Why take the greatest rail freight system in the world and turn it in to a ward of the state?
Not everything is better in Europe, and specifically in this case, most certainly not freight railroading.
What loose-car freight railroading remains, you might add, with 95% of such business on trucks.
Look, whose home is more likely to be more beautiful and better kept, that of an owner or a renter? Whose store is likely to be more profitable and better able to make customers happy, one that rents its building or one that rents it?
The owner will always be motivated to make improvements because he or she knows they will benefit him or her. The renter is never 100% sure of that, while the one who rents makes improvements (usually) only if greater income will result, in other words, an ability to raise the rent.
Vertical intergration in railroading has always made sence. What about cooperation between the operating department and physical plant for track maintenance?
dehusman One question I have always had on "open access" is how the terminals work. Getting the trains over the railroad is easy. How were they built? Where do they go when they "get there"? Unit trains are relatively easy. Many of the groups I have heard clamoring for open access are "loose car" shippers. That means switching which means yards. A current yard handles 20 trains in one direction and makes 25 blocks outbound. That business is now split among 4 operators, each now have 5 trains and each needs 10 blocks outbound. Where do they do that? Are the proponents thinking of each operator builds their own yard? Is there one terminal company that does all the switching for all 4 operators? How does a yard designed to make 25 blocks make 40 blocks efficiently?
One question I have always had on "open access" is how the terminals work. Getting the trains over the railroad is easy.
How were they built?
Where do they go when they "get there"?
Unit trains are relatively easy. Many of the groups I have heard clamoring for open access are "loose car" shippers. That means switching which means yards.
A current yard handles 20 trains in one direction and makes 25 blocks outbound. That business is now split among 4 operators, each now have 5 trains and each needs 10 blocks outbound. Where do they do that? Are the proponents thinking of each operator builds their own yard? Is there one terminal company that does all the switching for all 4 operators? How does a yard designed to make 25 blocks make 40 blocks efficiently?
Exactly. In Europe open access operators operate almost entirely unit trains, with the national operators still hauling all of the loose car traffic. Some sort of reciprocal switching may be feasible if undesirable, but open access is not.
schlimm BTW, the DOT test rails in Pueblo look pretty good. I doubt if any of our private RoWs are any better.
BTW, the DOT test rails in Pueblo look pretty good. I doubt if any of our private RoWs are any better.
schlimm Norm48327 Schlimm: Ownership, whether government, quasi-government or state, has little to do with the quality of maintenance. Compare any US private rail line's best RoW with almst any mainline RoW in Germany, largely government-owned since inception. There really is no comparison. NORM: Come look at the interstate, federal and state highways in Michigan and tell me that. No need to. The roads (including toll roads) in much of Illinois are as bad or worse. And that is my point. The ownership doesn't matter. The Autobahs in Germany (basis for our modern Interstate sustem) make many of our Interstates feel like oxen tracks. It's the engineering design, union cooperation, degree of political pork and construction. By contrast the roads in the former DDR (E. Germany) were horrible until 5-10 years after reunification. BTW, the DOT test rails in Pueblo look pretty good. I doubt if any of our private RoWs are any better.
Norm48327 Schlimm: Ownership, whether government, quasi-government or state, has little to do with the quality of maintenance. Compare any US private rail line's best RoW with almst any mainline RoW in Germany, largely government-owned since inception. There really is no comparison. NORM: Come look at the interstate, federal and state highways in Michigan and tell me that.
Schlimm: Ownership, whether government, quasi-government or state, has little to do with the quality of maintenance. Compare any US private rail line's best RoW with almst any mainline RoW in Germany, largely government-owned since inception. There really is no comparison.
NORM: Come look at the interstate, federal and state highways in Michigan and tell me that.
No need to. The roads (including toll roads) in much of Illinois are as bad or worse. And that is my point. The ownership doesn't matter. The Autobahs in Germany (basis for our modern Interstate sustem) make many of our Interstates feel like oxen tracks. It's the engineering design, union cooperation, degree of political pork and construction. By contrast the roads in the former DDR (E. Germany) were horrible until 5-10 years after reunification.
