So far we have put $8-billion on the table to kick off HSR, and we have committed an additional $5-billion over the next few years. And beyond that, it is anybody’s guess how far this will get. I have heard that $500-billion will be needed to build the entire HSR vision. So 15 down and 485 to left to go. And besides the question of coming up with the remaining $485-billion, there is no guarantee that even the $15-billion will be used.
But if only this $15-billion is spent, I don’t think the freight railroads have anything to worry about in terms of HSR mucking up their freight operations. And I think they need not worry about going farther because I do not believe we will ever come up with the $485-billion needed to finish HSR. In fact, I believe that this first $15-billion will teach us a valuable text book lesion in the economics of mass spending by showing us how little HSR actually gets built for the money. I call it, “feeding the seagulls.”
schlimm Zugmann: My guess is that Crandell's deletion was Murphy"s and/or RRKen's. Your comments are factual and illuminating.
Zugmann: My guess is that Crandell's deletion was Murphy"s and/or RRKen's. Your comments are factual and illuminating.
Per the Moderator your "guess " at least on my part in this "discussion" (sic) is incorrect.
Do you think you can stop the sniping now?
1. I wonder if anyone could answer my question on the excess freight capacity on the historic routes between CHI and the east coast? And could one of them become an HSR route?
2. A poster indicated that the Chatsworth crash was reason enough to not have HSR share track with freight. Of course that disregards the mandate that PTC be implemented by 2016. If the airlines had followed that sort of reasoning following the midair collision of United and American airliners in 1956 over the Grand Canyon, killing 156 , I guess we'd no longer have air travel.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 Zug, you are again asking a question and making a comment based on what is, the status quo. Ed has done the same. So my answer to your question is that there is no answer. I am saying that we must think differently than we have thought in the past and are thinking today. Yes, we may use what we have. Or maybe we won't. We could divide corridors or routes up to freight and passenger. One exisiting company may become an all passenger company while another all freight or totally new companies may have to be created. Mag Lev or monorail, high speed passenger trains or high speed freight trains, intermodal beyone what we call intermodal today, 6 foot guages or 2 foot guages, all concrete or concrete and steel or all steeel, whatever, it all has to be discussed and plans made to suit what the domo's who do the deciding decide on.
Zug, you are again asking a question and making a comment based on what is, the status quo. Ed has done the same. So my answer to your question is that there is no answer. I am saying that we must think differently than we have thought in the past and are thinking today. Yes, we may use what we have. Or maybe we won't. We could divide corridors or routes up to freight and passenger. One exisiting company may become an all passenger company while another all freight or totally new companies may have to be created. Mag Lev or monorail, high speed passenger trains or high speed freight trains, intermodal beyone what we call intermodal today, 6 foot guages or 2 foot guages, all concrete or concrete and steel or all steeel, whatever, it all has to be discussed and plans made to suit what the domo's who do the deciding decide on.
But how do we even plan if we have no idea the goal? Of course it all has to be discussed, but if we ever want to stop the late night bull sessions and actually move onto the beginning steps of building something, then we have to commit to something*. But there have been many, many, many changes to the industry on the past 50 years. From centralized dispatching, better billing, service corridors, directional running, DPU, RCO, satellite tracking, improved maintenance, even switch and signal designs. It's easy to think that everything is the same ol' but it really isn't. The changes have been slow, not earth-shattering, but steady. And they have been getting implemented. To talk about change is simple, but to actually lay the cash out is another.
* - heck, I'll even start. If we go rail-based, let's stick to standard gauge. Then we will be ale to have a transistion stage, since I highly doubt we will change to the new system overnight.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Zugmann: My guess is that Crandell's deletion was Murray"s and/or RRKen's. Your comments are factual and illuminating.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Henry, you are still not answeing my question. And to be quite frank, I am getting sick and tired of all your little "thinking inside the box" jabs. Insults are not answers, sir.
