Future of Railroading

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JoeKoh

Railroads going away?I think not.I hopper vs 15 semi loads.do the math.
stay safe
Joe

More like 3-4.[;)]

Oopps I guess there was a 2nd page. Already discussed. My mistake.

Anyways back on track, the future of railroading is going to be determined on track capacity. Just look at the mess the UP is having right now. Imagine 5-10 years from now. Most of the main lines will probably have to be double tracked to keep trains on track and keeping delays to the at most minimum. Little delays add up quickly.

[Overmod]

Junctionfan --

Remember that the AEM7's "horsepower" isn't the same as TE, even with the fancy AC drive and high wheels. Ever notice how slowly you accelerate out of a station? Adhesion and traction-motor flux limits still apply to these locomotives; they are reasonable for passenger work, but would be very limited on freights. NOT the same thing as a SD-xxMAC.

Distributed power has been touted long before John Kneiling proposed modular gas turbines on container-flat sets. You might remember a guy named Frank Sprague who essentially invented MU as we know it... he made all these arguments before the turn of LAST century. Isn't it interesting that many modern high-speed trains, as well as commuter trainsets, have gone either to locomotive-hauled trains, or trains with special-purpose 'power cars' and no motors on the other wheelsets... that unsprung mass and added tech cost adds up.

There are remarkably few advantages for distributed power in freight operation, even assuming that the entire capital cost can be subsidized. All the repair and maintenance expenses grow, safety considerations proliferate, a whole new set of interchange rules mandating power conductors on unpowered cars (shades of air brakes in the 1870s!) would need to be enforced... not to mention that slack operation would become massively more 'computer-dependent' (yes, that's a sardonic euphemism!). Container trains aren't operated like fast commuter trains with tightlock couplers, and probably shouldn't be even if the technology allowed -- imho not as fuel-efficient for equivalent point-to-point timing, for one thing.

Look for interesting advances in motive power, but to the extent there are non-engined traction motors being used, they would be in MATE-like vehicles that qualify as locomotives. There are current proposals in active development for the use of modern technology to build, provide, and maintain solid-fuel locomotives on American railroads (but I cannot discuss details due to confidentiality).

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jruppert
[

Why not build (RR Co.) industrial parks with track access to all areas, and then offer companies incentive to relocate, or incentive to startup.

Maybe business that locate on a RR could get a tax break for relieving highway traffic.

Maybe business could be allowed to locate directly on trainyard property to get immediate acces to shipments. That's what airports do.

There already are railroads thatown or have a large interest in industrial parks to varying degrees of success.

The Modesto and Empire Traction in Modesto, CA is quite sussessful as is I believe the Stocton Terminal and Easternin Stockton, CA[:)]

It appears that another area in Sacramento CA built in the 1970's with Central California Traction Co investment is mainly served by trucks now[:(]

[Overmod]

I took my hat off and thought for a moment about John Kneiling. Just two posts after his name was mentioned, people started discussing the "Iron Ocean" without mentioning his role in developing and promoting it.

The logical entry point for Government 'assistance' in railroading is, I think, already in operation (via FRA and, as Mookie wisely mentions, Amtrak) -- it's the corridor-improvement project that optimizes JOINT freight and passenger operation at higher speed. This is a whole lot more than just improving the roadbed, rails, etc. -- scheduling and operations improvements are critical.

One might, practically, expand this by merging the present Highway Trust Fund into an "Intermodal Trust Fund" (mine) or something similar, which would nominally allow HTF spending on rail by stressing the benefits to highway users of lower truck traffic, truck wear of highway infrastructure, etc. The problem then becomes the rights that the present railroad companies retain to the real-estate and routes -- for example, the use of ROWs for fiber-optic network backbones or cell towers -- as well as to the trackage.