Open your wallet, checkbook and ATM card.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I suspect that ROW maintenance will be the least of our worries, inasmuch as I would see the system run as toll roads. Since any operator would be able to operate on any route, a section with poor maintenance would likely be avoided if at all possible.
Bringing all signal systems into a unified system will be a huge task, although once it's done, it will mean that anyone can literally go anywhere - no learning several rulebooks.
The issues will be on the operations end - stuff like yards, scheduling traffic, methods of sorting traffic (Conrail shared assets?). As has been mentioned, will yards be capable of handling traffic for several operators? Who gets priority for a given piece of track? Will there be room for independent operators?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
schlimm Norm48327 In response to schlimm's proposal I can say that governments, federal, state and local, have done a less than stellar job of maintaining infrastructure. Given bureaucratic ineptitude the same fate would likely befall the railroads. Ownership, whether government, quasi-government or state, has little to do with the quality of maintenance. Compare any US private rail line's best RoW with almst any mainline RoW in Germany, largely government-owned since inception. There really is no comparison.
Norm48327 In response to schlimm's proposal I can say that governments, federal, state and local, have done a less than stellar job of maintaining infrastructure. Given bureaucratic ineptitude the same fate would likely befall the railroads.
In response to schlimm's proposal I can say that governments, federal, state and local, have done a less than stellar job of maintaining infrastructure. Given bureaucratic ineptitude the same fate would likely befall the railroads.
Ownership, whether government, quasi-government or state, has little to do with the quality of maintenance. Compare any US private rail line's best RoW with almst any mainline RoW in Germany, largely government-owned since inception. There really is no comparison.
Come look at the interstate, federal and state highways in Michigan and tell me that.
Norm
I think that it's less an issue of bureaucratic ineptitude than an unwillingness by the public to pay a higher fuel tax to pay for it.
schlimm Murphy Siding Maybe we could start with something smaller first, and see how the quasi-government ownership works out. I suggest starting with the Post Office. Try getting along without our road network, the airways, your police and fire departments, your water supply and the post office for two years and let us know how that works out for you?
Murphy Siding Maybe we could start with something smaller first, and see how the quasi-government ownership works out. I suggest starting with the Post Office.
Try getting along without our road network, the airways, your police and fire departments, your water supply and the post office for two years and let us know how that works out for you?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
4 of the largest publicly owned railroad corrdors are 1. The Cincinnati Southern owned but leased to NS. 2. Carolina Railroad Company owned by the state of North Carolina but on a exsclusive lease to NS for 30 years. 3 Vermont Railway- ROW owned by the State of Vermont but leased to Vermont Railway on a Exsclusive Lease. 4 The Northeast Corridor-Owned by Amtrak trackage rights leased on a section by section basis to Norfolk Southern and Providence and Worchester and to SEPTA,MDMTA,Metro North and MBTA. All these are on a long term lease arrangement and no open access.
Murphy SidingMaybe we could start with something smaller first, and see how the quasi-government ownership works out. I suggest starting with the Post Office.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I have often heard people claim that our entire infrastructure is crumbling and in need of replacement. For elaboration, search “our crumbling infrastructure.”
Most of the infrastructure is government owned and maintained. How does a responsible owner of infrastructure justify deferring maintenance on it and letting it crumble while in use? Given this track record, do we really want to add the maintenance of a nationalized rail infrastructure to the government’s list of things to do?
schlimm As I recall the problems in the UK occurred when BR was privatized, including the network (track, signals and infrastructure). Those problems were solved when that sector was "re-nationalized" as a quasi-governmental corporation. Rather than stompng one's foot and saying it won't work here or invoking futuremodal, why couldn't a similar nationalized infrastructure with private (and public passenger) operators work here? That hybrid system in also being used in several European countries. Even here, private freight operators use Amtrak and Metra-owned trackage. Infrastructure is strictly a cost center for the rails. Turning it over to a quasi-government ownership would free up a lot of capital which currently has low rate of return for more profitable ventures.
As I recall the problems in the UK occurred when BR was privatized, including the network (track, signals and infrastructure). Those problems were solved when that sector was "re-nationalized" as a quasi-governmental corporation.
Rather than stompng one's foot and saying it won't work here or invoking futuremodal, why couldn't a similar nationalized infrastructure with private (and public passenger) operators work here? That hybrid system in also being used in several European countries. Even here, private freight operators use Amtrak and Metra-owned trackage. Infrastructure is strictly a cost center for the rails. Turning it over to a quasi-government ownership would free up a lot of capital which currently has low rate of return for more profitable ventures.
It could be argued that the railroads have something of a monopoly now.
They aren't likely to want to give that up.
That said, making the rail network open access would require a reconfiguration of the control system, to some something akin to what exists for air traffic control - filing "flight plans," etc.
In theory, I could become a "gypsy," buying a couple of locomotives and taking any work I could find. Which would mean some manner of national licensing system, again akin to air.
Given the amount of tax load carried by the railroads for their infrastructure, you might get some pushback from local municipalities, too, as a significant source of property tax income would likely go off the rolls.
Isee problems and they have surfaced in the United Kingdom.
The USA already has most of the benefits of Open Acess in most areas through trackage rights, haulage agreements, short and regional lines, and terminal railroaads. There might possibly be a better way to bring these benefits to the areas that don't have them without destroying the vertical integraty of everying from ballast to computer simulation of traffic under one management for a particular line.
dakotafred Do-do-do-do, from under the bridge.
Do-do-do-do, from under the bridge.
Ghosts....[ futurmodal, and his nemisis...]
They would have gotten this Thread not only padlocked, but erased. Kinda miss them.
andybuzz2u Go to your local government and ask to see the taxes the railroads paid and what they deducted. Open government rules require them to show you, in all 50 states. You will be surprised.
As would you!
ndbprrWell private industry has a meaning at least for now. If you owned something of value say a Lexus or Rolls Royce should I be allowed to use it at my discretion? I am in the "shouldn't" happen camp.
After 31 years in the railroad industry, and 4 generations of my family in the industry, it is time for it to happen. Take away all the government granted right-a-ways from the big 5 U.S. railroads, and each railroad is operating less than 1,600 miles of brought and paid for right-a-way. Railroads biggest problem is the nostalgic attached to it. The government through the Federal Railroad Administration(FRA) already tells the railroads what they can and can't do common carrier laws tell he railroads they have to haul anything. The FRA is not divided by the Mississippi river, yet the U.S. railroads are. It is time for open access to taxpayer-funded rails. If start-up companies can pass all the quality safeguards they should be given the proceed aspect.
Now about that Rolls-Royce. Did you pay for it or did the government? If the government paid for it, I will be showing up for my ride.
Railroads love to lie on the taxes and make sure taxes are paying for them, don't believe the self-funded hype, it's a downright lie. Go to your local government and ask to see the taxes the railroads paid and what they deducted. Open government rules require them to show you, in all 50 states. You will be surprised.
If so-called open access improved competition, it could be a good step.
There may be a lesson in the privatization of the Australian electric power system that might be a workable model.
In Victoria, which is one of Australia's states - Australia like the United States is a federal system, the state owned electric system was privatized. It was broken-up into three components: generation, transission, and distribution, and each was sold off to the highest bidder.
The power plants (generation) were sold to operators from China, UK, U.S., and Australia. The distribution system (poles, wires, and energy services) was broken-up into five companies and sold to operators from the UK, U.S., Australia, and Canada. The transmission system was sold to one operator.
The designers recognized that breaking-up the transmission system did not make any sense. It would not enhance competition. Instead, the transmission system was sold to a third party, which could not own a power plant or distribution company.
The transmission operator developed a set of standards for open access, which allowed the generators and distribution companies to buy space on the transmission system as long as they met the performance standards. It works pretty well.
The same concept might be applicable to the railroads, except I would not see just one infrastructure company. The U.S. is too large and complex for just one track company. The nation might be better off with three or four track companies.
Any company that met the performance, safety, health, etc. standards could operate a train on the system(s), as long as it demonstrated the financial depth to pay for the access. The rates would be set to recover the fully allocated cost of the system.
The biggest hurdle to open access is the investor owned railroads. They would never agree to it, unless a crisis beset the rail industry, and they had no better alternatives.
One thing that has happened in Europe is that the private operators have spurned carload service, leaving it to the national railroad freight operators, while the private operators take the unit train "cream". In a system without a national railroad, who will pick it up? Yes, there are different conditions in the EU versus the USA, but IIRC carload freight in Australia is largely dead. So, open access may actually hurt even large carload customers.
I see no particular reason why a version of the 'iron ocean' idea couldn't be worked with private ownership -- admittedly with some Government oversight. Separate the civil side of the railroad from the T&E side, as it were -- historically the two have usually been at war, if not at cross-purposes operationally. The entity that administers the tracks would have the part of 'dispatching' dealing with track occupancy, running safety, etc., and the entity that runs trains would have the part of dispatching involving making up of consists, scheduling crews ... all the things that an 'open access' train provider would do. Capex issues could then be handled in the time-honored capitalist fashion -- which operations provide the 'best' return for the track-owning entity, regardless of who owns the operating entities. (This is where the 'government', in the original Keynesian sense of a source of accountable fairness, would be active -- but not needing to ensure more than equitable access, fair application of 'safety criteria', etc. that might be used as phony barriers to entry or excuses for favorable treatment.)
Far less involved here than if the United States were to 'nationalize' the infrastructure and then get into the various cans of worms involved in trying to run it -- fairly or otherwise! -- to say nothing of the fun that would be involved in Government-sponsored freight operations competing with private ones ... MHC, anyone?
On the other hand, in my opinion the only way electrification on any meaningful scale would be possible is with Government-level access to financing (and somewhat cavalier disregard of opportunity-cost and other considerations that would affect private capital implementation). In my opinion it would be more feasible to arrange for this with track ownership divorced from operating ownership.
I think we are straying far afield from what the original poster was asking, which was (as I recall) shared operation over common trackage in the absence of actual capacity restrictions. While the examples he gave involved national track ownership, I don't see any 'hard' reason why the same sort of operation could not be provided under private infrastructure ownership.
I for one would be interested to see how Gallamore would assess the economics with a "split" of this kind being made. Certainly the infrastructure company would have a high incentive to allocate costs appropriately, without the distortions that occur when a 'joint tenancy' section of track is preferentially reserved for its owning company's pleasure. It also seems to me (perhaps naively) that much of the issues with dispatching resolve better when the capacity of the railroad, rather than the number of revenue ton-miles being billed, becomes the operational criterion. Some of the 'privatized' European freight arrangements might be useful examples ... or cautionary tales ... in evaluating the idea.
This is a very different thing from the early American experiments in 'common-carrier' railroads in America -- particularly with respect to how the 'open access' movements are controlled. Although I do have to wonder -- somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but still -- whether a PTC-equipped update of the old 'center post' days, with the engine crew that 'rises from their seat and lays on the leather' getting preferential treatment between sidings, might be a way to encourage faster operation with all the nominal advantages that come with better utilization of rolling stock and facilities...
I disagree that calls for open access mean those wanting it think the railroad trackage should be nationalized into a separate infrastructure company(ies). Some have proposed this, but I think current calls just want to have a second (or third, etc.) railroad be able to access a customer. Either directly or indirectly (reciprocal switching) over the owning railroad's trackage.
I actually think most would rather not see trackage folded into a separate infrastructure company. The high way system is funded (more or less) by all users. Trucks, buses, and private autos all pay user fees. I've read reports (and reports usually validate the views of those who commission them) that private autos pay more in fees than the damage they do to roads, thereby subsidizing the commercial interests. (I've also stopped thinking that we are subsidizing trucks. While they benefit from subsidized high ways by getting business, we are really subsidizing the large shippers. Subsidized high ways means they pay less in freight rates than they would otherwise have to.)
Unless the government wants to subsidize rail infrastructure (doubtful), railroad users will have to pay their full share of costs. The only ones using rail will be the freight customers. No private autos to spread the costs to. Separation of operating and infrastructure could end up costing more to the end users.
I'm willing to bet that those wanting open access are thinking it means having one company use another's tracks for a nominal and regulated fee that probably won't come near the actual cost of doing so. They want the private, individual railroads to eat that cost, not something that would pass it on to the customers.
Even if separation would happen, I think small and medium customers won't benefit unless they are close to a large one. Just because everyone has access to service you doesn't mean anyone may want to.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.