I will ask again: considering the mobility of the work force and of many industries in the current climate, how do we know where to build this HSR? You are talking about spending money on a project that will probably pale most other transportation projects (except maybe roads, but they reach just about everyone in the country). That is my question. It's easy to think we know what's in store for the future, but that can be changed at a moment's notice.
There are some other major obstacles that I can see, since I happen to work on some locals that operate on a higher speed commuter line. They will come with time, though.
PS. lest we forget we are a service company. The railroads can't change for the fact of changing, *IF* it leaves the customers in the dust. Without customers, we have no railroad. Would a plant in iowa love to ship their yak fat from Iowa to Virginia at 100mph? Sure, as long as it is cost effective. Somehow I doubt that Iowa Yak Fat Inc. wants to foot the bill for a 100mph railroad, or new railcars capable of traveling upon that 100 mph railroad. Yes, Fed Ex has next day air. But there's plenty of slower companies making plenty of money shipping their goods in a much slower fashion. Same with the railroads.
PPS. I'm SO glad the gov't got involved in HDTV affairs. Heaven forbid... what would happen to our country if they couldn't watch Entertainment Tonight? Yeah, nothing more pressing than that....
Ok, then here is a example.
Didn't Chatsworth teach anyone a lesson?
When ever a freight train and a passenger train have an accident, (and no matter what futuristic system you use, it will happen, there is no true failsafe system) the passenger train always loses...always.
Chatsworth was a combined impact of 80 mph...imagine a combined impact at say, 250mph....
No matter how fast your HSR is, FedEx and UPS will still be able to fly their product faster to where they need it when they need it.
Anything that has to be there over night will fly or drive...the end or rail terminal process will be to slow to compete with trucks, no matter how fast the train is.
If the government has any control over this, the number don't and wont work, the only numbers the public will ever see are those they want you to see.
Lastly, to address Henry's e original post/reply...
No, you are not looking at a industry "stuck" in the 1960s...in fact you are looking at a industry that has evolved to the point a employee from the 1960s or 70s would have a hard time adjusting to it.
Management and employees have taken a industry that was bankrupt and failing, and turned it into a dynamic profit driven industry that has some investors, like Mr. Buffet and Hathaway , having decided are going to be around for a long time and continue to earn a profit for a long time.
In 1960, the railroads employed over two million people, in 1996 that number was 177,000 (even less in 2010).
And we moved more freight more miles at less cost to the shipper in 1996.
selector Once again, you are jumping onto a bandwagon of denigrating what henry6 posts. It would be much more credible to simply refute what he says with examples and verifiable facts. Contributing to ad hominem attacks is hardly the way to accomplish your aims. It IS your aim to demolish his position...isn't it? And not try to demolish him? Post in which you added your share to Murray's preceding ad hominem is deleted. -Crandell
Once again, you are jumping onto a bandwagon of denigrating what henry6 posts. It would be much more credible to simply refute what he says with examples and verifiable facts. Contributing to ad hominem attacks is hardly the way to accomplish your aims. It IS your aim to demolish his position...isn't it? And not try to demolish him?
Post in which you added your share to Murray's preceding ad hominem is deleted.
-Crandell
23 17 46 11
Both Greyhound's and Zugman's comments are from inside the box, supporting and supported by the status quo. We must look at the future in an entirely different manner. Yes, we might build on the past and the present, but we cannot think like the past or the present, its go to be new thinking.
Yes, even mag lev and monorail will have to be part of the conversations. But whether or not they can be part of the solutions is yet to be determined.
As for my example of HDTV. It is a most blatent example of how the government had to step in and force a prescribed change since the industry itself couldn't come to an agreement within its own ranks. And the theme of government intervention or forcing programs seems to be often unnacceptable to many in these conversations...so lets not allow the future of transportation be forced on us in panic or compromise because no one acted in due time to prevent such actions.
I'm confused. Was this directed at me?
