In the East, where passenger density would most be able to support HSR, the existing rights of way were laid out in the 19th Century by surveyors that had no knowledge of SPEED and laid out the rights of way to best facilitate the movement of tonnage and did this by using curvature to minimize grade. As such the existing rights of way are not compatable with HSR for the most part. Secondly, since the rights of way were built in the 19th Century, homes and industries have been built right up to the railroads property lines in the ensuing 175+ years, making the proposition of widening the existing rights of way a check book and emminent domain issue.
A second problem in following existing rights of way is that the railroads own facilities (yards & terminals) are not exclusively on one side of the track or the other and would have to be bypassed by some means.
If we are to have HSR that is what it is supposed to be, the route and it's engineering have to be done as the best the 21st Century can provide, not a cobbled fix to a 19th Century plant. In the East, traffic, both air and highway, becomes more congested daily. Unless Billions are spent on HSR, Trillions will need to be spent on Highway and Airports to handlle the traffic increases as our country's population continues to expand.
Bucyrus BaltACD: But in my view, even if HSR were given its own track on an existing freight corridor, there would still be considerable impact on the host railroad's operations, especially in the necessary re-working of the corridor, including grades, alignment, drainage changes, new bridges, modified crossings, etc.
BaltACD:
But in my view, even if HSR were given its own track on an existing freight corridor, there would still be considerable impact on the host railroad's operations, especially in the necessary re-working of the corridor, including grades, alignment, drainage changes, new bridges, modified crossings, etc.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
cogloadreturns You can't run freight and passenger trains on the same strecth of line, with passenger trains running at 90MPH......? Well, in that case we will have to rewrite out entire operating rule book over here then.... They are about to run freight over HS2 (so that is 75MPH freights over an 186MPH railway) shortly.
You can't run freight and passenger trains on the same strecth of line, with passenger trains running at 90MPH......?
Well, in that case we will have to rewrite out entire operating rule book over here then....
They are about to run freight over HS2 (so that is 75MPH freights over an 186MPH railway) shortly.
Not familiar with the loaded weight of a freight car in the UK--how does it compare to the 100+ ton cars here in North America?
I know in the US, it has been stated, by Graham Claytor I believe, that just one loaded unit train traveling on the NEC places measurable degradation on the roadbed which has negative effects on the passenger ride quality.
Jay
BaltACD AntonioFP45: BaltACD: ...........The faster the passenger train, the more space that is required to clear a freight train ahead of the passenger train. The faster and more frequent the passenger service the less capacity that is available for freight and maintenance operations. There is only 24 hours of track time in a day....when you are already running 24 hours of freight and maintenance service, where it the time for passenger? Where is the time for high speed passenger? Yes, understandable. In the case of CSX, it "was" doable during the SCL days when the A-Line was still mostly double tracked between Richmond and Jacksonville. Yes, I know that multi-tracked lines are expensive to maintain. [snipped] Multiple track territory exists where the traffic demand requires it. It is no easier to make space for HSR on multiple track territories than it is on single track territories...from a dispatching perspective as both territories are near their maximum capacity for freight operations. HSR and the existing railroad physical plants are not compatabile....for either user.
AntonioFP45: BaltACD: ...........The faster the passenger train, the more space that is required to clear a freight train ahead of the passenger train. The faster and more frequent the passenger service the less capacity that is available for freight and maintenance operations. There is only 24 hours of track time in a day....when you are already running 24 hours of freight and maintenance service, where it the time for passenger? Where is the time for high speed passenger? Yes, understandable. In the case of CSX, it "was" doable during the SCL days when the A-Line was still mostly double tracked between Richmond and Jacksonville. Yes, I know that multi-tracked lines are expensive to maintain. [snipped]
BaltACD: ...........The faster the passenger train, the more space that is required to clear a freight train ahead of the passenger train. The faster and more frequent the passenger service the less capacity that is available for freight and maintenance operations. There is only 24 hours of track time in a day....when you are already running 24 hours of freight and maintenance service, where it the time for passenger? Where is the time for high speed passenger?
Multiple track territory exists where the traffic demand requires it. It is no easier to make space for HSR on multiple track territories than it is on single track territories...from a dispatching perspective as both territories are near their maximum capacity for freight operations. HSR and the existing railroad physical plants are not compatabile....for either user.
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/blogs/fred-frailey/archive/2011/04/27/watching-the-bulls-run-on-csx-sort-of.aspx
It's about his experiences on a recent Monday morning watching an ATCS display on his laptop in the car and the actual trains - 6 SB's including 3 passengers and 3 freights, and 1 NB freight - while driving from Jacksonville, FL to Savannah, GA from 3:50 Am to 7:15 AM. I won't ruin it for you beyond saying that I thought it was pretty instructive on this issue - on Mr. Ward's RR, too ! - though some here may well have different conclusions than the comment I posted there (which is OK, too) .