Another wonderful issue that rears its head (and you can almost bet it will be 'worse' if Edwards gets in as VP) is who gets the legal blame if there's an accident on "Government-sponsored" trackage. Now we have multiple sets of deep pockets, some funded mandatorily by both state and Federal agencies, from which clever folks can siphon money. (And no, a rail-specific analogue of the Price-Anderson Act won't help matters fairly).

IIRC one of the earliest railroads in Pennsylvania was a 'rail turnpike' that was open to all prospective users (who might have wagons with flanged wheels, etc.). Some of the, ah, interesting operating problems that were reported in that line's operations would not recur with modern technology. But there remains the question of what would be required to run on a given stretch of 'iron ocean' -- and the bureaucracy, manipulation, and other associated weaselry that would almost certainly follow. Imho it still would make better sense for individual companies to provide the rolling stock, and perhaps the locomotives, and let a railroad operating company actually run the thing. (I wold point to the use of freight forwarding and 'express-company' entities for both LCL and carload/container-load traffic generation as a different model, one which I support, which would allow open-access container trains to run over iron-ocean trackage -- the principal difficulty here being that current container companies don't have common truck chassis, handling procedures, etc. I have wondered whether a container version of the Railbox idea might have some use, perhaps using ISO container specs as a baseline, but it's not difficult to see that the capital requirements vs. revenue aren't real good for any startup...)

[Anonymous]

LC: I would be remiss if I stated that all class ones have embarked on programs of deferred maintenance, but I do feel that if one or more of the class ones go belly up all of the industry will be adversely affected. I am bothered though when I see a carrier divert monies from maintenance and rehabilitation to cover other corporate expenses. This is not a good situation when you consider that 60 percent of mainline bridges in North America were built before 1940. This may not be taking place where you operate, but nonetheless it is occurring in some areas. As one who depends on this industry for a living, I am concerned about its future. I don't think it's helpful to whistle past the graveyard.

[MP57313]

RRs do need to be "good neighbors" even if they don't specifically have sidings or customers in the towns they pass through. Otherwise the local complaints will flow to the politicians, who in turn could make life difficult for the RRs

As for the other posters' comments on deferred maintenance, I agree that is a problem. A few months ago I checked out the CSX (now sold to a short line?) route through Gordonsville, VA. The Cardinal travels this route. The track was in sad shape; it looks like the freight traffic (and the money to maintain the route) has dwindled away...

[Anonymous]

I think that the future of railroading as we know it is very dim. Heavy traffic on a few select mainlines, unit moves, no incentive to ship single carloads, poor customer service because of all the unit movements, a vicious circle that reminds me of what happened in England.
And things got so bad in England that even the government got out of the business.

[Anonymous]

The future of railroading is good, providing that there is a clear vision of what the industry wants to become. Having said this it is important to look at a few facts 1. Railroads cannot be the monopoly in transportation that they were in the late 19th and early 20th century's, federal power and popular sentimenet will scotch that,2. Airlines despite their sexiness are finding just like the railroads that the passenger business does not earn all that much when compared to air freight earns (James Hill could have told em that), and 3. Highways are ( despite the propaganda of the legalized trusts known as the 50 states and Uncle Sugar) money pits that devour taxpayer money faster than a yard of asphalt can be put down on a Carolina Summer morning. With this said, maybe it is time for real thinking about what is really needed in transportation that would involve places of economic support for new industry, fast ground trransport that is not in the ten wheeler shooting gallery and a way to get around that doesn't require increasingly expensive imported oil and gasoline. That would be a far sight better that keeping with what has been just popular from the ashpalt and concrete paving lobby and making them rich at the expense of all of us. [2c]

[Anonymous]

Putting the railroads under government control is the quickest way to destroy our rail system. Look at what happened under government economic regulation. Only deregulation in the form of the Staggers Act in 1980 brought the railroads back from the brink and even then look at the huge railroad bankruptcies. Can the government even seem to handle passenger rail. Amtrak is a mess due to government meddling in its day to day operations. And you ask what is wrong with government control?!? Surely you jest!!