I think the HDTV is too simple to be used as an argument. Whether one lives in a shack in Maine, or a condo in Los Angelas, they can use a HDTV.
But a transportation system is a fixed route for a variable market. So until you find a way to stabizie the markets, does itm ake sense to invest that heavily in HSR? What is busy today (freight or passenger) may be dead by the next decade, much less 50 years from now.
For example: I was talking with one of our older hoggers. He used to run commuter trains into Philly. Back then. there were freight yards every few miles. He used to think he had great job security because, after all, all these yards just can't suddenly close. But sure enough, within a period of a few years, the yards shut down one by one. People used to live just outside of the city of Philly. Then they moved west to the next county. Then the next county. Then the next county. I believe it was one of the posters on this thread that was talking about how the American workforce must be fluid and go where the work is. Isn't that what will bite us in the rear on this subject? What we think as the logical place to invest and build HSR will be a ghost zone in the next 30 years. Building the proverbial train to nowhere. So unless we are ready to abandon a half-built project to refocus every 10 years, won't we just be chasing our tails?
There is also this to contend with: the trend in business for many years now to focus on short-term profit as opposed to long-term growth. Some of this relates to incentives for executives in the form of stock options to be exercised for gain in the immediate future rather than 5-15 years down the road. So understandably, executives who want to look like stars in the next few years to boost the stock's price are not going to want to plow profits back into expensive infrastructure improvements that may not show beneficial results until well after they have moved on.
And another factor is the re-investment of profits into overseas operations for quicker returns. And of course, that is both their right and a wise move in the short term, especially if it has incentives in the tax code. We would probably all do the same thing. But the problem in both cases is that immediate results receive a higher priority than long term and may even be detrimental to long-term economic heath.
henry6 Several good thoughts from several sectors...Bucyrus your, "do the numbers really have to work?" is pivotal. At the moment the answer is that there is no answer at the moment; nor does there need to be one at this moment. But I do disagree with the last statment that "...only the government can decide that we must have HSR...", If there is to be a plan for 2060 or 2100 or whenever, all parties have to decide that it is wanted, how it is to be implimented, and how it is going to be paid for. That is why it has to be formally addressed and planned for now rather than having the status quo come up and bite one's behind forcing an unfavorable and costly solution on those involved. We are where we are today because the status quo has been allowed and no one has effectively altered it; now it is to the point where major changes have to be made. The United States has met such problems head on: high definition TV for example. It has been the standard for the rest of the world for years but an ignored technology until the government had to make the determination and force it on us. Unfortunatley adjusting our entertainment media is more quickly and easily done than our transportation system.
Several good thoughts from several sectors...Bucyrus your, "do the numbers really have to work?" is pivotal. At the moment the answer is that there is no answer at the moment; nor does there need to be one at this moment. But I do disagree with the last statment that "...only the government can decide that we must have HSR...", If there is to be a plan for 2060 or 2100 or whenever, all parties have to decide that it is wanted, how it is to be implimented, and how it is going to be paid for. That is why it has to be formally addressed and planned for now rather than having the status quo come up and bite one's behind forcing an unfavorable and costly solution on those involved. We are where we are today because the status quo has been allowed and no one has effectively altered it; now it is to the point where major changes have to be made. The United States has met such problems head on: high definition TV for example. It has been the standard for the rest of the world for years but an ignored technology until the government had to make the determination and force it on us. Unfortunatley adjusting our entertainment media is more quickly and easily done than our transportation system.
Well, where we're at now regarding transportation in the US is a pretty good place to be. We have the most extensive, most efficient, safest rail freight system in the world. We got here because we do not have any centralized, long range all encompasing plan. Such plans do not work well.
Nobody can know enough or see far enough into the future to make such a plan, or at least such a plan that will work well.
Transportation in the US works very well. It's not perfect. Urban congestion is a problem in places. But the urban planners have been working on that for decades and don't appear to able to solve the local problems.