- Paul North.
BaltACD Multiple track territory exists where the traffic demand requires it. It is no easier to make space for HSR on multiple track territories than it is on single track territories...from a dispatching perspective as both territories are near their maximum capacity for freight operations. HSR and the existing railroad physical plants are not compatabile....for either user.
What about adding HSR to a freight corridor, but building a new, dedicated track just for the HSR? When you say HSR is not compatible with existing railroad physical plant, I assume you are referring to HSR sharing the track with freight trains, and yet many have said this would be impossible due to the radically different affects that freight trains and HSR trains have on a track.
AntonioFP45 BaltACD: ...........The faster the passenger train, the more space that is required to clear a freight train ahead of the passenger train. The faster and more frequent the passenger service the less capacity that is available for freight and maintenance operations. There is only 24 hours of track time in a day....when you are already running 24 hours of freight and maintenance service, where it the time for passenger? Where is the time for high speed passenger? Yes, understandable. In the case of CSX, it "was" doable during the SCL days when the A-Line was still mostly double tracked between Richmond and Jacksonville. Yes, I know that multi-tracked lines are expensive to maintain. Years ago there was a proposal about changing the way railroads' lines were taxed based on the company's right of way route instead of the actual number of tracks on the route. This would have been helpful for freight roads that had Amtrak service running on their lines. What happened? Would this idea make more sense today, including giving railroads a tax break on maintenance for having passenger service on their lines?
...........The faster the passenger train, the more space that is required to clear a freight train ahead of the passenger train. The faster and more frequent the passenger service the less capacity that is available for freight and maintenance operations. There is only 24 hours of track time in a day....when you are already running 24 hours of freight and maintenance service, where it the time for passenger? Where is the time for high speed passenger?
I still believe that if all forms of passenger transportation paid their entire true costs, some long distance trains and many corridors would be profitable passenger operations. But highway trave; ois greatly subsidized and air somewhat less so.
Many railroads were willing to continue to run a quality passenger service until the Post Office ended RPO operations. I wonder how much money the PO actually saved and whether RPO work could not have been automated and made far more efficient.
Dragoman Bucyrus said: “And where is the line drawn between the monopolistic power and the obligation to operate in the public interest?” Well, I am not sure, but there should be one. Let me ask you this … Do you disagree that railroads are industries with extremely high barriers to entry (as the economists would say, meaning that any potential competitors would find it extremely difficult to enter the market), giving them near-monopolistic power on any given route, as far as rail transportation is concerned? Do you disagree that anyone entering the railroad business is consciously engaging in a highly-regulated (and somewhat dangerous) activity as a common carrier, which results in higher levels of responsibility – to their employees, the customers they serve, the communities in which they operate, and yes, the public at large – than is the case with a business that is in a highly-competitive, non-regulated industry which is not a common carrier? Again, I don’t believe that the answers are necessarily simple or easy – it is not a black-or-white analysis. But to have a Class I RR president talk like he believes that they should be treated like – and have the same rights and freedoms as – some poor sap just trying to make a buck selling flowers on a street corner, sounds just a little disingenuous. That, to me, “comes across as being arrogant and ham-handed…” To expect that the railroads will operate Amtrak and HSR trains consistent with some on-time performance standards – OMG, how unreasonable! But, Bucyrus, I suspect we may never agree. If you honestly believe that it is OK that companies which, through greed or stupidity (or both) brought themselves (and nearly the entire world financial system) to the brink of bankruptcy, then came hat-in-hand to the government to bail them out because they were “to big to fail”, accepted the assistance, and then chose to pay the very executives who lead them down this path huge salaries and bonuses for their good work (instead of firing their a**), and you honestly believe that the government that bailed them out shouldn’t feel a bit snookered, then we clearly view the world through very different lenses. But reasonable people can disagree, right?
Oh Jeese!
Here we go. You have what we want so you have an "obligation" to us to give us "good faith terms" so we can get what we want. No. CSX is under no obligation to you. And "Good Faith" is in the eyes of the beholder.
As to that last paragrph, with regards to the US railroads, we've just been over this. Railroad management wasn't, and isn't, perfect. Mistakes are made. But nothing, and no one, in this world is "perfect".
The US government cemented central government planning over the railroads with the 1920 Transportation Act. Such "government central planning" never works. It screwed things up royally. The railroads were not allowed to move beyond the loose car system. Such a system is slow and unreliable. Good management can mitigate the problems of loose car railroading, but it can not "fix" the problems of loose car railroading. Such problems are inherent. (The central planning thingy was lifted around 1980/1981 - but the current STB chairman would love to bring it back.)
Then the government (FDR) appointed a genuine socialist, Joseph B. Eastman, as transportaiton czar. (Or, "Emergency Transportation Coordinator") I am not making this charge lightly or without foundation. I'm referencing his biography by Claude Moore Fuess. One page 129 Fuess cites a letter from Eastman to a Harry Taylor that says: "Futhermore, it seems to me that socialism is a question of practical wisdom rather than a moral question. It is proablaby true, --at least many who have thought most deeply about the matter have been of this view -- that a socialistic form of government would be be nearer the ideal than the form we have now.". And this guy was in charge of US transportation.
The railroads couldn't move, they couldn't progress to the integrated intermodal system that was needed. Eastman saw to that. It wasn't in his "Plan". Latter he got his hooks into trucking and screwed that up by putting it in to what he saw as its "proper" role.
The result was devastating to the US economy. "We're living here and Allentown, and they're closing all the factories down." Why? Poor logistics didn't help. We live with this government created disaster to this day. The factories in Allentown. PA are stilll closed.
No economy can function well and grow without a good, efficient logistics system. Such a system must be constantly changing and adapting to evolving needs. Freeze such a system with government regulation and you are dead.
Getting back to the CSX thing; the line in question had great passenger service. Until the US government helped kill the New York Central by preventing it from moving to a containerized intermodal system for it bread and butter business, freight.
Now you say the successor railroad company "Owes" the government access to its line. Horesefeathers! I say the US Government owes reparations to everybody it harmed thought its incredibly stupid actions..
Dragoman,
I concluded that you believe that the railroads are obligated to host HSR because you were against the position of Mr. Ward, and his position is that he does not want to host HSR. But now I understand your clarification that you only object to Mr. Ward refusing to negotiate in good faith. But I don’t see that he necessarily has any obligation to even do that. In fact he might feel that the government is not negotiating in good faith because they seem to be presuming some sort of natural right to the private rail corridors for the collective good of society.
I understand your point about honoring your contractual obligation for on-time performance. But nevertheless, everybody is free to decide whether they want to enter into such an agreement in the first place. Their obligation only begins when they enter the agreement.
I think there would be a lot of friction with this matter if HSR really moved forward. But it is likely to be a moot point with our imploding economy.
Well, prewhaps as two reasonable people, we are in reality not so far apart.
I notice that you did not actually address my two queries, though you do use them to make an ungrounded assessment. Neither in my last post, nor any of the others, did I state any conclusion, or even mean to imply, that "railroads are obligated to host HSR on their corridors." (I am not even sure that I agree that HSR, as currently envisioned in the US, makes any sense.) I only am trying to make the case that they should be obligated to enter negotiatoins in good faith, if requested by Amtrak or FRA or DOT (to all of whom the RRs have contractural or regulatory responsibilties), rather than simply attempt to foreclose in advance even the entire discussion of the matter, simply because it does not fit their current business plan. Some RR execs do not feel so obligated now, as is their legal right, and there is nothing to be done about it, outside of (perhaps) the political arena, which is well beyond my expertise.
As to on-time performance standards, well pardon me, but I do believe that if a RR takes on the operation of a scheduled train (whether voluntarily, or because of legal or contractural obligation -- i.e., legally forced), then it should be expected to run the train according to that schedule. Any well-run business (like any of our Class I's) should understand that there are consequences to not meeting announced schedules, and they may be subject to incentives -- positive or negative. (Even the airlines now must pay customers for certain kinds of delays.) Amtrak has negotiated performance incentives with some of the RRs, and everyone seems to be happy.
As to the government's premature announcement, even they figured out how heavy-handed it was. and back-peddaled.
As to the financial industry's meltdown/bailout/bruhahah, we were both trying to use that non-railroad example as an analogy to what could happen with the RRs. Since we disagree as to what actually happened, what is "fact" and what is "cliché," it becomes meaningless as an effective analogy. And. I agree with you that "The ones who got snookered are the American people." Ultimately, I think that is usually the case.
Although you say that the conditions and characteristics you cite in your first two paragraphs do not lead to simple, easy, or black and white answers, you seem to have arrived at the black and white conclusion that the freight railroads are obligated to host HSR on their corridors. Since you believe that, what is it that you would like to be done about the freight railroad executives who have a different view?
You scoff at the railroads’ objection to the on-time performance standards. Those performance standards included financial penalties for failing to meet the standards.
Apparently the freight railroads objected to the cost of the financial penalties that would be likely to be incurred. They also felt it was a little heavy handed for the government to go public with the standards as a done deal when the freight railroads had not even been consulted on the matter.
I do not know how much damage those financial penalties would be likely to inflict on the host railroads. Do you? You seem to think their objection was unreasonable. Is there any amount of such penalty that you feel would be unreasonable? Apparently the government did not feel that the penalties were unreasonable.
Regarding your last paragraph, I completely disagree with the premise. The contention that the financial sector got into trouble due to greed and stupidity is a popular cliché, but it is not supported by facts. The financial sector did not come hat in hand asking for a bailout, claiming they were too big to fail. The government made the case that parts of the financial sector were too big to fail, and therefore required a government bailout in order to save the U.S. and world economies from collapse. Some financial institutions were forced to take a bailout when they did not want one. I happen to believe that the bailout was mainly a power grab by the government and not by the bankers as the government wants us to believe.
The bonuses and salaries of the financial executives were set and controlled by the government. If there was a problem with them, whose fault was it? Why should the government feel snookered? They were in the driver’s seat. And yet they can’t even give us a clear accounting of where the money went. The ones who got snookered are the American people.
Bucyrus said:
“And where is the line drawn between the monopolistic power and the obligation to operate in the public interest?”
Well, I am not sure, but there should be one. Let me ask you this …
Do you disagree that railroads are industries with extremely high barriers to entry (as the economists would say, meaning that any potential competitors would find it extremely difficult to enter the market), giving them near-monopolistic power on any given route, as far as rail transportation is concerned?
Do you disagree that anyone entering the railroad business is consciously engaging in a highly-regulated (and somewhat dangerous) activity as a common carrier, which results in higher levels of responsibility – to their employees, the customers they serve, the communities in which they operate, and yes, the public at large – than is the case with a business that is in a highly-competitive, non-regulated industry which is not a common carrier?
Again, I don’t believe that the answers are necessarily simple or easy – it is not a black-or-white analysis. But to have a Class I RR president talk like he believes that they should be treated like – and have the same rights and freedoms as – some poor sap just trying to make a buck selling flowers on a street corner, sounds just a little disingenuous. That, to me, “comes across as being arrogant and ham-handed…” To expect that the railroads will operate Amtrak and HSR trains consistent with some on-time performance standards – OMG, how unreasonable!
But, Bucyrus, I suspect we may never agree. If you honestly believe that it is OK that companies which, through greed or stupidity (or both) brought themselves (and nearly the entire world financial system) to the brink of bankruptcy, then came hat-in-hand to the government to bail them out because they were “to big to fail”, accepted the assistance, and then chose to pay the very executives who lead them down this path huge salaries and bonuses for their good work (instead of firing their a**), and you honestly believe that the government that bailed them out shouldn’t feel a bit snookered, then we clearly view the world through very different lenses.
But reasonable people can disagree, right?
Dragoman Bucyrus -- Now I feel you are over-simplifying my points. Sure, everyone enjoys life without additional regulation. This was certainly the case when safety regulations were proposed, and labor laws, and anti-child-labor laws, etc, etc. The question cannot be whether the business is "enjoying life without them", because that will always be the case. It is not a question of "No Regulation" vs. "Unlimited Regulation". The question must be whether the regulation serves a valuable purpose, and does it accomplish it fairly and effectively. "In a free market" you must have relatively equal power between buyer & seller. In monopolistic regulated industries with high barriers to entry -- which is exactly what the railroad industry is -- a pure free market system does not -- cannot -- work properly. Where Amtrak has little or no alternative options as to which railroads to use on a given route, then the roads can work fairly with Amtrak to negotiate terms of carriage, or it can directly or indirectly tell Amtrak where to go. They have that (monopolistic) power, and Amtrak has no politically-acceptable alternative but to forego its plans & desires. The railroads have that power. But given their status as common carriers, created not as "freight" railroads, but as railroads, shouldn't that power be exercised with some view to what is reasonable? What is beneficial to the community and to society at large? What's wrong with hoping that corporate executives -- and the corporation they represent -- will act in the public interest?
Bucyrus --
Now I feel you are over-simplifying my points.
Sure, everyone enjoys life without additional regulation. This was certainly the case when safety regulations were proposed, and labor laws, and anti-child-labor laws, etc, etc. The question cannot be whether the business is "enjoying life without them", because that will always be the case. It is not a question of "No Regulation" vs. "Unlimited Regulation". The question must be whether the regulation serves a valuable purpose, and does it accomplish it fairly and effectively.
"In a free market" you must have relatively equal power between buyer & seller. In monopolistic regulated industries with high barriers to entry -- which is exactly what the railroad industry is -- a pure free market system does not -- cannot -- work properly. Where Amtrak has little or no alternative options as to which railroads to use on a given route, then the roads can work fairly with Amtrak to negotiate terms of carriage, or it can directly or indirectly tell Amtrak where to go. They have that (monopolistic) power, and Amtrak has no politically-acceptable alternative but to forego its plans & desires.
The railroads have that power. But given their status as common carriers, created not as "freight" railroads, but as railroads, shouldn't that power be exercised with some view to what is reasonable? What is beneficial to the community and to society at large? What's wrong with hoping that corporate executives -- and the corporation they represent -- will act in the public interest?
You say that the railroads have the monopolistic power to reject Amtrak, but at the same time, the railroads should be reasonable because they are required to operate in the public interest according to some standard of reasonableness, fairness, effectiveness, and benefit to the community and society at large. Who defines that standard in explicit terms? And where is the line drawn between the monopolistic power and the obligation to operate in the public interest?
I would say that, in the view of many executives of the freight railroads, a government mandate to share their corridors with HSR is not reasonable or fair. Indeed, they might view this crash program for instant HSR as being reckless, not only for them, but for the society at large.
With the stimulus and bailouts, the government has indulged in some massive transactions that they cannot even explain in understandable terms. They are free to throw around public money without a clear agreement, and then to demand some equally vague quid pro quo from the recipients. And if the railroads don’t dance to the government’s tune, they might go public and demonize the railroads like this did to the Wall Streeters. You partner with this government, and the next thing you know, they are telling you how much profit is okay and how much you may pay your executives.
The government has already come across as being arrogant and ham-handed with their on-time performance standards with financial penalties for the railroads hosting HSR. And the government has already demonized the freight railroads for holding up the economic recovery by being too slow to partner with the states in the execution of HSR agreements. And then the government, as if they are entitled to the private railroad corridors, announces to the public that they are going to insist that the railroads enter these HSR agreements.
Given all of this, it does not surprise me that the freight railroads would be extremely wary of the HSR bandwagon and all the strings attached to it. Given what he is up against, I am actually quite surprised that Mr. Ward would stick his neck out and push back publicly the way he did.
PNWRMNM I think it is GREAT to hear any railroad president tell the plain unvarnished truth. Kudos to Mr Ward!! Mac
I think it is GREAT to hear any railroad president tell the plain unvarnished truth. Kudos to Mr Ward!!
Mac
LMAO!! Well I guess there's a first time for everything LOL.
Dragoman I don't think this is a good analogy at all. For starters, railroads (and the large corporations that by and large own & operate them) are not individual homeowners. They are commercial enterprises, created by and operated under state corporate charters and franchises. They are in a highly-regulated industry. As common carriers, they have an absolute responsibility to operate in the public interest. These factors mean that they cannot just chase profits, but must operate in a manner that is consistent with rules, regulations, and the public policies reflected therein. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that HSR should be forced upon railroads without fair and adequate compensation. But when a railroad announces in advance that it doesn't want to even enter into the discussion (CSX?), or will only do so after demanding unfair and absurdly excessive compensation (UP demanding 3/4 of a Billion dollars to add 4 trains a week to the Sunset route?), then they are being unreasonable. The better "quartering" example would be that the "citizen" operates a hotel, where he is required (if asked) to allow government employees to be housed, at the current room rates. If special hotel services are required, the government would pay for them. And, let's throw in that the hoteliers business license actually requires such cooperation. (Let's not forget that the "deal" with Amtrak was that it would relieve the railroads of their existing obligations to provide passenger services, in exchange for their cooperation with Amtrak's operations.)
I don't think this is a good analogy at all. For starters, railroads (and the large corporations that by and large own & operate them) are not individual homeowners. They are commercial enterprises, created by and operated under state corporate charters and franchises. They are in a highly-regulated industry. As common carriers, they have an absolute responsibility to operate in the public interest. These factors mean that they cannot just chase profits, but must operate in a manner that is consistent with rules, regulations, and the public policies reflected therein.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that HSR should be forced upon railroads without fair and adequate compensation. But when a railroad announces in advance that it doesn't want to even enter into the discussion (CSX?), or will only do so after demanding unfair and absurdly excessive compensation (UP demanding 3/4 of a Billion dollars to add 4 trains a week to the Sunset route?), then they are being unreasonable.
The better "quartering" example would be that the "citizen" operates a hotel, where he is required (if asked) to allow government employees to be housed, at the current room rates. If special hotel services are required, the government would pay for them.
And, let's throw in that the hoteliers business license actually requires such cooperation. (Let's not forget that the "deal" with Amtrak was that it would relieve the railroads of their existing obligations to provide passenger services, in exchange for their cooperation with Amtrak's operations.)
I think Jay’s analogy uses homeowners to make the point of heaping new regulatory burdens onto someone who is enjoying life without them. But your description pretty much sums up the attitude of those who believe that the freight railroads should accept the burden of expanded passenger rail because the government orders them to do so.
And then you soften your position by offering that the government will give fair compensation. But then you turn around and complain that the U.P. is asking for too much compensation. In a free market, the buyer and seller agree on the price. It is an entirely different system where somebody else decides what is a fair price for the seller.
