I do not see the Amtrak model continuing to work. Owning high speed row off of the freight lines makes sense to me operationally. Can it be profitable? I dont know. But running long distance passenger trains on high density freight lines is difficult at best.
I like what Amtrak is doing with the MIchigan line and also the St. Louis line. But, the problem with the latter is that line will be a joint operation with UP. All the infrastructure investment to 100mph will eventually result in sharing the row with a growing number of freight trains.
A Chicago hub for operations to Detroit, Indy/Cincinnati/Louisville, Southern Illinois/St. Louis, Western Il, Milwaukee, Minneapolis makes sense to me, but not on freight lines.
Ed
MP173 So, are you suggesting that the US Government own all row's? Or just selected ones? How would you value these row's for government purchase? Ed
So, are you suggesting that the US Government own all row's? Or just selected ones?
How would you value these row's for government purchase?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The value of the UP land, track, and infrastracture would be far greater than $35.3b. Few things sell for book value these days.
Convicted One MP173 Ok, the old NKP and L&N lines out of St. Louis are long gone. No reason to cry over that. Those lines will never come back, only to live in old Official Guides Not really "crying", just pointing out that the railroads are as much if not more "perpetratror" as they are "victim" to the overloaded plant. It irks me a little the way they solicit public funding to improve their own plant citing benefits to motorists, when they once had extra capacity that they squandered away (to save a buck). More succinctly, why should it be the motorists who pay now to fix problems caused by rationalization? Because they happen to be suffering as a result of prior cost saving strategy? Let the ones who actually benefitted from that cost saving strategy pay to unknot the problem.
MP173 Ok, the old NKP and L&N lines out of St. Louis are long gone. No reason to cry over that. Those lines will never come back, only to live in old Official Guides
Not really "crying", just pointing out that the railroads are as much if not more "perpetratror" as they are "victim" to the overloaded plant.
It irks me a little the way they solicit public funding to improve their own plant citing benefits to motorists, when they once had extra capacity that they squandered away (to save a buck). More succinctly, why should it be the motorists who pay now to fix problems caused by rationalization? Because they happen to be suffering as a result of prior cost saving strategy? Let the ones who actually benefitted from that cost saving strategy pay to unknot the problem.
The lines in question were rationalized thirty years ago, some even earlier. If anyone had a crystal ball, they might have seen what was going to happen in 2014. Lacking that crystal ball, they had to deal with the circumstances at the time: too little traffic to support excess infrastructure, or infrastructure that was badly in need of costly rehabilitation.
Holding on to it with no evidence that future traffic would warrant it would have further weakened the ability of the carriers to deal the upswing when it finally occurred.
John Timm
MP173 The value of the UP land, track, and infrastracture would be far greater than $35.3b. Few things sell for book value these days. Ed
Probably so, but I'll bet eliminating property taxes and maintenance in return for "access fees" on their own and other lines would look pretty good. Couple that with getting a $35-45 bil. cash infusion, and it would be hard for the shareholders to pass up. By way of reference, the total market value of UP stock was $97+ billion on 10/1/14.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems like the rapid growth in the number of oil trains may be a contributing factor to the situation. And the question of whether additional capacity is needed or whether this may be a relatively short term phenomenon relates to the future of Bakken oil by rail.
Currently there is a glut of oil on the world market and prices are dropping to reflect this. Barrel prices are approaching levels at which it may be not as economical to extract light, fracked oil at current volumes from the Bakken. If prices stay where they are now or even go lower, Bakken supply (and related rail shipments) will contract lessening the pressure on the current rail infrastructure. If, when, and how much are the $24 questions that NS and others have to wrestle with in responding to the current situation.
Poppyl
poppylCurrently there is a glut of oil on the world market and prices are dropping to reflect this. Barrel prices are approaching levels at which it may be not as economical to extract light, fracked oil at current volumes from the Bakken. If prices stay where they are now or even go lower, Bakken supply (and related rail shipments) will contract lessening the pressure on the current rail infrastructure. If, when, and how much are the $24 questions that NS and others have to wrestle with in responding to the current situation. Poppyl
Quite possible. Or even if crude prices rebound, in five years or less a pipeline may takeover much of the volume. Customers who have become frustrated with rail service because of the temporary oil boomlet and insufficient capacity may leave, never to return. Convicted One pointed out the rails' short-sighted planning ~30 years ago. This may be an example of short-sightedness over a much shorter time frame.
desertdogthey had to deal with the circumstances at the time: too little traffic to support excess infrastructure, or infrastructure that was badly in need of costly rehabilitation. Holding on to it with no evidence that future traffic would warrant it would have further weakened the ability of the carriers to deal the upswing when it finally occurred.