But overall, people and goods get to where they need to be in a safe, timely, cost efficient manner. Don't mess with success. The US transport system has been adapting to changes quite well for over 200 years. The only impediments have been when some government tried to "Plan" and basically screwed things up. (The advent of the internal cumbustion engine and motor transport was a game changer, the "Planners" blocked the railroads from adapting to the change. It was a disaster.)
"No operational plan survives initial enemy contact" - US Army unofficial saying.
OK, some off the wall thoughts:
Would suspended monorail above existing rights of way be a possible solution? It's something I have thought about for years, but have no comprehension of the engineering challenges involved. Obviously it wouldn't work well in mountainous territory that requires tunnels, but some routes could use it.
That would allow access to busy cities without compromising freight railroads, but would require serious infrastructure investment that only the government could afford.
Just asking if this is a possibility. Comments from civil engineers and others in the know are welcome.
Norm
zugmann I'm curious how much freight you would reclaim from trucks. Not much freight is that important that it needs 100mph+ service. And trucks will always have the advantage of door to door service. With urban and suburban sprawl, where do you even put the rail lines? That's the problem. The past 50 years have been decentralizing urban areas. Industries have moved to business parks. People have moved to suburbs and exurbs. The highway system is a mess. But if we're going to dream, let's dream right. Forget about rails. Why not maglev systems? Why settle at 150-200mph?
I'm curious how much freight you would reclaim from trucks. Not much freight is that important that it needs 100mph+ service. And trucks will always have the advantage of door to door service.
With urban and suburban sprawl, where do you even put the rail lines? That's the problem. The past 50 years have been decentralizing urban areas. Industries have moved to business parks. People have moved to suburbs and exurbs. The highway system is a mess.
But if we're going to dream, let's dream right. Forget about rails. Why not maglev systems? Why settle at 150-200mph?
Apparently, we are going to have to change the transportation model, which would include re-zoning, and more smart growth options to collaborate with the transportation system better. 100 mph freight is not a bad idea, it may motivate more shippers to use the rails.
As far as Maglev, if 110-125 mph conventional rail would be suitable enough. Travelers do not need to be going 220+ mph, they just want faster speeds than the current service provides. One just needs to cut the travel time down to a respectable time.
oltmannd . And one benefit to the railroads that seems overlooked (I fail to understand why) in the discussion is that moderate (up to 160 mph) high speed lines in China (which would be HSR to us) will share track with very fast freight. The benefit? Reclaiming a lot of high-value, high-priority freight currently handled by Fed-Ex, trucks, etc. I don't think that potential new business is chump change, and as a shareholder interested in the longer range, I don't think it should be overlooked simply because it is a change from present vision. If the founders of Fed Ex had looked at things with so little foresight, the company would have been stillborn. In general, I don't think the numbers work. The cost of moving high value truckload frt by HSR is probably worse than over the road team drivers and wouldn't be worth it unless you could wring whole days out of the door to door trip time. A lot of this traffic already moves by rail on long haul lanes. It's the shorter haul lanes where the opportunity lies and HSR for frt has little role to play. There are probably some nice very small niches for frt on HSR, as long as they are viewed as incremental and not part of the base case for the route ecomonics.
. And one benefit to the railroads that seems overlooked (I fail to understand why) in the discussion is that moderate (up to 160 mph) high speed lines in China (which would be HSR to us) will share track with very fast freight. The benefit? Reclaiming a lot of high-value, high-priority freight currently handled by Fed-Ex, trucks, etc. I don't think that potential new business is chump change, and as a shareholder interested in the longer range, I don't think it should be overlooked simply because it is a change from present vision. If the founders of Fed Ex had looked at things with so little foresight, the company would have been stillborn.
There are probably some nice very small niches for frt on HSR, as long as they are viewed as incremental and not part of the base case for the route ecomonics.
Yes, but do the numbers really need to work?
