BaltACDIf Mr. Banks wants to invest HIS BILLIONS on implementing a 'whole cloth' technological solution in place of what the carriers have already undertaken, I suspect the carriers would let him. It is easy to tell someone they are spending their own money wrong; it is much harder to spend your own money right.
I do not sense that Mr. Banks is criticizing how the railroads are spending their money; or criticizing the development that the railroads have already undertaken. Quite the contrary, he is defending the railroads’ right to pursue their own development as they see fit. And he is defending the railroads against the fact that they are being forced to spend their money on technology they feel to be inferior.
If Mr. Banks wants to invest HIS BILLIONS on implementing a 'whole cloth' technological solution in place of what the carriers have already undertaken, I suspect the carriers would let him. It is easy to tell someone they are spending their own money wrong; it is much harder to spend your own money right.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
ontheBNSF Bucyrus CSSHEGEWISCH While the PTC mandate may not have been well thought out as far as implementation time is concerned, it was in response to a perceived popular demand for tighter safety requirements. I get the impression that there are many feel that regulation pertaining to safety is restrictive and unnecessary. Some believe that the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Mine Safety Act are restrictions on the free market and should be revoked. It is not just the fact that the implementation time frame is short or resistance to safety regulation at issue here. The larger question goes to the issue of failing to get the best system by mandating one that is inferior. Here is a quote from the PTC link in the first post: He’s [Charles Banks] president of rail consulting firm R. L. Banks and Associates. He called PTC’s implementation "terrible"and said it’ll cost as much as $12 billion to get it running. Despite that cost, he told me the PTC technology might already be obsolete. Both in the form recommended by Congress and potential alternatives to it, PTC would use both wireless technologies and parts of wired technologies constituting existing signal systems, he said. The proposed system would overlay wireless technologies on top of existing signal systems. Alternatives would utilize less of the underlying technologies in existing signal systems. To some, the overlay of the two technologies is seen as an advantage because the alternatives would require a more thorough (and expensive) overhaul of the rail system. But Banks argues that failure to make PTC more robust equates to a jury-rigged solution and will minimize the benefits of the original concept. "Instead of improving the technology, they are overlaying new tech onto existing communications and signals systems," he said, and that’s a problem. "If you make the wrong investment, it actually postpones making the best investment," he said. Rushing PTC’s implementation now, in other words, will stall any tech advancements in the future. [my emphasis added in orange] Often major decisions will leave out good or alternative technologies.
Bucyrus CSSHEGEWISCH While the PTC mandate may not have been well thought out as far as implementation time is concerned, it was in response to a perceived popular demand for tighter safety requirements. I get the impression that there are many feel that regulation pertaining to safety is restrictive and unnecessary. Some believe that the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Mine Safety Act are restrictions on the free market and should be revoked. It is not just the fact that the implementation time frame is short or resistance to safety regulation at issue here. The larger question goes to the issue of failing to get the best system by mandating one that is inferior. Here is a quote from the PTC link in the first post: He’s [Charles Banks] president of rail consulting firm R. L. Banks and Associates. He called PTC’s implementation "terrible"and said it’ll cost as much as $12 billion to get it running. Despite that cost, he told me the PTC technology might already be obsolete. Both in the form recommended by Congress and potential alternatives to it, PTC would use both wireless technologies and parts of wired technologies constituting existing signal systems, he said. The proposed system would overlay wireless technologies on top of existing signal systems. Alternatives would utilize less of the underlying technologies in existing signal systems. To some, the overlay of the two technologies is seen as an advantage because the alternatives would require a more thorough (and expensive) overhaul of the rail system. But Banks argues that failure to make PTC more robust equates to a jury-rigged solution and will minimize the benefits of the original concept. "Instead of improving the technology, they are overlaying new tech onto existing communications and signals systems," he said, and that’s a problem. "If you make the wrong investment, it actually postpones making the best investment," he said. Rushing PTC’s implementation now, in other words, will stall any tech advancements in the future. [my emphasis added in orange]
CSSHEGEWISCH While the PTC mandate may not have been well thought out as far as implementation time is concerned, it was in response to a perceived popular demand for tighter safety requirements. I get the impression that there are many feel that regulation pertaining to safety is restrictive and unnecessary. Some believe that the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Mine Safety Act are restrictions on the free market and should be revoked.
While the PTC mandate may not have been well thought out as far as implementation time is concerned, it was in response to a perceived popular demand for tighter safety requirements.