LC

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

How could making the mainlines govermentally owned and leased, bankrupt the railroads. I'm not proposing that anybody with a locomotive can run. What I was proposing is that for example a couple of main arteries double or triple tracked, maintained and dispatched by a governmental agency, that can be use by all the class 1 railroads, passengers traffic, commuter traffic and some shortlines to get from one shortline to another. I can think of one place in Canada that would benefit from this. The Canada Southern route that went between Buffalo/Fort Erie to WIndsor/Detroit. This route would solve conjestion problems in Fostoria and would eliminate time for time sensitive NS and CSX intermodals running East to West to East. There would need to be work done on this route but it would be very great for CSX, NS, CN, CP, VIA, Rail America, Amtrak as well as UP and BNSF that wait for the eastbound NS and CSX intermodals. CP could run their Expressway tofc ferry between Buffalo and Detroit. CSX and NS could run their autoparts trains quicker, CN could run a few Niagara to Sarnia trains down that route. Also, Amtrak could run what they use to run an express train that ran between Detroit and Buffalo Depew. Via could start service between Niagara Falls Canada to Windsor. Some of the shortlines could get to their other locations without having to depend on CN.

[Anonymous]

Rehabilitation and maintenance are black holes. You can throw large amounts of $$ at them for a long time and still many railfans will scream "deferred maintenance". Sorry, most of us in the industry have at least an idea of what we need to do to maintain to certain standards. It may not be to your standards at any particular moment. Today's mainline with mud pumping or a few extra bad ties is tomorrows tie project. Contractors I know have all their people working now and are hiring as many as they can to get work done this season. The industry has survived large Class 1 bankruptcies before, several at a time. Bridges are a huge problem, but at least most railroad bridges were built to last. The small number of bridge failures on railroads are a testament to their engineering and construction. Money is needed and the governement should consider grants to railroads as was done in the past (for example the grants under both the 3R and 4R acts). The kind of money you are talking about should be public in nature. Requiring rebuilding of existing infrastructure would likely bankrupt all the railroads, and given the inequities with other transportation modes such public funding is both appropriate and necessary. Oh, and the quips are nifty, but they mean nothing...

LC

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomubee

LC: I would be remiss if I stated that all class ones have embarked on programs of deferred maintenance, but I do feel that if one or more of the class ones go belly up all of the industry will be adversely affected. I am bothered though when I see a carrier divert monies from maintenance and rehabilitation to cover other corporate expenses. This is not a good situation when you consider that 60 percent of mainline bridges in North America were built before 1940. This may not be taking place where you operate, but nonetheless it is occurring in some areas. As one who depends on this industry for a living, I am concerned about its future. I don't think it's helpful to whistle past the graveyard.

[Train Guy 3]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Here is another thing I wonder about. SInce some railroads don't seem to be overly interested in maintaining the mainlines, what if the government control the mainlines and the railroads just lease access to it. Like trucking companies using the highways.

Railroads do a fine job of maintaining their lines overall. The concept you are speaking of is "Open Access" and would result in the end of the railroad industry as we now know it. Many customer groups pushed for this in the past. The railroad industry won't allow it, nor should it. It is largely a ploy by certain customers to get cheaper rates.

LC

At one point didn't the Southern Railway lease their track in the state of North Carolina or something to that extent?

[Train Guy 3]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I wondering if the railroads should build their own powerplant and go electric. The only problem I can forsee though is running electric with double stacks. Is there enough clearance for that?

It could work. I know the Virginian Railway had thier on powerplant for thier electrics. But when N&W bought the VGN most all of the electric operations were phased out.