If it is government, public sector, high-speed freight, why should it have to be economically cost competitive with trucking? What if we had government fast rail freight just for the “greater good” of getting trucks off of the highways and reducing carbon dioxide? That environmental objective happens to be the same objective being given for HSR by government spokesmen. HSR is certainly not competitive or cost effective in any rational free market sense. And because there is no market for HSR, only government can build it.
And only the government can decide that we must have HSR, even if there is no market for it.
schlimm And one benefit to the railroads that seems overlooked (I fail to understand why) in the discussion is that moderate (up to 160 mph) high speed lines in China (which would be HSR to us) will share track with very fast freight. The benefit? Reclaiming a lot of high-value, high-priority freight currently handled by Fed-Ex, trucks, etc. I don't think that potential new business is chump change, and as a shareholder interested in the longer range, I don't think it should be overlooked simply because it is a change from present vision. If the founders of Fed Ex had looked at things with so little foresight, the company would have been stillborn.
And one benefit to the railroads that seems overlooked (I fail to understand why) in the discussion is that moderate (up to 160 mph) high speed lines in China (which would be HSR to us) will share track with very fast freight. The benefit? Reclaiming a lot of high-value, high-priority freight currently handled by Fed-Ex, trucks, etc. I don't think that potential new business is chump change, and as a shareholder interested in the longer range, I don't think it should be overlooked simply because it is a change from present vision. If the founders of Fed Ex had looked at things with so little foresight, the company would have been stillborn.
Yes there is potential to run faster freight trains and develop a whole new class of business, and that will be a change from the present vision. But the far bigger change from the present vision is that the government will be developing this fast freight business as a public sector business. So in that sense, the change from the present vision, from the private railroads’ perspective, could not be greater.
And I am sure that the freight railroads would welcome new business opportunities, however, they worry about what those new opportunities will cost their present business. I don’t blame them for being leery of partnering with the government, which can come in with no expertise, nothing to lose, and unlimited funding and regulatory power.
The freight railroads are not exactly faced with the threat of nationalization here, but it is something along those lines when you look at the big picture. If public HSR were fully implemented, the cost and value of that public entity would rival the cost and value of the freight rail plant
schlimm Bucyrus: I believe that the intention is to run HSR on its own dedicated track rather than share the same train with freight trains. What is being proposed is to only share the corridor with the freight railroads. The fact that the corridors date back to the horse and buggy days does not necessarily make them obsolete for HSR application. Much of that old corridor is straight enough for HSR, and what is not will simply be re-worked. Well that is pretty much what I was saying. concerning the CHI to east coast. And one benefit to the railroads that seems overlooked (I fail to understand why) in the discussion is that moderate (up to 160 mph) high speed lines in China (which would be HSR to us) will share track with very fast freight. The benefit? Reclaiming a lot of high-value, high-priority freight currently handled by Fed-Ex, trucks, etc. I don't think that potential new business is chump change, and as a shareholder interested in the longer range, I don't think it should be overlooked simply because it is a change from present vision. If the founders of Fed Ex had looked at things with so little foresight, the company would have been stillborn.
Bucyrus: I believe that the intention is to run HSR on its own dedicated track rather than share the same train with freight trains. What is being proposed is to only share the corridor with the freight railroads. The fact that the corridors date back to the horse and buggy days does not necessarily make them obsolete for HSR application. Much of that old corridor is straight enough for HSR, and what is not will simply be re-worked.
I believe that the intention is to run HSR on its own dedicated track rather than share the same train with freight trains. What is being proposed is to only share the corridor with the freight railroads. The fact that the corridors date back to the horse and buggy days does not necessarily make them obsolete for HSR application. Much of that old corridor is straight enough for HSR, and what is not will simply be re-worked.