I get the impression that there are many feel that regulation pertaining to safety is restrictive and unnecessary. Some believe that the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Mine Safety Act are restrictions on the free market and should be revoked.
It is not just the fact that the implementation time frame is short or resistance to safety regulation at issue here. The larger question goes to the issue of failing to get the best system by mandating one that is inferior. Here is a quote from the PTC link in the first post:
He’s [Charles Banks] president of rail consulting firm R. L. Banks and Associates. He called PTC’s implementation "terrible"and said it’ll cost as much as $12 billion to get it running. Despite that cost, he told me the PTC technology might already be obsolete.
Both in the form recommended by Congress and potential alternatives to it, PTC would use both wireless technologies and parts of wired technologies constituting existing signal systems, he said. The proposed system would overlay wireless technologies on top of existing signal systems. Alternatives would utilize less of the underlying technologies in existing signal systems. To some, the overlay of the two technologies is seen as an advantage because the alternatives would require a more thorough (and expensive) overhaul of the rail system. But Banks argues that failure to make PTC more robust equates to a jury-rigged solution and will minimize the benefits of the original concept.
"Instead of improving the technology, they are overlaying new tech onto existing communications and signals systems," he said, and that’s a problem.
"If you make the wrong investment, it actually postpones making the best investment," he said. Rushing PTC’s implementation now, in other words, will stall any tech advancements in the future.
[my emphasis added in orange]
Often major decisions will leave out good or alternative technologies.
True enough, and this was a major decision, but that does not minimize the immensity of the point being made by Mr. Banks. His point is that this major decision was made by Congress, and they being an outside interest, bear no financial responsibility for better alternative technologies that they may have unwittingly left out of the decision.
Furthermore, the scope of this mandated commitment is so large that the potential setback resulting from the best technology being displaced by inferior technology will be extremely large. If the railroads were making the decision to spend their money on this development, I would not expect them leave out or overlook the best technological approaches except for very minor short term departures from a straight line course of development. But when somebody else spends the railroads’ money on such a project, it has the potential to waste immense resources in going a long ways down the wrong road.
This has the potential to set back the proper solution by many years.
Railroad to Freedom
While the PTC mandate may not have been well thought out as far as implementation time is concerned, it was in response to a perceived popular demand for tighter safety requirements. There will probably not be as great a push for ECP braking.
Regulation does not occur in a vacuum, there are political and economic considerations involved.
ontheBNSF Bucyrus Murphy Siding Bucyrus Murphy Siding I have a hard time believing that any meaningfull railroad re-regulation will ever be implemented. The railroads could make a very simple analogy that most voting Americans could understand. Re-regulation of railroads will add to transportation costs for everything that ships by rail in this country. A limited number of shippers would benefit from re-regulation. Many of those shippers are fairly wealthy and prosperous corporations. Railroad re-regulation is like taxing all of us, and then giving that money to a few wealthy corporations. What Senator or Congressman is going to vote to tax his (or her) constituant's corn flakes, in order to give the money to Exxon-Mobile? I understand your point. But while the railroads argue that regulation will be like a tax flowing to the rich, the regulators will portray new regulations as a tax increase on the rich, as in rich railroad corporations, for the purpose of ending railroad monopolies, which will make the voters' corn flakes cheaper. The regulators want to regulate for their own self interest. So the regulators' rationale will be presented to accomplish regulation, not to defeat it. Therefore, the regulators will side with the shippers, and together, they will defeat the railroads. In my best Foghorn Leghorn voice>> "Senator Bucyrus, would you please explain to this here committee , and to the voters back home, why in tarnation you voted to raise the cost of living for every man, woman, and child in these here United States of America, for the sole benefit of some wealthy corporation big-wigs? I say...I say... speak up son, and looky right here into the camera." I would say this to your committee: New regulations will not raise costs for the consumers. On the contrary, new regulations will lower consumer costs by ending a transportation monopoly. Shippers need transportation choices in order to deliver the goods we all need at the lowest possible cost. A monopoly limits transportation choices, and therefore, it artificially drives up prices higher than they should be. This reform is long overdue. Competition doesn't necessarily drive down prices. Competition only works when it is a result of market forces. Standard oil and Bell significantly lowered prices despite being monopolies. I have pointed out that Freight Rail competes with other modes. Economies of scale can lower prices.