[Anonymous]

We need more 4 axel locomotives. The big locomotives are getting way to big, and complacted. Its technolgy gone way to far. The branch and smaller lines wont be able to handel those locomoives. I also think that 4000 HP should be the limit. The locomotives today will never last as long as the clasic ones. The old ones where built to last, and todays idea of building locomotives is hurry up and throw it together. The quality of the steel and other parts are getting poor. Running the modern locomotives is not like the simple running of, say, an SD-7. With a SD-7 if it breaks down it was easy to fix. With the modern ones, U need a guy with a PHD. If one chip burns out, the whole locomotive is usles. Hear in Sparta Wi, there was Amtrack train #7 with two brand new AMD103s. One had a chip burrn out, and for 4 hours the train blocked the main line. They did not know even where to start. They set the locomotive out, only to have ideling for the next 4 days untill someone came to fix the problem. What dose that say about locomotives of today?? And with some BNSF and CSX crews having problems with new GE units, like stacks bursting into flames, or loose contorl councels, Weshould go back to the old reliables.

[Anonymous]

I have heard that bridges in the highway system are also becoming a problem.

A nationwide takover of the rails by the government rings of communism.

What about BioDiesel ?

I once read an article in Scientific American that though there is no agreement as to how long among the sources, it is agreed that oil will run out. Something also pointed out in the article is that it won't be like somebody turning the tap off; it will become harder and harder to find over many years.

Yes, my steam loco ideas are cooky.

[MP57313]

The Government (taxpayers) can help out with funding capital projects, even if they don't take over day-to-day operations. The Alameda Corridor closed grade crossings, and got the parallel street upgraded and smoothed-out too...

[Anonymous]

Regarding the subject of "open access", some things need to be cleared up. What we are really talking about is an AT&T-style breakup of the Class I rail oligarchy. That doesn't necessarily mean a government takeover of the railroads, nor even government takeover of the infrastructure. The initial result of such a breakup would be seven or so rail infrastructure companies (BNSFi, UPi, CPi, CNi, NSi, CSXi, KCSi, with the "i" standing for "infrastructure") charging a dozen or more operating companies (BNSF, UP, CP, CN, NS, CSX, KCS, JBHunt, Swift, UPS, FedEx, Knight, et al) the rights to run over their particular regional rail infrastructure. The operating companies would have access to any customer located on the entire North American Rail grid. Thus, shippers would have true competitive rate setting, which would in turn attract more shippers back to rail from trucks. If such were to occur it is likely that rail would once again support 70% of freight movement on the North American continent (just like the good ole days).

What would probably evolve is actually private/public infrastructure companies as the states, regional transport authorities, et al, begin to add public funding to the infrastructure mix to attract more businesses to their particular regions (e.g. funding track expansions, et al). Furthermore, it is likely that the rail operating companies that evolved from the trucking outfits would probably take most of the business away from the original rail operating companies, since today's trucking companies seem to be much more interested in generating new business and taking care of even the smallest customers. Class II and Class III railroads would continue to operate as they do now, except with more business, maybe enough to pay for those track upgrades that are so lacking right now.

Innovation by the newer rail operating companies would probably result in more bi-modal technologies being employed, and also more running of shorter, faster trains nee-D&RGW, with more automation. Look for the rail infrastructure companies to favor a return to 264k cars rather than a jump to 315k cars, as the economies of track maintenance costs probably favor the lighter cars, e.g. bigger isn't better when it comes to track maintenance. Rail operating companies will compensate this by implementing more tri-axle and quad axle bogies to spread the weigh of cars over more axles and therefore allow the heavier loads. This is what the trucking companies are doing now to increase the load factor of the trailers to meet highway load restrictions while maximizing loads, and there is no reason to think they wouldn't do the same for railcars if they (the trucking companies) were running the rail show.

With all this happening, we'll all look up and realize that our nation's fuel efficiency has suddenly skyrocketted with such a massiver return to rail from highway movements. Hmmmm, all it took was to open the railways to any qualified user willing to put in the time and effort to go after the business, even the small single carload customers. It's amazing what a little induced competition will do for a nation's economic health.

DWS

[Anonymous]

A very cool picture. Also sounds like a very big omelette to make. Piouslion's comment, "the future of railroading is bright, provided there is a clear vision of what the railroad industry wants to become", then rings very true.

[jeaton]

Right now, I would like to be an infrastructure owner, especially a transcon line. Given that these lines may be near capacity, I would be selling slots for trains to the highest bidders. Talk about an oppurtunity to make big bucks...

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Right now, I would like to be an infrastructure owner, especially a transcon line. Given that these lines may be near capacity, I would be selling slots for trains to the highest bidders. Talk about an oppurtunity to make big bucks...

Thats the idea the railroads should take. Not just run your trains, let others run trains and make money from them to maintain your tracks.

[TH&B]

I dont think it is as simple as that, as far as i've heard about the "franchizing" or "privatizing" of some state owned railways in Europe and other places the infrrastructre owners become the loosers. For some reason there is no money in it, only expenses. Similar to the those who own our hiways, the government that is, looses money and needs to raise rates and taxes to keep our hiways in good shape because they can't seem to earn it all.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Right now, I would like to be an infrastructure owner, especially a transcon line. Given that these lines may be near capacity, I would be selling slots for trains to the highest bidders. Talk about an oppurtunity to make big bucks...

The major problem with this idea is that railroads don't earn their cost of capital, meaning that rail rates are not high enough to maintain all the infrastructure as it should be maintained and still earn a profit. Accordingly, there certainly isn't enough revenue for both an infrastructure and an operating compan to realize a profit without cutting corners somewhere. This gets you into the situation that resulted in Great Britain where RailTrack the infrastructure company went bankrupt and rail service went way downhill requiring a government bailout after the split between the infrastructure and operating companies.

It just doesn't add up unless you can substantially increase rates. Given that the customers who are behind open access in the first place want LOWER rates, not higher rates the open access idea is doomed to failure one way or the other...

LC

[Anonymous]

Here in Victoria (australia) most freight trains have had driver only operation for a number of years. Trains that actually run direct from one place to another with no switching etc only need a single person to drive it. I dont know about the states but it is also dependent on the locomotive type and some locomotives arent permitted to be operated as driver only. These locos are usually seen only as a trailing unit running in multiple with a lead unit that can run driver only.

Also over here the rail network has been for years goverment controlled and up until the mid '90s or sometime was when the state and federal govenments started to privatize. As a result (for one example) there is only a single direct route between Australia's two biggest cities - Melbourne and Sydney. The various rail operators all have track arrangments with the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) an organisation established as an agreement between the state and federal governments. The ARTC manages the national rail network and assigns track slots to the various operators. This has lead to the creation of many rail operators here because it means you can run trains without needing any train track. Thanks to leasing companies you also dont need any locomotives or cars. The ARTC also provides dispatching for all the tracks that make up the interstate rail network with a central dispatching center in Adelaide.

The ARTC monitors all traffic between Melbourne and Sydney (amongst other cities) and controls remotely from Adelaide all the signalling, passing sidings etc. Trains are still given certain priority over others (not sure how this is determined) but operators are free to compete for traffic anywhere in the country that they want to send their trains.
An example of the competition on the network might be a scenario similar to this:

Southbound intermodal train departs Sydney at 9pm for the overnight trip to Melbourne. This train might be operated by Toll Logistics with Pacific National motive power.
At 9:30 another intermodal train might depart Sydney also for Melbourne operated by Patricks Corp using motive power provided again by Pacific National.
At 10pm yet another intermodal train might depart Sydney for Melbourne this time operated by Specialised Container Transport (SCT) with rolling stock and motive power provided by Freight Australia.

The three example trains would all be running on the same track by different operators but actually operating in direct competition with each other. This gets played out every day all across the country. Why could this not be done in the US? Would allow the abandonment of thousands of miles of redundant trackage, with only the tracks with the best gradients, alignment, etc remaing. Save millions of dollars in infrastructure costs would it not?