Well that is pretty much what I was saying. concerning the CHI to east coast. And one benefit to the railroads that seems overlooked (I fail to understand why) in the discussion is that moderate (up to 160 mph) high speed lines in China (which would be HSR to us) will share track with very fast freight. The benefit? Reclaiming a lot of high-value, high-priority freight currently handled by Fed-Ex, trucks, etc. I don't think that potential new business is chump change, and as a shareholder interested in the longer range, I don't think it should be overlooked simply because it is a change from present vision. If the founders of Fed Ex had looked at things with so little foresight, the company would have been stillborn.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Either way, it's nice to dream. But the reality is we are a collection of 50 states with differing political ideologies, with multiple counties (or parishes) in each state, with multiple municipalities in each of those. We also have a populace that has been trained to be afraid of any type of government involvement, usually by politicians using that thought to get elected INTO government. And I believe the only way to develop a true HSR that makes sense is to have it be designed and implemented under federal control.
In the end, the question will always be: Where is the money? With the economy leaving this country for other parts of the world, will we even need HSR in 50 years? True, that is in-the-box speaking so to speak, but it is the reality of the situation, for which many proponents of this system refuse to answer.
Bucyrus I believe that the intention is to run HSR on its own dedicated track rather than share the same train with freight trains. What is being proposed is to only share the corridor with the freight railroads. The fact that the corridors date back to the horse and buggy days does not necessarily make them obsolete for HSR application. Much of that old corridor is straight enough for HSR, and what is not will simply be re-worked.
BaltACD If the USA is to get TRUE high speed rail transportation it cannot coexist on tracks used by main line freight transportation....freight would pound the track structure out of high speed specs in very short order. Additionally the clearing time for a freight to run and not impeded the operation of a High Speed passenger train would mitigate the effective operation of freight. Secondly, most of today's existing rail routes were laid out in the early 19th Century by surveyors on horse back depending upon strong Irish and Germans to be the earth movers for the right of way and designed for the operation of trains at 20/30 MPH in the 19th Century. Do we want to operate 21st Century High Speed, high technology trains on horse & buggy rights of way.
If the USA is to get TRUE high speed rail transportation it cannot coexist on tracks used by main line freight transportation....freight would pound the track structure out of high speed specs in very short order. Additionally the clearing time for a freight to run and not impeded the operation of a High Speed passenger train would mitigate the effective operation of freight.
Secondly, most of today's existing rail routes were laid out in the early 19th Century by surveyors on horse back depending upon strong Irish and Germans to be the earth movers for the right of way and designed for the operation of trains at 20/30 MPH in the 19th Century.
Do we want to operate 21st Century High Speed, high technology trains on horse & buggy rights of way.
Just to be clear, I believe that the intention is to run HSR on its own dedicated track rather than share the same tracks with freight trains. What is being proposed is to only share the corridor with the freight railroads. The fact that the corridors date back to the horse and buggy days does not necessarily make them obsolete for HSR application. Much of that old corridor is straight enough for HSR, and what is not will simply be re-worked. It is still much cheaper that acquiring a new corridor that will spawn a legal battle for every foot. So, one might ask why the freight railroads would be dragging their feet on this. They have the extra space and the government is going to build the HSR track.
The problem I see is that, even with its own dedicate track, HSR will interfere with freight operations. There will be route conflicts between HSR and freight trains. There may even be some degree of track sharing to get through certain bottlenecks. Just the construction phase alone is bound to interfere with freight operations. There will be massive projects to reduce curves, change drainage, move freight trackage, eliminate grade crossings, and revise signaling. The delays and interference of these projects will result in enormous costs that may be very hard to reconcile in such a sweeping agreement where the government will be improving the infrastructure of the freight railroads as a side effect of building HSR. With these massive track infrastructure projects, the benefits of those improvements that redound to the freight railroads will have to be weighed against the cost imposed on the freight railroads from the interference of those projects.
