Recently a nice, civil discussion regarding transportation on the Mississippi River was locked, with the reason cited being that the discussion was not "trainsy" (my term) enough for this forum.
As barge traffic on the river is in direct competition with some of the nation's railroads, and as the discussion was revolving around who should pay for having the river system upgraded (relevant to taxpayers and to the railroads), it seemed like a valid topic of discussion.
I would like to know why the thread was locked. If intelligent discussions regarding transportation issues are to be barred from this forum, then we can just discuss locomotive paint schemes and argue about EMD vs GE forever.
zardoz Recently a nice, civil discussion regarding transportation on the Mississippi River was locked, with the reason cited being that the discussion was not "trainsy" (my term) enough for this forum. As barge traffic on the river is in direct competition with some of the nation's railroads, and as the discussion was revolving around who should pay for having the river system upgraded (relevant to taxpayers and to the railroads), it seemed like a valid topic of discussion. I would like to know why the thread was locked. If intelligent discussions regarding transportation issues are to be barred from this forum, then we can just discuss locomotive paint schemes and argue about EMD vs GE forever.
I have to concur. River transportation is both a competitor and customer for railroads. One cannot fully discuss rails benefits and detriments without discussing the benefits and drawbacks of rail's compeition. There is much more to the rail industry than paint jobs and preference of locomotives.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Maybe we could continue over on the Eleanor Roosevelt thread. But your right about railroad / barge cooperation. Kirby Barge line just announced a service where they transload crude oil from tank cars in St. Louis and deliver the barges to refiners on the Gulf coast that are not served by rail.
When CSX purchased Texas Gas about 20 years ago - their subsidiaries included the Sea Land container shipping line and American Commercial Barge Line that operates on the inland waterways. When intermodal is talked about in transportation circles - it is not just double stacked containers on rail cars. CSX has subsequently sold off the Sea Land ocean container business to Moller-Maersk, the SeaLand domestic container and terminal business was sold off and is now operating as Horizon Lines and it spun off ACBL and it is now operating as American Commercial Line.
Railroads and other transportation modes both compete and work with each other to provide for the transportation needs of their customers.
I don't think that the topic being waterways was the actual reason the thread was locked. The conversation was becoming more politically ideological, and the tone becoming more abrupt. The moderators had probably seen this movie too many times before, and used the not-"trainsy" aspect for cover to end it early.
MidlandMike I don't think that the topic being waterways was the actual reason the thread was locked. The conversation was becoming more politically ideological, and the tone becoming more abrupt.
I don't think that the topic being waterways was the actual reason the thread was locked. The conversation was becoming more politically ideological, and the tone becoming more abrupt.
The tone was becoming economic. The thread should not be held accountable for being political just because someone sees an economic issue as offending their political ideology.
And it would only be fair for the moderator to be clear as to the reason for locking. How can there be an issue of being off topic when they allow serial threads that go on forever celebrating a complete freedom from topicality?
MidlandMike I don't think that the topic being waterways was the actual reason the thread was locked. The conversation was becoming more politically ideological, and the tone becoming more abrupt. The moderators had probably seen this movie too many times before, and used the not-"trainsy" aspect for cover to end it early.
Certainly, we should be courteous to one another as we disagree. Indeed, being discourteous does nothing towards convincing those with whom we disagree that our position is the correct position (why else should we state our positions if we do not believe them to be correct?).
Johnny
Johnny, they mention politics, but they might have thought that might not end the grumbling, so they played the not-trainsy trump card. Of course, we are still talking about it.
I enjoyed this "Multi-Modal" venture ...
Deggesty MidlandMike I don't think that the topic being waterways was the actual reason the thread was locked. The conversation was becoming more politically ideological, and the tone becoming more abrupt. The moderators had probably seen this movie too many times before, and used the not-"trainsy" aspect for cover to end it early. Mike, surely the moderators could have been a bit more honest as to their reason. Certainly, we should be courteous to one another as we disagree. Indeed, being discourteous does nothing towards convincing those with whom we disagree that our position is the correct position (why else should we state our positions if we do not believe them to be correct?).
Just a brief observation from the sidelines: Several months back when Murphy Siding and a couple of other moderators(?) hung up their reverse keys,and brake clubs; while passing their moderator duties on to some new, and somewhat untried, anonymous candidates.
One of the new guys ( I think he wandered over from MR, if I remember correctly(?). Anyway, He jumped in and 'pulled the trigger' on a topic that was kinda wanderin' toward 'No man's land. It was certainly not one of those particularly slanderous, and homicidal ad hominen attacks that used to happen on a fairly regular basis when Michael So and futuremodal ( and some others) would go after each other, til the Moderators would pull the plug, and then have to obliterate the Thread that was dripping with verbal venom.