Sure there are a lot of already existing regulations on business, but it does not follow that because there are some regulations, the government is free to impose unlimited new regulations. That is not the deal.
I applaud Mr. Ward for having the courage to stand up to the bully. It sounds like you would have him arrested for not operating in the public interest.
garr My interpretation, in non-CEO, undiplomatic terms: Let's say, for comparison sake, the Quartering Act was not in the Constitution--American citizens are having to allow government employees to occupy unused bedrooms in their private homes. At first housing the bureaucrat/soldier is the problem for the homeowner, however as time passes, the citizen finds that is the least of his worries. Feed the "guest"--you must feed at a certain time, three times a day, with no home grown food as all food products must be government inspected. All appliances will have to be restaurant grade with inspectors expected at any time for food handling cleanliness standards and scores. Actual bedding for our "guest--must be fire proof, a certain thread count, and American made. Structure standards required for properties hosting the "guest"--home must be handicap accessible(interior/exterior doorway widths, bathroom facilitie safety features, exterior ramps, 2nd floor accessibility). Home must meet energy efficiency standards. Oh, one last thing, to defray some of the unfunded mandates above, the citizen may want to perform many of the "improvements" mentioned above on their own--not allowed, all work has to be performed by government approved, union contractors. Simply stated, it is the "If you give a Mouse a Cookie Syndrome". Once the door is cracked open a little for the government they want to blow it open with a gale force wind. Jay
My interpretation, in non-CEO, undiplomatic terms:
Let's say, for comparison sake, the Quartering Act was not in the Constitution--American citizens are having to allow government employees to occupy unused bedrooms in their private homes. At first housing the bureaucrat/soldier is the problem for the homeowner, however as time passes, the citizen finds that is the least of his worries.
Feed the "guest"--you must feed at a certain time, three times a day, with no home grown food as all food products must be government inspected. All appliances will have to be restaurant grade with inspectors expected at any time for food handling cleanliness standards and scores.
Actual bedding for our "guest--must be fire proof, a certain thread count, and American made.
Structure standards required for properties hosting the "guest"--home must be handicap accessible(interior/exterior doorway widths, bathroom facilitie safety features, exterior ramps, 2nd floor accessibility). Home must meet energy efficiency standards.
Oh, one last thing, to defray some of the unfunded mandates above, the citizen may want to perform many of the "improvements" mentioned above on their own--not allowed, all work has to be performed by government approved, union contractors.
Simply stated, it is the "If you give a Mouse a Cookie Syndrome". Once the door is cracked open a little for the government they want to blow it open with a gale force wind.
Jay,
That is an excellent analogy illustrating the obvious reason why freight railroad executives would be worried about sharing their corridors with HSR. I suspect that they would be rather intimidated to speak out in opposition to the government on this matter, and for now, they just hope HSR will never materialize and show up at their doorstep. But clearly, Mr. Ward stands out for courageously drawing a line in the sand on this matter.
BaltACD ...........The faster the passenger train, the more space that is required to clear a freight train ahead of the passenger train. The faster and more frequent the passenger service the less capacity that is available for freight and maintenance operations. There is only 24 hours of track time in a day....when you are already running 24 hours of freight and maintenance service, where it the time for passenger? Where is the time for high speed passenger?
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Until you have been placed in the position of being Moses and trying to part the waters of freight trains on a railroad subdivision to be able to operate passenger train(s) On Time you cannot appreciate the difficulty in getting the waters parted.
Operating a railroad is not like running a Christmas garden....you can't pick up an move a train that is in the wrong place at the wrong time for all the wrong reasons. The faster the passenger train, the more space that is required to clear a freight train ahead of the passenger train. The faster and more frequent the passenger service the less capacity that is available for freight and maintenance operations. There is only 24 hours of track time in a day....when you are already running 24 hours of freight and maintenance service, where it the time for passenger? Where is the time for high speed passenger?
I know this is simplistic, but just before the Korean War, The Champion and Florida Special were "unofficially" clocking 100mph speeds through the Carolinas and north Georgia on both, welded and jointed rail. Passenger cars and locomotives were heavier than Amtrak's Amcans and GE egg crates of today. Of course this was in the days of double track mainlines between DC and Florida.
I am a little bewildered at the effort being expended in this thread to try to find an alternate, more nuanced explanation of Mr. Ward’s plainspoken comments.
To me, it comes as no surprise that the freight railroads would be reluctant to share their corridors with the new HSR vision. They would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so. Moreover, this freight railroad reluctance is hardly a new revelation. It has been in the news for at least a year, and even covered in Trains as well as the Trains Newswire.
The worry for the host railroads is the on-time performance standards that will be enforced by financial penalties on the host railroads. Another worry is that the government will expect some quid pro quo for whatever benefit redounds to the freight railroads from publicly financed infrastructure improvements for HSR on the freight corridors. This expectation of something in return coupled with the authority of the on-time performance begins to look like re-regulation.
There is also the presumptive heavy-handedness of the government characterizing the private railroad corridors as though they were some sort of public good. This attitude was reinforced last year when the government blamed the freight railroads for slowing the economic recovery because they were dragging their feet on HSR and delaying economic stimulus jobs.
Here is a fairly comprehensive discussion of this issue:
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101
Schlimm —
The Obama HSR program involves a whole slate of services that would be less than true HSR, right on down to expansion of existing 79-mph conventional passenger services (e.g. Seattle-Portland). Go up to 90 mph, and you've covered a big part of the program. Now add in the "true HSR" in California and the abortive effort in Florida, which Ward clearly has no problem with, as they use separate rights-of-way. Now you're down to a very small portion of the program. Specifically what you're dealing with is New York, where the state DOT wants to run 110 on the Water Level Route, but Ward says 90 is the most he'll do. In other words, it's a much narrower point of disagreement than what the head and lede indicate. That's the only point I'm trying to make.
Best,
Andy.
schlimm Andy Cummings: So I see two claims from Mr. Ward. First, he doesn't want trains faster than 90 mph. Second, he isn't going to advocate for the program. The first claim is somewhat interesting, though not exactly news, being as he's been saying that for at least a year. The second is what's known in the news business as a "water is wet" claim. Or, as a high-schooler might say, "duh." But the claim that Ward's comments add up to a rebuke of Obama's HSR program, that I just don't see. Best, 1. He doesn't want passenger trains running on his track faster than 90 mph. 2. HSR is by definition faster than 90 mph (a lot faster, more like 150+). 3. Therefore a logical conclusion would be that since he doesn't want Obama's (or anyone else's) HSR program on his track, he is saying no to Obama, i.e. "rebuffing" = rejecting. ("Rebuking" would mean to verbally disapprove).
Andy Cummings: So I see two claims from Mr. Ward. First, he doesn't want trains faster than 90 mph. Second, he isn't going to advocate for the program. The first claim is somewhat interesting, though not exactly news, being as he's been saying that for at least a year. The second is what's known in the news business as a "water is wet" claim. Or, as a high-schooler might say, "duh." But the claim that Ward's comments add up to a rebuke of Obama's HSR program, that I just don't see. Best,
So I see two claims from Mr. Ward. First, he doesn't want trains faster than 90 mph. Second, he isn't going to advocate for the program. The first claim is somewhat interesting, though not exactly news, being as he's been saying that for at least a year. The second is what's known in the news business as a "water is wet" claim. Or, as a high-schooler might say, "duh."
But the claim that Ward's comments add up to a rebuke of Obama's HSR program, that I just don't see.
1. He doesn't want passenger trains running on his track faster than 90 mph. 2. HSR is by definition faster than 90 mph (a lot faster, more like 150+). 3. Therefore a logical conclusion would be that since he doesn't want Obama's (or anyone else's) HSR program on his track, he is saying no to Obama, i.e. "rebuffing" = rejecting. ("Rebuking" would mean to verbally disapprove).
If I were a CEO or major investor in a railroad, I would not want any passenger trains running on my railroad, or ROW. There are far too many events that can go wrong and running a freight railroad is difficult enough.
Perhaps the federals are positioning themselves with all the talks of re-regulation (probably died down now with the elections in Nov), PTC, and other issues as a quid pro quo for access.
I agree with Dave...CSX has made a good turnaround under Mr. Ward.
Ed
Correction: In addition to Mr. Ward being responsible for income to the railroad's investors and excellent service to its customers, obviously he is also deeply concerned with the safety and health of the railroad's employees. I regret not having given emphasis to that in my previous post . Apologies!
And despite my criticism of his saying too much, I rhink he is doing a terrific job, and the turn-around of SCX's fortunes is great for its customers, the USA, and all of North America.
Andy Cummings So I see two claims from Mr. Ward. First, he doesn't want trains faster than 90 mph. Second, he isn't going to advocate for the program. The first claim is somewhat interesting, though not exactly news, being as he's been saying that for at least a year. The second is what's known in the news business as a "water is wet" claim. Or, as a high-schooler might say, "duh." But the claim that Ward's comments add up to a rebuke of Obama's HSR program, that I just don't see. Best,
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Andy Cummings Bucyrus — What I'm proposing is that Mr. Ward is neither in favor of, nor opposed to, high speed rail, contrary to what said article's headline proposes. I base this on the quotes I referenced above in the interview I conducted with him last year. I'm proposing this reporter is making the claim primarily that Mr. Ward won't "advocate" for high speed rail, then acts as if that's the same as Mr. Ward opposing high speed rail. I'm saying those are two different things, and there's a subtle bait-and-switch that occurs in this piece between those two things. I believe if you read the Bloomberg article carefully, you won't see where Mr. Ward proposes that he won't allow passenger trains on his railroad under the Obama HSR program. He doesn't. Rather, he says passenger trains operating faster than 90 mph can't realistically be made to work with freight trains on a busy route. New York DOT is pushing a plan for 110, and that's where the real conflict is, as best I can tell.
