Future of Railroading

[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...

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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...)

[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]

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).

[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.

[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.

[espeefoamer]

If someone had captured all the hot air generated this week in Boston by the Democratic convention,we could generate enough fuel to run our railroads for the next 10 years![^]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomubee

Limitedclear: Rails did an overall good job of maintaining infrastructure, and a few still do. Operations personnel on some carriers will tell you privately that the number of slow orders is rising dramatically. I don't need to cite specific examples, but any engineer or conductor on one or more of the class ones would concur. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Tom-

We have fewer slow orders on the lines I operate than I can remember during my career. I'm sure that MOW budgets aren't huge given the economy and needs in other areas. Railroads have a lot of places to spend money these days and not that much money to spend. In case you haven't noticed, with the troubles in trucking we have more traffic than has moved in quite a while, cars and locomotives of all types are critically short particularly centerbeams, coal hoppers and seasonally grain hoppers. So this Engineer doesn't agree with your thesis or your "most conductors and engineers". Besides, I could get at least half of the guys I work with to buy Enron stock if I told them to, so 5 out of 6 conductors surveyed doesn't do much for me...lol...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

I know that the State of Texas is proposing "transportation corridors" across the state that include rail - to reduce truck traffic on interstates. Cheaper to build rail than highway in many cases. I expect to see more goverment involvement in rail in the next 10 years.

dd

The Texas Transportation Corridor would include the surrounding states such as Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Louisiana.

[Anonymous]

Limitedclear: Rails did an overall good job of maintaining infrastructure, and a few still do. Operations personnel on some carriers will tell you privately that the number of slow orders is rising dramatically. I don't need to cite specific examples, but any engineer or conductor on one or more of the class ones would concur. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

[SALfan]

To add a little bit to what tomubee said, in my sometimes not-so-humble opinion the best thing this country could do to enhance its national security is to take whatever steps are necessary to end our dependence on foreign oil. Railroads could go a long way toward doing that, obviously, because they are so much more efficient than trucks for moving large quantities long distances.

Even if natural gas (NG) has fewer BTU's for a given volume than diesel fuel, using NG in locomotives wouldn't seem to prevent insurmountable problems. Remember BN's fuel tenders from years ago, which were used to avoid high-priced fuel in a couple of states? The big benefit to NG is that it can be made from coal (which we have in abundance), pig manure and sewage (believe me, in some places the stench from pig manure is a BIG issue), garbage, and I believe from decaying vegetable matter such as waste wood, cornstalks, etc.

The best solution would be nuclear power plants powering electric locomotives, but that will never happen. Even if the fearsome initial investment could be had, the NIMBY's and BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) would all wet their pants in unison and start bleating and whining so much no politician would stand for it.

[dldance]

I know that the State of Texas is proposing "transportation corridors" across the state that include rail - to reduce truck traffic on interstates. Cheaper to build rail than highway in many cases. I expect to see more goverment involvement in rail in the next 10 years.

dd

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JoeKoh

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

Joe-

I'm not sure what makes you think a single hopper can hold 15 truckloads. It can't. The real ratio of truckloads to railcar loads, depending upon the commodity, weight, cubes, etc is about 3 or 4 truckloads per railcar load.

LC

[Mookie]

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.

I'm not the brightest marble on here, but I am thinking Amtrak for how the government gets involved.

The railroads will be a dim memory if you wait for the govt to get their ducks in order and set up a lease access system.

But maybe some brighter marble will point out the error of my thinking.

Mookie

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

[Anonymous]

I see the railroad industry going through a period of convulsions and upheaval that will have profound ramifications. Deferred maintenance will now have the same catastrophic consequences for some Class Ones that it had 30 years ago for the six railroads that made up Conrail. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of derailments is increasing on some lines which coincides with lack of emphasis on infrastructure maintenance. This is a slippery slope that makes it extremely difficult for a major carrier to rebound from. Increased costs due to mounting number of derailments absorbs funds that could be used for track and structure rehabilitation. Truly, a vicious cycle. Wreck of the Penn Central red'ux. Our elected representatives, occupied by matters of national security, cannot see the coming melt down, but what North America needs is a balanced ground transportation policy that recognizes the importance of a healthy rail network. As a matter of national security and continued operation of the integrated rail system the Federal government may eventually be forced to at least take over responsibility for the maintenance of the major rights of way throughout the continent. The storm clouds are building, and "it doesn't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows".