alluded to is defining the respective roles of the government/ FRA and those railroads.  Here, the discussion of that happens to be in the context of providing loans to finance improvements, but it could be just as applicable to other aspects of the industry - such as safety, or passengers, etc. - as well.

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

To add to RWM's list - and I agree that the land-use planning aspect is often overlooked in these discussions - I'll suggest the price of oil/ fuel.

Not just in what the railroads pay for what they put in the tanks of their diesels - but the effect on the broader economy.

Last night I finally noticed that in the current = January 2010 issue of Trains, there's a chart - in the usual 'Map of the Month' format - of Revenue Ton-Miles for each Class I over the last 30 years (sorry - I don't have it with me at the moment, so I can't provide a specific page reference).  That chart deserves a separate thread of its own, anyway - I'm kind of surprised that one hasn't been started yet.  But I digress with that . . .

The point here is that the chart also plots the average annual price of oil, per barrel if I recall rightly.  The interesting correlation that I observed is that as the price of oil rose, the volume of rail Revenue Ton-Miles slowed or even went down a little bit - perhaps because the impact of higher oil prices also led to a decline in broader general manufacturing and economic activity; and the converse also appeared to be true - that lower oil prices led to more RTM. 

So, perhaps higher oil prices aren't a panacea that will drive a larger share of the freight 'pie' to the railroads - instead, it is a threat that will shrink the entire pie.

Any thoughts on that ?

- Paul North.

[Railway Man]

Maybe. 

On the other hand, look at this:  the worst economic period since the Great Depression, traffic down 17-25%, and railroad profits are doing just fine, capex is doing just fine, and so forth. 

RWM

[petitnj]

 As for the amount of freight handled by other railroad systems. Here is an interesting comparison. BNSF carries as many ton-miles of freight in one month as all of the railroads in Europe carry in one YEAR!

[henry6]

oltmannd

henry6

oltmannd

henry6

Without defining the application for the word "greed" we are left up in the air. 

Greed involves a zero sum or negative sum game. The winner gets more than the fruits of his labor at the expense of somebody else. A "golden parachute" could be described as greedy (exec gets at the expense of stockholder, perhaps). The decisions to pare Conrail down to an efficient and profitable railway most certainly were not based in greed.

You double speak and contradict yourself.  By your own definititons and limits above, CR's action certainly was an act of greed. In your words: "the winner gets more than the fruits ofhis labor at the expense of somebody else."  CR certainly deprived many communities of rail service in general, mainline service in particular, by building upon the PRR and NYC bases while depriving many LV and EL communites and lines the same quality of service they had been used to having. That conclusion from your definition.

Lets try an analogy. You own two grocery stores in two adjacent towns. You are losing money. One store is in a stable neighborhood, the other store is in an area with declining population and income. Ten years ago, both made money, but now the first store is losing a little money and the second store is bleeding red ink. Your market research shows that if you close the second store, half the customers will travel to the remaining store and you will have a sustainable business, so you close the second store. That's greedy? What I said greed was, was when the winner got MORE than the fruits of his labor AT THE EXPENSE of someone else.

I used the dictionary meaning of the word "greed".  The grocery store analogy is not equal as those using the closing store had access to the rremaining store and others.  A manufacturer with a rail siding lost his connection, as did mines, et. al.  In effect if you must ship or recieve from a fixed point, (and given that you use rail so it must be cost effective) and your rail line is gone, you don't have the choice of another railroad and the added cost of trucking and or transloading changes your pricing and marketing and maybe even put you out of business.  With the loss of grocery store, you still eat.  In other words, I am using the definition of "greed" with no moral or social intonation.  Some believe Conrail's greed by my dictionary definition was good in that a profitable railroad emerged and communites served were allowed to continue and prosper. But for those who's rail lines, connections, and value of services were lost or downgraded forcing closing of businesses and deterioration of communities, then there could be some discussion about the "negativity" of Conrail's greed.

[oltmannd]

henry6

A manufacturer with a rail siding lost his connection, as did mines, et. al.  In effect if you must ship or recieve from a fixed point, (and given that you use rail so it must be cost effective) and your rail line is gone, you don't have the choice of another railroad and the added cost of trucking and or transloading changes your pricing and marketing and maybe even put you out of business. 

So, rail service is a right? Once it place, it can never go away, no matter what? What if the cost of providing the rail service was more than the cost of trucking? In the case of Conrail, the choices were "some or none". "All" was never possible, in fact the 1979 version of Conrail was not viable.

[oltmannd]

henry6

oltmannd

henry6

oltmannd

henry6

Without defining the application for the word "greed" we are left up in the air. 

Greed involves a zero sum or negative sum game. The winner gets more than the fruits of his labor at the expense of somebody else. A "golden parachute" could be described as greedy (exec gets at the expense of stockholder, perhaps). The decisions to pare Conrail down to an efficient and profitable railway most certainly were not based in greed.

You double speak and contradict yourself.  By your own definititons and limits above,...That conclusion from your definition.

Lets try an analogy.... ... What I said greed was, was when the winner got MORE than the fruits of his labor AT THE EXPENSE of someone else.