Granted, this FORUM is sponsored, and paid for by KALMBACH ( TRAINS Magazine). The topics have always been interesting, informative, and brought out many a fascinating insight to the world of 12" to 1' Railroading. As was pointed out elsewherre in this Thread. Railroading these days is much more than just Trains. The 707 photo Posted on this Thread is a prime example of an aspect of Railroads that did not even exist 25 years ago. Remember when all the big rails had their own TRUCK LInes...UP, SP, MV, PRR, Frisco, and that only scratches the surface of that topic (REA). Watch one of the TOFC shooters going by today. Whose trailers do you SEE? Major, and notso majorTruck lines, UPS, Fed Ex, and others.
Whole point is: Times they are a changing, and this business we watch so closely is changeing fast, as well. You do not have an exchange of ideas without some conflict. A healthy discussion is very much a part of that process of change. Moderators (?)
Bucyrus [snipped - PDN] How can there be an issue of being off topic when they allow serial threads that go on forever celebrating a complete freedom from topicality?
@rdamon - Love that BN Air Freight (?) photo ! Thanks for sharing !
Good thing waterways vs. rails weren't a verboten topic back when David P. Morgan was Editor of Trains - then John G. Kneiling would have been precluded from using a lot of the grist for his mill, as well as George W. Hilton and William D. Middleton, and perhaps some others. Or perhaps the current Trains staff and/ or moderators think they were all misguided ?!? Sheesh - need I say more ? If this Forum is going to be essentially limited to paint schemes and rivet-counting, it'll cease to be of much interest to me (see my 'tag line' below).
- Paul North.
VERY impressive photo of that Burlington air freighter, but where'd they put the whistle?
Firelock76 VERY impressive photo of that Burlington air freighter, but where'd they put the whistle?
I'm looking at the cylinders and have decided it must be simple steam. Still, the articulation is hidden very craftily.
samfp1943 Just a brief observation from the sidelines: Several months back when Murphy Siding and a couple of other moderators(?) hung up their reverse keys,and brake clubs; while passing their moderator duties on to some new, and somewhat untried, anonymous candidates.
You mean we are dealing with REPLACEMENTS? We know how that turned out for the NFL!
Paul_D_North_Jr Good thing waterways vs. rails weren't a verboten topic back when David P. Morgan was Editor of Trains - then John G. Kneiling would have been precluded from using a lot of the grist for his mill, as well as George W. Hilton and William D. Middleton, and perhaps some others. Or perhaps the current Trains staff and/ or moderators think they were all misguided ?!? Sheesh - need I say more ? If this Forum is going to be essentially limited to paint schemes and rivet-counting, it'll cease to be of much interest to me (see my 'tag line' below). - Paul North.
There is somewhat of a "double standard" between what appears in the magazine and what's allowed on the forum.
Some time back a thread was locked because it had to do with "box car tourists, the kind who normally travel by side door pullmans." (I don't want to use the H-word.) The reason being that they (kalmbach) doesn't want to glorify or romanticize that lifestyle or anything like that. Understandable. They don't want to put into impressionable minds the idea to ride or hop freight trains, although most posts in those banned discussions normally are along the line of the danger involved.
About the same time there appeared in the magazine a two page spread of teenagers hopping onto freight trains. In living color. Oh, the gyst of captions and short article said how dangerous and stupid the practice is, but I'd bet the average teenager/young adult would see the pictures and think how "cool" that would be to do. If they would even have read the captions/article they'ld probably just blow it off in passing.
In the end, it is their sand box. We play in it on their terms.
Jeff
Paul, you stole my thunder.
I guess I was the one who got the thread locked by discussing the (bad) economics of barge transportation. But, as you point out, it use to be a common subject in Trains under editor Morgan. How times and the magazine have changed.
Mississippi barges are subsidized by taxpayers. They should not be subsidized. The taxpayer (including the railroad companies) money used for the subsidy diverts freight from rail transport in an uneconomic manner than harms the economy and the people of the US. It goes without saying that it also harms the railroads.
I was trying to explain why such subsidies are bad for the country when the thread was locked.
So, I guess I'll go with: "What do you think of those steam generator equiped GP-30Bs that the UP bought in the 1960s? They sure looked neat up front on a mail and express train. It was like "WOW MAN' to see a picture of some Geep 30s pouring out steam. The UP should have kept them so we could take more pictures."
Seriously, Editor Morgan regularly visited the subject of subsidized rail competition. He saw it for what it was. And he didn't like what he saw.
Here B some facts:
The rivers were natural arteries of commerce and were used well before the beginning of European settlement in North America for commerce and trade.
The railroads proved superior to river transport.
1) Commercial traffic on the Missouri River peaked about 1880. By 1890 it was no longer significant. The railroads took the business.