Just a thought. Feel free to poke it full of holes about why it wouldnt work [;)]

[Junctionfan]

I myself don't see a problem in it. Australia seems to think it is a good idea and it works so I can't see why the U.S and Canada can't do it. With very little railroads remaining do to mergers, I would have thought that it would have been easier for competition since most of the action would only see NS, BNSF, CSX, UP, CN, CP and possibility or KCS. The sprinkling of Amtrak trains is already taken into consideration. The only trains that would really compete with each other are the intermodal traffic. Most of the coals trains already use trackage rights on some lines in order to get where they are going. I am sure that not just NS and CSX run coal to the Toledo Ore Docks. For security purposes, it mean that more police and law enforcement can patrol that area. Instead of keeping watch of many lines they watch a few. The only thing I would advise is to get rid of the railroad crossings. 200 trains a day down a triple track mainline all whistling for a crossing could be quite annoying. I feel sorry for those living in Fostoria where the trains all whistle and they have very few bridges. Not to mention the road traffic backing up if multiple trains go through at once.

[jeaton]

Actually, I was trying to make a point about what can happen when the demand for the goods or services of a capital intensive business begin to outpace capacity. There is a tendency to think that open access would reduce rates because of added competition. It wouldn't necesarily be the case.

I, in fact, think that if the American railroads went to the split infrastructure-operating entities, the result would be comparable to the British experience. For whatever reasons, they have not had enough money flowing into infrastructure maintenance.

Underlining many of the suggestions on this thread is the idea that the railroads can save their way to prosperity. I think the cash requirements are too great for that to happen. I see three fundamental choices.

1. Increase taxpayer's money flowing to railroads.

2. Increase the share that trucks and other modes contribute to government maintained rights-of-way. (Results in increased charges for those modes and allows railroads to increase their rates on existing business).

3. Go home.

Take your pick.

[Junctionfan]

What would you suggest should be done in order for the railroads to operate more trains and more people to use them. My desire is to make the highways less conjested, reduce the North American demand for non North American oil researves, reduce pollution, improve economy, improve safety and overall make the railroading business sucessful all at the same time.

[jeaton]

Funny thing. I have a number of family members employed in 100% government owned operations. These include a school system, the US Army and NASA. Of course, all of these have been subject to criticism ranging from reasoned to totally irrational rantings. Something like range of the complaints against railroads we can find on this forum. (Note to ALL members: You are not irrational, its somebody else.)

I'm not against taxpayers' money going to places where it is used effectively. All things considered, maybe government ownership isn't so bad. Chicago Metra has done a pretty good job of meeting my needs, and those of quite a few other folks.

Rather than buying out the whole thing, what about funding expansions, keeping ownership of the new facilities, and charging rent for the use. Isn't that something like what is done when one railroad grants trackage rights to another?

[Anonymous]

I believe the NS leases a sizeable NC state owned line known as the North Carolina Railway. There are other examples of railroads leasing lines from state or local governments. This is very different from the government simply taking over.

LC

QUOTE: Originally posted by Train Guy 3

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Here is another thing I wonder about. SInce some railroads don't seem to be overly interested in maintaining the mainlines, what if the government control the mainlines and the railroads just lease access to it. Like trucking companies using the highways.

Railroads do a fine job of maintaining their lines overall. The concept you are speaking of is "Open Access" and would result in the end of the railroad industry as we now know it. Many customer groups pushed for this in the past. The railroad industry won't allow it, nor should it. It is largely a ploy by certain customers to get cheaper rates.

LC

At one point didn't the Southern Railway lease their track in the state of North Carolina or something to that extent?

[Anonymous]

LC: Railroad bridges were built to last, but how long? How old is the MacArthur bridge in St. Louis? How old is the Merchant's bridge? How old is the KCS bridge north of St. Louis? How old is the Tennessee River bridge north of Chattanooga? How old is the Illmo bridge or the bridge at Pine Bluff? How old are the Port Perry and Ohio Connecting bridges in Pittsburgh? How old is the former P&LE bridge at Monaca, Pa? The next question should be how long were they meant to last? The best maintained rail bridge in North America is the Huey P. Long bridge in New Orleans which was completed in 1932. Keep the faith, but I think now is the time to consider a balanced surface transportation policy that involves all methods of ground transport. I feel we've been lucky so far as rail bridges are concerned.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Actually, I was trying to make a point about what can happen when the demand for the goods or services of a capital intensive business begin to outpace capacity. There is a tendency to think that open access would reduce rates because of added competition. It wouldn't necesarily be the case.