I used the dictionary meaning of the word "greed".  ....

Well, which is it?

[henry6]

Who said anything about a "right"!  STOP POLITICIZING EVERYTHING EVERYBODY SAYS AND CONTORTING THE MEANING AND SPIRIT OF THESE FORUMS.  YOU AND A FEW OTHERS KEEP DOING THAT AND RUINING IT FOR ALL OF US.  YES I KNOW I'M SHOUTING!

[Murphy Siding]

henry6: 

      I'm really lost now, about what is the point you're trying to make?  If Conrail had closed line A,  shippers and receivers on line A would think they'd been done in by Conrail's *Greed*? 

      If Conrail had closed line B instead, shippers and receivers on line B would think they'd been done in by Conrail's *Greed*?

     ' Seems to me, that Conrail was going to have to pare down the number of lines serving areas with too many non-profitable lines. Had they tried to save all the lines, the whole thing would have probably gone down the tubes.   It's hard for me to imagine that this was done without looking at all the angles, all the lines,  all the issues,  and doing what was best in the long run for Conrail and for the country.   It must have worked.  Where's the greed?

[MP173]

Henry:

I suggest you go to a local university library and spend an afternoon looking at the following items:

1.  Moody's Transportation Manuals from the early 1970's

2.  USRA Preliminary System Plan

3.  USRA Final System Plan

It is all there for digestion.

Don is one of the most intelligent and generous members of this forum.  He probably wont stand up for himself, but I will.  No more shouting at Don. 

Ed

[blownout cylinder]

Murphy Siding

    I'm really lost now, about what is the point you're trying to make?  If Conrail had closed line A,  shippers and receivers on line A would think they'd been done in by Conrail's *Greed*? 

      If Conrail had closed line B instead, shippers and receivers on line B would think they'd been done in by Conrail's *Greed*?

My problem is that I'm thinking that the term "greed" is a loaded word here--it can become very politicized. I seen a paper a few years ago that talked about just this very issue in the sense of public/private enterprises and the term 'greed'. That paper put it that there needed to be a realization that it is in fact a HUMAN condition and not just a left/right---public/private whatever vs whatever rhetorical tool.

When it seen in that light then I'd have to say that certain areas benefited from certain actions but that others 'lost out'---no fault there if the survival of the whole was at issue. You get to keep employees working in the one/other schema or you end up up with NO one working in the keep everything going schema---

HHMMMPH---with that for a choice is it any wonder the company was having issues.

Then again--it was all due to the 'crabby triangle'

[blownout cylinder]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Judging from this inadequate performance, it appears that this portion of the agency - the 'Office of Railroad Development' - needs a serious shake-up, in my humble opinion.  There are too many legitimate needs for railroads to not be able to take advantage of this opportunity.  I just can't believe that all the track and bridges on all lines are capable of carrying 286,000 lb. cars or ever 315K cars, that all grade crossings are fully equipped with the appropriate protective devices, such as flashers and gates, that the CREATE plan in Chicago is now fully funded, that all the commuter agencies and Amtrak have all the equipment they need, - and of course electrification, PTC and signals generally, etc., etc. . . .

What I'd like to know here is was there some kind of actual timeframe to measure or gauge progress of the program? How would one go about doing the actual surveys for example of the areas needing improvement if there really was no investment in the basic deployment of the people necessary to do the job in the first place? What or rather how would these surveys---I sort of suspect some kind of inventory of trouble spots would be needed--be channeled to which departments etc-? I guess what I'm really wondering about is what kind of a timeframe is used from $$$ being acquired to the actual project being completed?

[schlimm]

Merry Christmas (I hope that doesn't get censored).

In the spirit of the season, and since I started it, let me suggest it's time to end the discussion re: greed.

BTW, here are some definitions I found of the term, which seems to have been lost in the smoke. Take your pick:

Greed (avarice)  is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Greed is an excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

Greed is a very strong wish to continuously get more of something, especially food or money.

Greed is the very excessive or rapacious desire and pursuit of money, wealth and power.  It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins.

 

[henry6]

Look.  Somebody dropped the word greed here as to whether it was good or bad.  I used Conrail as an example of how itsr successful waccomplishment could be considered greed for the good from those who benefited while the areas which did not receive the benefit of Conrail , if effect lost service or got a lower level of service could consider the greed as detrimental. I DID NOT JUDGE: IT TOLD IT LIKE IT WAS, GAVE AN EQUAL AND BALANCED PORTAYAL OF WHAT HAPPENED WITHOUT JUDGEMENT OR COMMENT; IT SHOWED THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RESULTS OF CONRAIL'S ACTIONS.  SEVERAL READ THEIR OWN OPINIONS INTO IT AND BLASTED ME FOR IT OR JUST WANT TO PICK AN ARGUEMENT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUEMENT. UNFORTUNATELY TOO MANY OF THE READERS CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND OPINION BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN OPINIONS GETTING IN THE WAY.  If I am wrong here, then tell me so and I'll quit and end my subscriptions.