RRKen defined my postulation of maintaining the status quo with his statement that freight railroads are working fine. It is this thought for today instead of plan for tomorrow approach that brings the topic to the forefront. And Bucyrus's comments concerning HSR are certainly to the point: it is displayed and discussed but not understood in terms of past, present and future, it just feels good to be talking about it. Nobody has a plan today to meet the transportation needs of our country in the future in terms of delivering the transportation that will be demanded by society for both goods and people. With that thought, neither is there a plan on the table to pay for it. That is the whole point: there is no plan, only bickering, posturing, and perserving one's own ass so to speak. If no plan can be launched from the present platform ( i.e., the existing transportation structure) then the only way to get the job done is to start with a clean sheet of paper. I don't believe the clean sheet of paper is needed, though. I believe a revising of the mindsets of all concerned, a revising of the physical plants (operating and abandoned properties), and a clear understanding and definition of what has to be accomplished (goals) to be met at any given future date can utilize the good and throw away the bad of today's operations, It can't rest on a status quo just because it has served us up to now and will pay a dollar dividend by midnight tonight.
For sake of harmony, let's assume that HSR and freight cannot coexist on the same tracks (although there are ROW's - old NYC - on which the number of tracks was reduced where new track could be laid). But let's leave that alone. Between the east coast and CHI within the US, there used to be 5 main lines: NYC, PRR, Erie, NKP/DL&W and B&O. Maybe others, but those are the only routes that occur to me. It is my impression that several of these routes are only lightly used or even nearly abandoned. What about the possibility of using one of those routes to build a dedicated HSR? And lest some think it's the evil government taking over private property, let the owners be paid market value, whatever that currently is, for a nearly defunct ROW.
I have been watching this subject as it has emerged in several threads here plus coverage in Trains, over the last year or so. My general feeling about it that its significance has been largely underappreciated.
Railfans seem to be the most enamored with HSR for obvious train reasons. But HSR also has a fashionable “green” cachet, which makes it the darling of the news media. For the same reason, HSR is also the darling of the Obama administration and the current congress. Pushback is coming from the NIMBYS who don’t want new trains running through their neighborhoods, and from patriots who believe that the U.S. is spending itself over a cliff. But the greatest conflict of all will be when the ideology of socialized passenger rail collides head-on with the capitalism of private U.S. freight railroads.
Everybody has heard that the freight railroads are doing very well these days. But, just when they have finally found their place in the sun, along comes a bully who wants something they have. The private railroads have dealt with this bully before, but with deregulation, they thought they were rid of him. But now the bully is back and he wants to run a whole new system of passenger rail overlaid onto the freight rail system.
HSR needs corridors, but the creation of new corridors is beyond the dreams of even the HSR boosters. So the only solution is to commandeer the private freight rail corridors for the public good. There is almost a tone of public entitlement to the private freight corridors that one can sense in reading pronouncements from the FRA, for example. They say that everywhere HSR needs to go, the freight railroads already have a corridor that goes there. And they seem to imply that because the railroads were there first, they got the best possible corridor, and that is unfair to latecomers who also need a corridor. The message seems to be that the freight railroads owe something to their county, so they should be good citizens and share their corridors for this new public good of HSR.
The message to the U.S. freight railroads is this: It is time to give back to your community. Folks need transportation choices. We must insist.
Risk, is a major part of any decision making in boardrooms in any industry. The Directors and Board members are cognisant of the fact they are using investors money. They also understand that available cash is limited, and must make the best use of it. That, and profit motive, are leading drivers. When you add money that is not earned, nor with any accountability, you loose that focus on making the best decisions. It's free, there are no consequences.
As far as freight, the system is working fine. Investments are made to add or enhance capacity, safety, and reliability. I feel when looking at the system now, that it's current infrastructure can be enhanced even more when, not if, but when more capacity is needed. And it does not include major alterations of current properties. Improved technologies, along with more profit motive from those in the front lines.
I use as my example, the idea which the DME's leader, Mr. Schieffer dreamed up about a coal line. A decade or more later, not one investor, not one tie laid, not one coal train running. I have said over and over, if it was such a hot idea, where was the money? If the Utilities were in such dire straights, demanding alternatives, where was the money? Today, it has Nada, and the current management has shelved the project.
Yes, money is made from people with ideas. But, those ideas must get other peoples money to produce results. Before others take a risk, they want more than a dream.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
henry6 Americans are conservative, a status quo seeking people. Our railroad system is stuck in some ways as being what it acheived to be 50 years ago in the minds of the owners/operators, the shippers, the various governments, and the public in general. Perhaps it is time to stop thinking that way and think outside the box we are in. Instead of thinking railroads and tracks, perhaps we should be thinking rights of way and routes. Almost redesign the the business plan, the engineering plan, the private-public sectors. Instead of trying to put new ideas and technologies onto existing railroads and railroad managements, railroads and railroad managements should look at changing who and what they are, redesigning and redefining who they are, what they do, and where they do it. Why not take line X through heavily populated and use it for passenger service and take line y which circumvents the population centers and devote it to freight? Today we must have owner/operators and public planners sit down and virtually start over, stop thinking 1960 and start thinking 2060 and 2100. There will be loosers, but there will be more winners and more growth in the long run. Stop bickering, politicizing, posturing, and holding on to the past and start thinking what has to be done for the future of the country and its transportaiton system as a whole and not just rairoads in particular.
Americans are conservative, a status quo seeking people. Our railroad system is stuck in some ways as being what it acheived to be 50 years ago in the minds of the owners/operators, the shippers, the various governments, and the public in general. Perhaps it is time to stop thinking that way and think outside the box we are in. Instead of thinking railroads and tracks, perhaps we should be thinking rights of way and routes. Almost redesign the the business plan, the engineering plan, the private-public sectors. Instead of trying to put new ideas and technologies onto existing railroads and railroad managements, railroads and railroad managements should look at changing who and what they are, redesigning and redefining who they are, what they do, and where they do it. Why not take line X through heavily populated and use it for passenger service and take line y which circumvents the population centers and devote it to freight? Today we must have owner/operators and public planners sit down and virtually start over, stop thinking 1960 and start thinking 2060 and 2100. There will be loosers, but there will be more winners and more growth in the long run. Stop bickering, politicizing, posturing, and holding on to the past and start thinking what has to be done for the future of the country and its transportaiton system as a whole and not just rairoads in particular.
But the railroads didn't pop up overnight into what they are today. It took years and generations to shape it into what it has become. It would be foolish to think that we can wave a magic wand and change the fundamentals of the system - with the principle foundation being that the freight railroads are a profit-driven, private business.
You are not just talking about reshaping railroads, but reshaping America. While we all have dreams, we cannot lose touch with reality. And I'm afraid as long as we area society that has a concept of finances and money, personal wealth and personal satisfaction over social utopia, your changes will never come to light.
Besides, how do you plan for 2060? We cannot even fathom what is coming at us 5 years down the line, much less 50. But isn't the journey half the fun?
Henry6: While there are certainly valid arguments to the freight railroad operators needing to rethink how they operate, the most radical change has to come from the public side. They need to protect the railroads as a critical piece of infrastructure rather than mostly milking it as a cash cow. Some are finally seeing the importance of protecting abandoned rights of way, but fewer recognize that various government actions often caused their abandonment in the first place. Rather than 1960, we have to move public planners out of 1910.
The "Line Y" you describe that circumvents the population centers is generally the first one that was abandoned. After all, it didn't have much on-line business to start with. It usually no longer exists as the "planners" allowed, and even encouraged, it to be broken up for other uses.
In the same general theme, often towns and small cities want the railroad to relocate out of town, so they can redevelop the central yard area and maybe use the original right of way to widen a street. In the short term it may be good for both parties, but when (if) passenger service returns there may be much complaining about how inconvenient the station location is. Can any of the former terminal station locations in Chicago be resurrected if Union Station cannot handle all the increasing traffic?
John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.