I, in fact, think that if the American railroads went to the split infrastructure-operating entities, the result would be comparable to the British experience. For whatever reasons, they have not had enough money flowing into infrastructure maintenance.

Underlining many of the suggestions on this thread is the idea that the railroads can save their way to prosperity. I think the cash requirements are too great for that to happen. I see three fundamental choices.

1. Increase taxpayer's money flowing to railroads.

2. Increase the share that trucks and other modes contribute to government maintained rights-of-way. (Results in increased charges for those modes and allows railroads to increase their rates on existing business).

3. Go home.

Take your pick.

A couple of comments both in reference to the above and also Mark Hemphill's comments.

1. This needs to happen no matter what. Historically, although railroads have been private businesses they have been formed by government charter, aided by government right of way grants and the legal power of condemnation associated with the charters. Police powers for railroad police forces. Financial assistance has been provided by the government in various ways. Direct grants, loans and land grants have all been provided at various times. The quid pro quo for this has always been the common carrier obligation required of a rail carrier in interstate commerce. Some of these government programs methods need to be revived in a meaningful and focussed way. A way that doesn't unjustly enrich the railroads and their shareholders and yet provides necessary infrastructure relief. My sense of the Congress is that in our post 9/11 world transportation issues are beginning to receive more notice. Look at H.R. 876 the short line sponsored tax relief bill that garnered as many co-sponsors in the House as any other bill with material provisions in this Congress.

2. Increasing the share paid by truckers is unrealistic. Trucking has even thinner margins than the railroads. They would go bust trying to pay it.

3. This will result in gridlock and disasters.

I have to respectfully disagree at least in part with Mark on the capability of short lines to wring some savings out of railroads previously operated by the Class 1s. If this wasn't possible many of the short lines that have been around for decades simply would no longer exist because they would have used up their infrastructure long ago. No doubt many short lines are using up infrastructure and not reinvesting adequately to preserve rail service in the long term. Those will cease to operate even with government assistance as their disinvestment causes customers to locate elsewhere or relocate. Short lines no longer have the major advantages in crew size and some of the more favorable labor conditions they have enjoyed in the past. Short lines still on average pay lower wages and fewer benefits than their larger brethren and have much fewer employees, short lines use older smaller and cheaper locomotives and draw their car supply from Class 1s and leasing markets that allow them to incur less cost than the Class 1s. All this adds up to a small margin which keeps most short lines viable.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomubee

LC: Railroad bridges were built to last, but how long? How old is the MacArthur bridge in St. Louis? How old is the Merchant's brige? How old is the KCS bridge north of St. Louis? How old is the Illmo bridge or the bridge at Pine Bluff? How old are the Port Perry and Ohio Connecting bridges in Pittsburgh? How old is the former P&LE bridge at Monaca, Pa? The next question should be how long were they meant to last? The best maintained rail bridge in North America is the Huey P. Long bridge in New Orleans which was completed in 1932. Keep the faith, but I think now is the time to consider a balanced surface transportation policy that involves all methods of ground transport. I feel we've been lucky so far as rail bridges are concerned.

No doubt. As I said above rail bridges need help. So do highway bridges in many areas. Real thoughtful and focussed financial help for our rail system is needed. I have no disagreement with that. What I disagree with is the quickness to blame the railroads for not earning the cost of capital where the competition is subsidized and the customers are doing their best to usurp railroad revenues with BS ideas like "Open Access". I'll bet those big mines and mills wouldn't open their facilities for use by generic brands competing with them. Why should the railroads?

LC