Bucyrus Murphy Siding Bucyrus Murphy Siding I have a hard time believing that any meaningfull railroad re-regulation will ever be implemented. The railroads could make a very simple analogy that most voting Americans could understand. Re-regulation of railroads will add to transportation costs for everything that ships by rail in this country. A limited number of shippers would benefit from re-regulation. Many of those shippers are fairly wealthy and prosperous corporations. Railroad re-regulation is like taxing all of us, and then giving that money to a few wealthy corporations. What Senator or Congressman is going to vote to tax his (or her) constituant's corn flakes, in order to give the money to Exxon-Mobile? I understand your point. But while the railroads argue that regulation will be like a tax flowing to the rich, the regulators will portray new regulations as a tax increase on the rich, as in rich railroad corporations, for the purpose of ending railroad monopolies, which will make the voters' corn flakes cheaper. The regulators want to regulate for their own self interest. So the regulators' rationale will be presented to accomplish regulation, not to defeat it. Therefore, the regulators will side with the shippers, and together, they will defeat the railroads. In my best Foghorn Leghorn voice>> "Senator Bucyrus, would you please explain to this here committee , and to the voters back home, why in tarnation you voted to raise the cost of living for every man, woman, and child in these here United States of America, for the sole benefit of some wealthy corporation big-wigs? I say...I say... speak up son, and looky right here into the camera." I would say this to your committee: New regulations will not raise costs for the consumers. On the contrary, new regulations will lower consumer costs by ending a transportation monopoly. Shippers need transportation choices in order to deliver the goods we all need at the lowest possible cost. A monopoly limits transportation choices, and therefore, it artificially drives up prices higher than they should be. This reform is long overdue.
Murphy Siding Bucyrus Murphy Siding I have a hard time believing that any meaningfull railroad re-regulation will ever be implemented. The railroads could make a very simple analogy that most voting Americans could understand. Re-regulation of railroads will add to transportation costs for everything that ships by rail in this country. A limited number of shippers would benefit from re-regulation. Many of those shippers are fairly wealthy and prosperous corporations. Railroad re-regulation is like taxing all of us, and then giving that money to a few wealthy corporations. What Senator or Congressman is going to vote to tax his (or her) constituant's corn flakes, in order to give the money to Exxon-Mobile? I understand your point. But while the railroads argue that regulation will be like a tax flowing to the rich, the regulators will portray new regulations as a tax increase on the rich, as in rich railroad corporations, for the purpose of ending railroad monopolies, which will make the voters' corn flakes cheaper. The regulators want to regulate for their own self interest. So the regulators' rationale will be presented to accomplish regulation, not to defeat it. Therefore, the regulators will side with the shippers, and together, they will defeat the railroads. In my best Foghorn Leghorn voice>> "Senator Bucyrus, would you please explain to this here committee , and to the voters back home, why in tarnation you voted to raise the cost of living for every man, woman, and child in these here United States of America, for the sole benefit of some wealthy corporation big-wigs? I say...I say... speak up son, and looky right here into the camera."
Bucyrus Murphy Siding I have a hard time believing that any meaningfull railroad re-regulation will ever be implemented. The railroads could make a very simple analogy that most voting Americans could understand. Re-regulation of railroads will add to transportation costs for everything that ships by rail in this country. A limited number of shippers would benefit from re-regulation. Many of those shippers are fairly wealthy and prosperous corporations. Railroad re-regulation is like taxing all of us, and then giving that money to a few wealthy corporations. What Senator or Congressman is going to vote to tax his (or her) constituant's corn flakes, in order to give the money to Exxon-Mobile? I understand your point. But while the railroads argue that regulation will be like a tax flowing to the rich, the regulators will portray new regulations as a tax increase on the rich, as in rich railroad corporations, for the purpose of ending railroad monopolies, which will make the voters' corn flakes cheaper. The regulators want to regulate for their own self interest. So the regulators' rationale will be presented to accomplish regulation, not to defeat it. Therefore, the regulators will side with the shippers, and together, they will defeat the railroads.
Murphy Siding I have a hard time believing that any meaningfull railroad re-regulation will ever be implemented. The railroads could make a very simple analogy that most voting Americans could understand. Re-regulation of railroads will add to transportation costs for everything that ships by rail in this country. A limited number of shippers would benefit from re-regulation. Many of those shippers are fairly wealthy and prosperous corporations. Railroad re-regulation is like taxing all of us, and then giving that money to a few wealthy corporations. What Senator or Congressman is going to vote to tax his (or her) constituant's corn flakes, in order to give the money to Exxon-Mobile?
I have a hard time believing that any meaningfull railroad re-regulation will ever be implemented. The railroads could make a very simple analogy that most voting Americans could understand. Re-regulation of railroads will add to transportation costs for everything that ships by rail in this country. A limited number of shippers would benefit from re-regulation. Many of those shippers are fairly wealthy and prosperous corporations. Railroad re-regulation is like taxing all of us, and then giving that money to a few wealthy corporations. What Senator or Congressman is going to vote to tax his (or her) constituant's corn flakes, in order to give the money to Exxon-Mobile?
I understand your point. But while the railroads argue that regulation will be like a tax flowing to the rich, the regulators will portray new regulations as a tax increase on the rich, as in rich railroad corporations, for the purpose of ending railroad monopolies, which will make the voters' corn flakes cheaper.
The regulators want to regulate for their own self interest. So the regulators' rationale will be presented to accomplish regulation, not to defeat it. Therefore, the regulators will side with the shippers, and together, they will defeat the railroads.
"Senator Bucyrus, would you please explain to this here committee , and to the voters back home, why in tarnation you voted to raise the cost of living for every man, woman, and child in these here United States of America, for the sole benefit of some wealthy corporation big-wigs? I say...I say... speak up son, and looky right here into the camera."
I would say this to your committee:
New regulations will not raise costs for the consumers. On the contrary, new regulations will lower consumer costs by ending a transportation monopoly.
Shippers need transportation choices in order to deliver the goods we all need at the lowest possible cost. A monopoly limits transportation choices, and therefore, it artificially drives up prices higher than they should be. This reform is long overdue.
Competition doesn't necessarily drive down prices. Competition only works when it is a result of market forces. Standard oil and Bell significantly lowered prices despite being monopolies. I have pointed out that Freight Rail competes with other modes. Economies of scale can lower prices.
ontheBNSF,
I understand your point, and agree with it, but re-regulation will not be done for objective economics. Instead, economic fairness will largely be just a pretext to regulate. A much larger motive/objective for regulation is that regulation is a power grab by regulators. It builds empires for the regulator community. So regulation is often self-motivated, but it needs an ostensible reason. In this case, monopoly busting is the ostensible reason. And regulation always advances when regulators are in ascendency. Today, we are obviously entering a new season of regulation. And the freight railroads, flush with success, are ripe for regulation.
However, I do not expect the anticipated new regulations to introduce competition will get much traction in the near future. That kind of regulation requires a sea change in railroad organization and rate structure to bring about some version of open access. It will not come about without the institution of a new National Railroad Transportation Policy (NRTP). These are significant steps along the path to nationalization of the railroads.
Rather than these manly sorts of new regulation, the low hanging fruit of new regulations will be things like the PTC mandate. That would never have happened in the regulation off-season. But the time is now ripe, and I would say look for more of the same. Public safety is a wonderful pretext for the regulator community to advance their interest.
Get ready for the ECP brake mandate.
Murphy Siding jeffhergert ............. But when too many Americans can name the latest pseudo-celebrity on the TV reality series dujour, but can't name their own legislative representatives at either state or federal levels................. Jeff ......breaking new story......"Senate railroad re-regulation hearings broke down today, on rumors that two Kardashien sisters have come out in support on different sides of the issue, throwing the proceedings into uncertainty. Hearings were adjourned until it was determined what the Kardashians are planning to wear to the hearings, and which one has gained/lost more weight. Stay tuned for live-streaming.... on the all-important clothes/weight issues"....
jeffhergert ............. But when too many Americans can name the latest pseudo-celebrity on the TV reality series dujour, but can't name their own legislative representatives at either state or federal levels................. Jeff
............. But when too many Americans can name the latest pseudo-celebrity on the TV reality series dujour, but can't name their own legislative representatives at either state or federal levels.................
Jeff
A true story. One time I was in the motel waiting to rotate up and get called to go to work. There wasn't anything on TV, so I ended up switching between CNN and FOX. When I was full of one, I would turn to the other. It was at a time when Iran was in turmoil, with a possible uprising by those wanting more democracy. Both news channels were covering that news.
Then Farrah Fawcett died. Good bye to coverage of Iran, both were now covering FF's death. Then it broke that Micheal Jackson was dead. Farrah who? Both, and just about any other media outlet I saw the rest of the day, only had the major breaking news about MJ. Even when they didn't know anything new, that's all they talked about.
I guess it's my own fault. I always figured a story about unrest in a part of the world that could lead to economic upheavel, if not armed conflict, would be of more importance than stories about pop icons dying. Silly me.
Murphy Siding When 300,000,000 Americans come to understand that costs will be going up on food, electricity, manufactured goods, housing, and consumer goods as a consequence of *taxing* all hard-working Americans, to subsidize some wealthy, politically connected special interest groups, there will be 100's of millions of Americans voting with their wallets.
When 300,000,000 Americans come to understand that costs will be going up on food, electricity, manufactured goods, housing, and consumer goods as a consequence of *taxing* all hard-working Americans, to subsidize some wealthy, politically connected special interest groups, there will be 100's of millions of Americans voting with their wallets.
That's a good one Murphy. Oh wait! You were serious? (Sorry Murphy, I just couldn't help my self.)
I've read a few books by varous authors about how special interests get rewarded and the system is rigged for their benefit over rhe interests of the average American. One recurring theme, usually the last chapter, is that the American people have the ability to make changes. It's called "voting." The trouble is, many people will focus on one or two issues and vote for the candidate who supports their narrow focus. Even though by doing that they may be voting against their own interests on other issues.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
When 300,000,000 Americans come to understand that costs will be going up on food, electricity, manufactured goods, housing, and consumer goods as a consequence of *taxing* all hard-working Americans, to subsidize some wealthy, politically connected special interest groups, there will be 100's of millions of Americans voting with their wallets. I'm certain, that all the static will cause railroads to take another look at the rates charged to the politically connected, squeaky wheels, and make some price concessions. That is what the squeaky wheels want anyway- something other than the market to force down their costs.
oltmannd Bucyrus New regulations will not raise costs for the consumers. On the contrary, new regulations will lower consumer costs by ending a transportation monopoly. Shippers need transportation choices in order to deliver the goods we all need at the lowest possible cost. A monopoly limits transportation choices, and therefore, it artificially drives up prices higher than they should be. This reform is long overdue. So, why did rates go down by 1/2 in the decade after Staggers? What drove rated down?
Bucyrus New regulations will not raise costs for the consumers. On the contrary, new regulations will lower consumer costs by ending a transportation monopoly. Shippers need transportation choices in order to deliver the goods we all need at the lowest possible cost. A monopoly limits transportation choices, and therefore, it artificially drives up prices higher than they should be. This reform is long overdue.
So, why did rates go down by 1/2 in the decade after Staggers? What drove rated down?
Don,
That is not my position. That is my hypothetical response to Murphy Siding’s hypothetical Senator Leghorn. My hypothetical response is the voice of the regulating community and their allies in the news media, set in the context of speaking to today's voters.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
All the companies that want re-regulation are all big whigs who happen to get subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars each years this include large energy companies, agriculture, and chemical companies hardly salt of the earth farmers.
But Senator Leghorn,
Couldn't those who favor regulation say the same thing? They'll say you are enriching them rich robber-barron railroad monopolies at the expense of those good, salt of the earth, barely hanging on (a million dollars doesn't go as far as it used to) conglomerates who must cut wages and raise prices on the backs of the American people to be able to pay the freight rates. Not to mention fuel surcharges.
Ultimately, it all boils down to which side has the larger war chest and better lobbyists. We can hope the average American will see that proponents of re-regulation are just favoring a few wealthy companies at the expense of everyone else. But when too many Americans can name the latest pseudo-celebrity on the TV reality series dujour, but can't name their own legislative representatives at either state or federal levels, I doubt it. And just because re-reg is defeated once doesn't mean it won't be introduced in a year or two.
I'll throw my 2 cents worth in for what it's worth.
One of the problems that have cropped up is where the freight goes when it is trying to move. And I'll cite this example. Farm Coop's shipping grain from North and South Dakota. BNSF has elevators that are captive to them. The alternative, truck the grain to Minneapolis for shipment by barge. The public interest is that these loads put a lot of wear and tear on Minnesota's roads for which they get very little benefit.
The chemical industries complaints about cost has much to do with the railroads realizing that they(the RR's) have a lot of liability in an accident whether or not they were responsible for a spill. Generally the railroads bear the burden of a spill in a wreck, and I'll cite the case some years back of Graniteville, SC were a switch left open caused a very serious release of chlorine gas. The damages went into the 10's of millions of dollars.
The flip side of regulation is this. Were would the RR industry be without congressional mandated air brakes? Also in the case of hazardous materials, it is considerably safer to move by rail. But who bears the responsibilities when things go wrong? And even when things go right who bears the costs of liability? The shipper or the railroad? If the railroad can not recover the cost of planning for liability. Ever remember PanAm, or Eastern Airlines? Both these operations were in the end were put out of business by the costs of single crashes. (Lockerbie, Scotland and Everglades).