That very well may be true, but just the same, I don't see either 'the railroads involved did not have a crystal ball' nor 'BNSF doesn't want to short haul itself' as justification for expecting taxpayers to foot the bill to make the problems caused by rationalization to go away.
Let the entities that benefitted economically from rationalization pay to make it work.
STB may have just sent a shot across the bow of the RRs ? It may be that requiring operating metrics will wake up the RRs ?
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/STB-orders-all-Class-Is-to-provide-weekly-service-performance-reports--42146
I can't berate the railroads for all that underused track they tore up 30 and 40 years ago. It was on the tax rolls and required a lot of (scarce) dollars to restore or keep up. And everything in the way of traffic seemed to be gone or going away: mail, passengers, LCL, iron ore for steelmaking, livestock and produce, to name a few. With damned little relief in sight.
Then, as now, management had to answer to stockholders now, not years down the road. Even if it had had a perfect crystal ball. If we had been stockholders back then -- what would we have had them do?
I lived thru the 1970's and 1980's. The railroads' downsizing was, for some, a matter of survival. Some didn't survive: too much track was a big factor in the demise of PRR, NYC, PC, the rest of the RR's in the northeast, RI, and Milwaukee. From what I've read, ICG wasn't much better off, and SP was pretty sick, too. SP was so desperate for traffic they came up with the idea of doublestacking containers on railcars. Healthier RR's abandonedlines or sold them off to shortlines to keep from being dragged under. In 1980 traffic was declining with no end in sight, Staggers relief and crew-size decreases hadn' t arrived yet, so the RR's faced reality and disposed of lines they couldn't maintain. Someof the folks on here need to face reality and find out just how bad things really were back then.
Not everybody is employed fully. It would be possible to hire more people to rebuild the railroad tracks lost due to excessive trimming for cost savings years ago.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer Not everybody is employed fully. It would be possible to hire more people to rebuild the railroad tracks lost due to excessive trimming for cost savings years ago.
With current unemployment at 5.9% - we are almost at the point that is considered fully employed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Balt, does that 5.9% include the people who would like to work, but have quit looking because they have found no prospect of work? I doubt that it does, so that number does not give us the true situation. Officially, you are unemployed only if you are looking for work.
When my wife worked for the Census Bureau, one of her regular surveys (every month) was asking the people who lived at the addresses she was given what their work situation was, and there were people who could work but had quit looking. (One of the addresses she was given was that of a "Golden Living" home where, of course, the people living there were not looking for work because they were retired. One of the respondees thought it was amusing that she was asked about her work situation.)
Johnny
Deggesty Balt, does that 5.9% include the people who would like to work, but have quit looking because they have found no prospect of work? I doubt that it does, so that number does not give us the true situation. Officially, you are unemployed only if you are looking for work. When my wife worked for the Census Bureau, one of her regular surveys (every month) was asking the people who lived at the addresses she was given what their work situation was, and there were people who could work but had quit looking. (One of the addresses she was given was that of a "Golden Living" home where, of course, the people living there were not looking for work because they were retired. One of the respondees thought it was amusing that she was asked about her work situation.)
It is the published figure from the Labor Dept. with all the usual caveats.
schlimm BaltACD What is happening at Chicago has more to do with Terminal Capacity than it does with the capacity of the lines into Chicago. If the terminal facilities could handle the traffic - FOR ALL CARRIERS - you would not be seeing the line back up exemplified by the NS. Terminal capacity is more than just yard trackage - it includes the crews and routes to keep trains that interchange from carrier to carrier moving and that would appear to be the biggest problem at the present time. If that were the case, wouldn't one expect delays similar to those of the NS on UP, BNSF, CN, CP and other lines west, south and north from and to Chicago?
BaltACD What is happening at Chicago has more to do with Terminal Capacity than it does with the capacity of the lines into Chicago. If the terminal facilities could handle the traffic - FOR ALL CARRIERS - you would not be seeing the line back up exemplified by the NS. Terminal capacity is more than just yard trackage - it includes the crews and routes to keep trains that interchange from carrier to carrier moving and that would appear to be the biggest problem at the present time.
What is happening at Chicago has more to do with Terminal Capacity than it does with the capacity of the lines into Chicago. If the terminal facilities could handle the traffic - FOR ALL CARRIERS - you would not be seeing the line back up exemplified by the NS. Terminal capacity is more than just yard trackage - it includes the crews and routes to keep trains that interchange from carrier to carrier moving and that would appear to be the biggest problem at the present time.
If that were the case, wouldn't one expect delays similar to those of the NS on UP, BNSF, CN, CP and other lines west, south and north from and to Chicago?
Those delays are starting, the NS was just the canary in the mine.