Bucyrus —
What I'm proposing is that Mr. Ward is neither in favor of, nor opposed to, high speed rail, contrary to what said article's headline proposes. I base this on the quotes I referenced above in the interview I conducted with him last year. I'm proposing this reporter is making the claim primarily that Mr. Ward won't "advocate" for high speed rail, then acts as if that's the same as Mr. Ward opposing high speed rail. I'm saying those are two different things, and there's a subtle bait-and-switch that occurs in this piece between those two things.
I believe if you read the Bloomberg article carefully, you won't see where Mr. Ward proposes that he won't allow passenger trains on his railroad under the Obama HSR program. He doesn't. Rather, he says passenger trains operating faster than 90 mph can't realistically be made to work with freight trains on a busy route. New York DOT is pushing a plan for 110, and that's where the real conflict is, as best I can tell.
Andy,
I see nothing in the interview that indicates that Mr. Ward is for or against HSR as a fundamental position in a vacuum. But his statements seem to clearly indicate that he is opposed to HSR running on CSX tracks. I really cannot tell if he holds this position for passenger trains running under 90 mph or not. On one hand, he seems to accept passenger trains running on his railroad if they do not exceed 90 mph. But on the other hand, he says passenger trains do not make money, and he therefore asks why he should want to run them on his railroad.
I understand your point about “not advocating,” being an agnostic position, whereas “opposed to” is a position against. However; although Mr. Ward does use language that indicates he is not advocating HSR on CSX, I don’t think his intention is to make a distinction between not advocating and opposing as you suggest. Rather, I think he was just offering a variation in wording. I come to that conclusion because the rest of his language clearly sounds like opposition to HSR on CSX. He might have suggested he “can’t advocate for” as a way to soften in implication of opposing President Obama. But when he says he “can’t do it,’ I take that as being opposed to doing it.
What I find most unclear, however, is the distinction between running HSR on tracks shared with freight trains of the host railroad, versus running HSR on its own dedicated track, and only sharing the corridor with the host railroad. Clearly Mr. Ward is basing his objections to the former of the two propositions. But even if HSR were to run on its own dedicated track, I suspect there would be impact on the operations of the host freight railroad.
Certainly the construction of a dedicated HSR track on the freight railroad’s corridor would entail major and extensive changes to the freight trackage, signals, grade crossings, bridges, and earthwork. I also suspect that even if HSR had its own dedicated track, there would still be some overlapping where HSR actually ran on the freight trackage of the host railroad in certain areas.
Let's look at what Mr. Ward actually says in the article:
CSX Corp. (CSX) “can’t be part of” President Barack Obama’s rail vision because passenger trains don’t make money and high-speed trains don’t belong on freight tracks, Chief Executive Officer Michael Ward said.
The question now comes to: what is high speed rail? On a worldwide basis, it's generally understood as trains moving faster than 150 mph. If that's Ward's point, that 150-mph passenger trains shouldn't mix with freight trains, then, well, ya. That would be incredibly dangerous. Good thing nobody's proposed that. Unfortunately, Obama's HSR program covers a lot of stuff that's not true HSR. So what's Ward referring to? A few paragraphs down, we get a hint of it.
While moving more people by train might make sense for society, letting passenger trains traveling faster than 90 miles per hour share tracks with freight trains doesn’t make business sense...
By my careless reading, when Ward says "letting passenger trains traveling faster than 90 miles per hour share tracks with freight trains doesn’t make business sense..." I'm assuming he means "letting passenger trains traveling faster than 90 miles per hour share tracks with freight trains doesn’t make business sense..." By my careless reading, that's the core of what he's saying here.
But being as much of Obama's HSR program involves trains that travel at less than 90 mph, this hardly seems like a rebuke of Obama's HSR program. You wouldn't know that by reading the headline.
The other claim which I've already tried (but apparently failed) to address is:
If CSX were to advocate for high-speed rail, he said, “it’s then ‘why aren’t you donating part of your infrastructure to that?’ which I can’t do and be true to my obligation to my shareholders.”
To reiterate, of course CSX isn't going to advocate for high speed rail. No other freight railroad CEO is advocating for it, either. That's not the business they're in. Why would they? The question is, are they willing to open their rights-of-way up to agencies that do want to run trains under the Obama HSR program? In the case of BNSF, UP, and NS, the answer is apparently yes, as long as their freight capacity is protected.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.