In transportation a single wreck if serious enough can put a company out of business. If Graniteville had happened in say Atlanta or DC. I've seen many trucking operations large and small go out of business due to a single drivers actions. The same could happen to a railroad company.
Thx IGN
I have a hard time believing that any meaningfull railroad re-regulation will ever be implemented. The railroads could make a very simple analogy that most voting Americans could understand. Re-regulation of railroads will add to transportation costs for everything that ships by rail in this country. A limited number of shippers would benefit from re-regulation. Many of those shippers are fairly wealthy and prosperous corporations. Railroad re-regulation is like taxing all of us, and then giving that money to a few wealthy corporations. What Senator or Congressman is going to vote to tax his (or her) constituant's corn flakes, in order to give the money to Exxon-Mobile? A soon to be unelected one, that's who.
Here is some interesting perspective on the PTC mandate:
http://www.enotrans.org/ctp-blog/positive-train-control-good-idea-terrible-implementation-and-blame-all-the-way-around
ontheBNSF more I learn about them {anti trust laws} the more I dislike them.
Here is one man's view of the general issue:
ontheBNSFIn my opinion antitrust laws are a disaster.
When you come down it it a lot of our current laws are a disaster. They create their own bureaucracies for no good reason and wind up causing problems to the point of hardship and expense and waste for the whole society. But the laws are there and we have to live with them and under them as best we are able.
BucyrusWhat many people fail to understand is that the motive for government regulation is the regulation itself. Regulations build empires for the regulators. Adding new regulations to a prosperous industry is like harvesting a crop.
No doubt you are right, Bucyrus. There are a lot of areas in American life that support your argument. But railroads don't have to lay down and play dead either. They can be smart and determined and I think they can really influence the regulations and do that for the better for themselves and all of us. And I hope they will.
John
In my opinion antitrust laws are a disaster. The more I learn about them the more I dislike them. For example a few companies holding a large market share would considered shared monopoly. Lowering prices would be considered predatory pricing and increasing prices would be considered price gouging. Some companies are simply convicted for having large market share. The list goes on. In my view it isn't practical to regulate the size of companies or what they prices can charge. Price fixing has in large part been a failure early electric rail systems are evidence of this. Certain industries are simply more efficient as large consolidated industries the railroad industry being an example of this. There is also nothing monopolistic about today's railroads if you don't want to ship by rail you can ship by truck or barge (where available) at subsidized prices.
John WRFrankly, I don't think that relations with government have been the railroads' strongest point in the past. But this is today, not the past. With the right effort even critics like Senator Franken might be defused. John
Unfortunately, I do not think the motives of Franken are going to be defused. If anything, he is just the “canary in the coal mine” for a larger, more universal trend in new regulation. What many people fail to understand is that the motive for government regulation is the regulation itself. Regulations build empires for the regulators. Adding new regulations to a prosperous industry is like harvesting a crop.
carnej1the issue is that the required emsissions control system would increase fuel consumption....
I don't have any technical knowledge of the issue. However, because of the inherent efficiency of rail transportation perhaps railroads would be in a better position to meet the new standards than trucks would be. However, it is essential to have a through understanding of the law and to press for amendments that equalize standards for all kinds of transportation.
As far as the upcoming Tier IV emissions regulations, both EMD and GE are testing prototype locomotives. I am under the impression that these would have the same horsepower rating as their current models. IIRC, the issue is that the required emsissions control system would increase fuel consumption....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Henry,
This post is written on the morning I read in my paper that gun control was defeated in the Senate. Clearly, the regulation debates revolve around who or what you want government to regulate. Some industries have been far more successful in resisting regulation than others. But traditionally railroads are not one of the industries that has had a lot of success in resisting regulation.
I see two factors behind that. First of all, railroads do not command a lot of votes. In fact the more successful railroads are the fewer railroad companies there are and the fewer votes they command. There is nothing railroads can do about this. And I think it means there will always be some railroad regulation.
But railroads can focus on influencing the writing of the regulations and how they apply to private railroads in general. That takes care and intelligence and a long term effort with clearly defined goals. What railroads cannot do if they are to be successful is to limit themselves to ad hoc responses to rules as they come up. Frankly, I don't think that relations with government have been the railroads' strongest point in the past. But this is today, not the past. With the right effort even critics like Senator Franken might be defused.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.