2) By the beginng years of the 20th Century all inland water transport by river and canal had been largely rendered insignificant by the superior efficiencies of rail transportation. Basically, only the Great Lakes and the subsidized Erie canal remained viable as waterway arteries of commerce.
This ascendancy of railroad transportation advanteged certain locations, such as Chicago. It also disadvantaged certain locations, such as St. Louis. Chicago rapidly passed St. Louis to become the metropolis of the Midwest. This upset people in river transport focused locations, such as St. Louis. Since the side that is loosing will always seek to broaden the conflict, the folks in the river oriented locations sought to involve the Federal Government.
Unfortunately for the country and the railroads, they were successful. The upper Mississippi, the Ohio, the Illinois, and others were changed from free flowing rivers to damed up barge canals. (There are around 25 lock and dams on the Mississippi between St. Paul and St. Louis. That's about 500 miles if you drive it.) All on the taxpayer dime. For decades, the barge operators and their customers paid no fees to use the new canals. (There is now a small levy on towboat fuel. It ain't enough to pay for much of anything.)
But, despite the Federal largess with the peoples' money, the regulated railroads could still compete with the unregulated barges. And this simply would not do.
So the Federal regulators adopted a policy of holding regulated rail rates artificially high to allocate business to the barges. Heck Fire, they wouldn't even allow unit train rates until the 1960s.
Editor Morgan wrote an editorial about the Ingot Molds case where rail rates were held high by regulators to allocate traffic to barges. I guess he'd get locked up here. Such discussion is not allowed. Government allocation of business did harm the railroads, but, more importantly, it harmed the US economy and the US people. Morgan understood that. I sure miss him.
So now there's a proposal for an increased subsidy for rail competitive barge transportation. I was trying to explain why that's a bad idea all around. And the thread got locked. Go figure.
selector Firelock76 VERY impressive photo of that Burlington air freighter, but where'd they put the whistle? I'm looking at the cylinders and have decided it must be simple steam. Still, the articulation is hidden very craftily.
How do they keep the bell from blowing off?
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Jeff - Yes, I know it's their sandbox (ball), and so they get to make the rules (or "take their ball and go home"), but that doesn't make it right, and it's still intellectually inconsistent and wrong-headed.
greyhounds - Yeah, well, I'm kind of hoping someone challenges me on that. Easy first rebuttal: "So what about the Great Lakes carferries ? Aren't they 'railroady' enough to be discussed here ?" And along the slippery slope from there . . .
To the main point of your post above: Here in eastern Pennsylvania - contrary to the experience and governmental policy on the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and other similar waterways - many nearby canals were practically put out of business early on and finally by the railroads, and never had the political clout to get the special help that the river operators did, as you mention. Exhibit "A" is the Pennsylvania state-built, owned, and operated "Main Line of the Public Works", a perpetually money-losing combination of canals and inclined planes that was [minor edits follow - I was pretty tired late last night . . . ] killed sold off by its own political parent in the mid-1850's by to the PRR, which then bought the carcass (assets) and used the best of them for its own purposes ("New Portage RR Tunnel" at Gallitzin summit, water reservoirs to supply steam locos, right-of-way further west, etc.), despite the Pennsylvania state government getting a real "haircut" in that foreclosure. Just as significant are some canals that were killed off by their own owners, who by then had also built a rail system to replace them - the Delaware & Hudson is one, as is the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.'s canal being replaced by its Lehigh & Susquehanna RR (to be eventually operated by the Central RR of NJ). And slightly more generally, a list of all of the other canals which were replaced by railroads (with different owners, though) would take more time and energy than I have time for tonight . . .
The levy on marine diesel is 20 cents per gallon according to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. In addition, some states impose an additional tax on the fuel. In 2011 the fund generated approximately $84.5 million in fuel tax and interest revenue. It required an infusion of approximately $90 million from the U.S. Treasury to meets it requirements to maintain the 238 lock chambers on the inland waterways system.
As I noted in another post, to say that the barge operators don't pay anything to support the inland waterways, including the locks, is incorrect. To say that they don't pay what they should, given that many of the facilities were constructed to meet their needs, although not exclusively, is a worthy point.
The Congress is aware of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund shortfalls. Earlier this year it held hearings on how to resolve the problem.
The inland waterways system, according to the trust fund, moves 600 million tons of cargo annually. According to Senate Committee Report 112.075, it would take 24 million truck loads or 5.5 million rail car loads to move this tonnage via road or rail.
It is appropriate for rail enthusiasts to discuss competitive modes of transport. After all the railroads don't operate in a transport vacum. By the same token, it is appropriate to discuss railroad accounting and finance within the larger context of national financial issues as long as the discussions don't become a political rant. To pretend that finance does not have an impact on railroads is unrealistic.
Paul, could it be that the old style valley-side canals and inclined planes were abandoned because they were obsolete? It was not just an eastern thing, as there were many old style canals in the midwest that were also abandoned. The modern river-based waterways IMHO are efficient, although they could pay more of their way.
MidlandMike Paul, could it be that the old style valley-side canals and inclined planes were abandoned because they were obsolete? It was not just an eastern thing, as there were many old style canals in the midwest that were also abandoned. The modern river-based waterways IMHO are efficient, although they could pay more of their way.
You've piqued my curiosity with this statement.
If "Modern river-based waterways" are efficient, why can't they pay all of their way? Instead of just more of their way?
I really don't understand the logic of anyone who supports public funding of commercial activities. So, help me out here. Why shouldn't the dang barge operators have to pay in full for the locks and dams (as well as other things such as dredging) that make their operations possible?
This is Econ 101. If you know something I don't please share it. I'm really not to old to learn.
MidlandMike Paul, could it be that the old style valley-side canals and inclined planes were abandoned because they were obsolete? It was not just an eastern thing, as there were many old style canals in the midwest that were also abandoned. [snipped - PDN]
Technically obsolete, maybe not all of them - some canals continued to function and carry some small amounts of local freight at least until the 1930's and 1940's - the Lehigh Canal, for one, at least on those portions that hadn't been destroyed by flooding from time to time (it and the Delaware Canal were - and are still - are very susceptible to that problem).
My broader point is to the effect as that obsolescence started to become evident in the late 1800's, those canal owners/ operators generally were not able to garner enough political support and funding to subsidize either the maintenance and repair of their infrastructure (the canal), nor of the operations (like the lock-tenders), or the building of their boats, etc., despite their long-standing adn widespread presence in the economic community. In contrast, the bigger midwestern waterway operations seem to have been pretty successful at that, at least until recently. Why the difference ? Perhaps the barge/ towboat operations go more places and are are so much bigger that they're more visible, hence easier to support. Or maybe it's just that their managements know how to make an effective campiagn contribution, whereas the old-time canal boatman didn't - most of the time, he was out there on the water, or leading his mules. Heck - was there ever even a trade association for those guys ? (I doubt it) Even the canals that were creatures of a state government - New York's Erie Canal comes to mind - had protectionist laws enacted to guard against incursions by the railroads, but those were ineffective. In the end (of that battle, anyway), the forces of raw and pure economics led to the triumphant winner, as they usually will (and should) - the most efficient carrier then (the railroads) won, for the time being, anyway.
Paul_D_North_Jr MidlandMike Paul, could it be that the old style valley-side canals and inclined planes were abandoned because they were obsolete? It was not just an eastern thing, as there were many old style canals in the midwest that were also abandoned. [snipped - PDN] Yes, that's exactly why most of those old canal systems were abandoned - they became obsolete, mostly in an economic sense, because the new-fangled railroads came along and were cheaper or offered more transportation value because they were faster, went more places, were more reliable in freezing weather and droughts, and were not as vulnerable to damage from river flooding, etc. Technically obsolete, maybe not all of them - some canals continued to function and carry some small amounts of local freight at least until the 1930's and 1940's - the Lehigh Canal, for one, at least on those portions that hadn't been destroyed by flooding from time to time (it and the Delaware Canal were - and are still - are very susceptible to that problem). My broader point is to the effect as that obsolescence started to become evident in the late 1800's, those canal owners/ operators generally were not able to garner enough political support and funding to subsidize either the maintenance and repair of their infrastructure (the canal), nor of the operations (like the lock-tenders), or the building of their boats, etc., despite their long-standing adn widespread presence in the economic community. In contrast, the bigger midwestern waterway operations seem to have been pretty successful at that, at least until recently. Why the difference ? Perhaps the barge/ towboat operations go more places and are are so much bigger that they're more visible, hence easier to support. Or maybe it's just that their managements know how to make an effective campiagn contribution, whereas the old-time canal boatman didn't - most of the time, he was out there on the water, or leading his mules. Heck - was there ever even a trade association for those guys ? (I doubt it) Even the canals that were creatures of a state government - New York's Erie Canal comes to mind - had protectionist laws enacted to guard against incursions by the railroads, but those were ineffective. In the end (of that battle, anyway), the forces of raw and pure economics led to the triumphant winner, as they usually will (and should) - the most efficient carrier then (the railroads) won, for the time being, anyway. - Paul North.
I think the difference is simpler than that - the Eastern 'valley canals' were handling freight in car load and less than car load sizes and volumes - the Western 'river canals' were handling freight in unit train and greater volumes. Just as in the railroads themselves, the unit train is the way for the carrier to operate profitably.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.