Freight, passenger or both?

[RRKen]

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.

 

If you want all them fancy tracks and relocations, lay your money on the table Sir!   Otherwise, no one is going to listen to you or anyone else with dreams of pie in the sky or utopia.   It is their private property,  not yours.

It's about money.  I only invest where I am going to make money, and currently, I am making a good buck from my RR stocks.   As I like to say, quit salivating over what is in my pocket book, it's mine, not some government entitlement.

[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.

[tomikawaTT]

Norm48327

I haven't read the article, but why can't they coexist? They did before Amtrak and the government got involved.

The only 'passenger' trains that made money were high speed freight trains (mail and parcels) that also carried passengers.  A lot of others survived ONLY because they carried the U.S. Mail.  When the Post Office moved first class mail to planes and everything else to trucks, the subsidy went away.  If rail management had had their way, the service would have ended RIGHT THEN - but various State and Federal regulators (who were still living in the 19th century) insisted that it had to continue.

Since 1971, freight operations have changed dramatically, to the extent that they are barely compatable with the ghostly shadow of passenger service that is Amtrak.  Also, people are even less tolerant of delays and disruptions than they were forty years ago - and will sue quicker, for bigger claims.  To rail management, more (and better scheduled, less delay-tolerant) passenger service on their freight railroads would be the Yokozuna in the preschool play yard - instant raiser of negative flags.

If they both have to exist, it's better that they don't try to coexist.  Separate rights of way, and possibly different routes, would better serve the interests of each, since passengers want to travel downtown-to-downtown and freight doesn't need to.

Chuck (Sumo fan)

[Deggesty]

Norm48327

I haven't read the article, but why can't they coexist? They did before Amtrak and the government got involved.

There is a nice discussion of this on the Classic Trains Forum; the thread is "Early 20th century Freight and Passenger Operations." It begins with the question as to how freight and passenger operations co-existed, and there are several posts which illustrate how railroading has changed in the last fifty years and how the changes militate against frequent fast operation of passenger trains on the same tracks owned by freight railroads. It is not the involvement of Amtrak and the government (the government used to be more heavily involved), it is that freight trains are longer and faster and more are operated.

[Norm48327]

I haven't read the article, but why can't they coexist? They did before Amtrak and the government got involved.

[schlimm]

http://www.rtands.com/chicago-perspective/freight-passenger-or-both.html

and the article in The Economist :

http://www.economist.com/node/16636101?story_id=16636101