An "expensive model collector"
Convicted One desertdog they had to deal with the circumstances at the time: too little traffic to support excess infrastructure, or infrastructure that was badly in need of costly rehabilitation. Holding on to it with no evidence that future traffic would warrant it would have further weakened the ability of the carriers to deal the upswing when it finally occurred. That very well may be true, but just the same, I don't see either 'the railroads involved did not have a crystal ball' nor 'BNSF doesn't want to short haul itself' as justification for expecting taxpayers to foot the bill to make the problems caused by rationalization to go away. Let the entities that benefitted economically from rationalization pay to make it work.
desertdog they had to deal with the circumstances at the time: too little traffic to support excess infrastructure, or infrastructure that was badly in need of costly rehabilitation. Holding on to it with no evidence that future traffic would warrant it would have further weakened the ability of the carriers to deal the upswing when it finally occurred.
Of course it was government imposed regulations that made the rationalizations nescessary.
daveklepperhow about ns rerouting some of this traffic harrisburg - roanoke - meirdan speedway?
To even consider rerouting you have to know the character of the traffic. Traffic that actually terminates in Chicago can't be rerouted. To reroute overhead traffic you have to get the desitination carrier to also agree to the reroute and then develop a division of the freight charges. Lines on a map do not make a business solution to the problems.
n012944Of course it was government imposed regulations that made the rationalizations nescessary.
Staggers Act - 1980.
Much of PRR mainline in OH and IN abandoned - 1983.
Cloverleaf Division - 2001.
There are many other examples from B&O, PRR, Erie, NKP, et al.. Most lines were abandoned because of declining business, as industry moved away for many years. Blaming any decision that appears short-sighted on regulation is simply incorrect.
schlimm n012944 Of course it was government imposed regulations that made the rationalizations nescessary. Staggers Act - 1980. Much of PRR mainline in OH and IN abandoned - 1983. Cloverleaf Division - 2001. There are many other examples from B&O, PRR, Erie, NKP, et al.. Most lines were abandoned because of declining business, as industry moved away for many years. Blaming any decision that appears short-sighted on regulation is simply incorrect.
n012944 Of course it was government imposed regulations that made the rationalizations nescessary.
If you think the passing of an act would flip a switch and bring traffic back is simply incorrect. Simple, readers digest explaination. Regulations make railroads somewwhat uncompetitive throught the 1960's and 70's. Industries know this, and don't consider rail access when looking for locations for their business. This reduces the potential traffic base, even once those regulations are removed. It takes decades to reverse the damage of those regulations.
BTW, the middle portion of the Cloverleaf division was abandoned in the 1960s. At that point it was not a through route, and the portion abandoned in 2001 was just a branch line.
http://www.abandonedrails.com/Cloverleaf_Division_2
blue streak 1 STB may have just sent a shot across the bow of the RRs ? It may be that requiring operating metrics will wake up the RRs ? http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/STB-orders-all-Class-Is-to-provide-weekly-service-performance-reports--42146
The STB is doing SOMETHING. Mostly, it's a show and it will let them know how bad "bad" really is instead of listening to shippers whine and railroads say it's not that bad.
The side effect of the order is the guys that have to produce and deliver the new "swamp depth and girth" measures are the same guys often asked to help figure out how to drain the swamp. They can't do both at the same time.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
NS service bulletin
http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/ship-with-norfolk-southern/service-update.html
Note sevice metrics on this site by another link.
This is mostly for show. One would think the the STB would already have a pretty good idea of what is going on with NS, or for that matter, any other class 1 having capacity problems.
A quick look at those reports show that the Elkhart dwell time for the last reported perios (WE Oct 3) has increased from 28.7 hours (average 3Q 2013) to 45.8 hours for the current week. The 45 hours is an improvement from 52 hours the week before.
Average intermodal train speed has reduced from 29.1 mph to 23.6 hours. UPS has to be fuming. It is going to be an interesting holiday season.
Question. Read that NS will have 4 tracks under the Englewood flyover. Did it already have these 4 tracks ? 4 tracks seem to indicate that Amtrak will have clear sailing into / out of CUS ? The only problem may be that Amtrak will have to change from / to the south tracks east of Englewood and the East tracks by 47th street NS yard ?.
Fred FraileyBlueStreak, news to me that NS will have four tracks under Metra at Englewood. Every time I go by (last time 2 weeks ago) there are just two. Maybe you should go back to your source and ask. Fred
Project descriptions I've read make reference to 3 NS tracks at the interlocking. The NS line goes from 2 tracks further east to 3 just before the interlocking and then goes to 4 tracks a bit further west. Google maps still show pre-flyover construction images and that's what's shown there as well. According to an article in RailwayAge, NS proposes to make their line 4 tracks through the flyover area. There are still bridges over streets further east for 2 more tracks…
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.