Open Access. That is essentially how the road network operates at the moment. I'll ignore the question of whether the users pay for their use - that's a whole different topic.
The key to open access on the road network is that it is government owned. For the same to happen on the railroads, step one is for the government to buy the rights-of-way, tracks, yards, signals, etc. from the railroads. In theory I suppose a private company could do it instead, except they could not print enough money.
In a limited sense there is some open access today, where one railroad has been forced to provide trackage rights to a single competitor as a condition of a merger. But that is quite different from allowing anybody to run their train.
John
jeffhergert(Even if Railroad A runs a train right past them on Railroad B to get to that high value customer).
A key point of "Open Access" is that there would be no "Railroad A" or "Railroad B". There would be carriers who operated on the rail system which would be run by a neutral third party (like the airways).
"Carrier X" would be like a local trucking company. A small shipper could contract with "Carrier X" to ship his 3 cars. "Carrier X" could deliver them all the way to the destination or could contract with "Carrier A" or "Carrier B" for the long haul, and either the distant office of "Carrier X", or perhaps "Carrier Y" for the 'last mile.'
Of course, if "Carrier A" wanted to handle local aggregation and delivery, they could do that, too...
Operation of yards would likely be handled by separate companies, for a fee.
Open access is a completely different paradigm than how railroads operate now. That's why people have trouble figuring it out. They usually try to adapt current operations to open access.
To gain a truer picture of what open access would be, you need to merge the trucking industry with the airline industry. Anybody who could afford a locomotive and qualified crew could handle freight. Qualification would be a mix of CDL and pilot qualification, but because over time the entire system would be made equal (as are the highways), once qualified, a crew could go anywhere.
Control of access to the rails would be much like it is now, but on a larger basis. Crews might even file "flight plans." They'd be expected to be able to meet that plan - no junker locomotives that will break down and tie up the system. Of course, "tow" companies would probably crop up.
There would be tolls, probably per axle mile.
The odds of this happening in this country are right around absolute zero (–273.15 degrees Celsius ). Maybe a little less. Don't count me as a proponent, I just like to point out the errors in how people conceive of it.
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...
If so called "Open Access" for freight in North America worked, it would not work well. It would increase the overall cost of rail freight transportation. That would do very few people any good.
Here's a paper on the subject coautored by Robert Gallamore. Gallamore is also a coauthor of the recently released book "American Railroads: Decline and Renaissance in the Twentieth Century." The book deals with railroad economics and the failures of government economic regulation.
Gallamore is a PhD economist and a former Union Pacific AVP. When he wrote the paper he was head of the Northwestern University Transportation Center.
http://idei.fr/doc/conf/rai/papers_2004/gallamore_panzar.pdf
Economic efficiency of rail freight transportation is greatly dependant on volume. The more volume that can be concentrated on a rail line, in a train, or in a block of cars, the lower the average cost per ton moved. Now this does have a limit. If the railroad is over capacity cost will start to increase with more volume. That's why we're seeing so many capacity expansion projects these days.
The foolish concept of "Open Access" would split up the volume concentration and drive average costs higher. It would do nothing to increase the capacity of the rail service. It's a bad idea.
Here's an additional link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_16?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=american+railroads+decline+and+renaissance+in+the+twentieth+century&sprefix=american+railroa%2Cstripbooks%2C307
When British passenger trains were privatized, one thing that was learned early on is you must control costs. Many British passenger trains operate with two person crews; an engineer and a conductor. One thing that is quite noticable about British Passenger trains is that passengers seems to be able to get on and off trains unaided. Passengers seem to be able to open doors themselves and to close them when they exit the train. In America if some open access company might be able to operate trains with a two person crew. However, I think Americans lack the boarding and exiting skills that the British have. They have been opening and closing train doors for generations. I notice that on Northstar Commuter and others still operate trains with larger crews than are needed.
NorthWest Exactly. Open acess is only really needed when there is only one rail network, and the goal is increased competition. For most cases, there are at least two networks serving a given location in the United States and Canada.
Exactly. Open acess is only really needed when there is only one rail network, and the goal is increased competition. For most cases, there are at least two networks serving a given location in the United States and Canada.
The ones pushing for Open Access (in whatever form) are usually ones that must physically have the cars at their facility to load/unload. They can't easily (or cheaply) truck their product to/from another railroad. Most locations anymore only have one railroad physically serving them.
Even so, Open Access isn't going to be the panacea that all those pushing for it think it will be. Sure, the very large customers physically "captive" to one railroad might benefit from it. Railroad A would probably love to "cherry pick" Railroad B's high value customers.
The medium and small customers might be in for a rude awakening. They may find out that Railroad A may not be so willing to provide service to them. (Even if Railroad A runs a train right past them on Railroad B to get to that high value customer). Open Access could even end up harming those less desirable customers. Railroad B losing it's on line business to others, probably receiving a fee for use of it's tracks that doesn't cover the costs, and unable to secure new on-line business or cherry pick other railroads, might find itself cutting back on maintenance or outright abandoning some lines. Or they could find Railroad B raising rates on the business it has that no one else wants to stay in business.
Then the next thing they will want is that when a railroad uses Open Access to serve one customer on another railroad, they'll also have to offer service to all other customers at, or enroute, to that location.
Jeff
"Open Access" theory goes back a long way. In railroading's infancy here in the US it was proposed the actual 'roads would be government built and the several railroad companys would pay to use them. It was dismissed as impractical for various and valid reasons so it never came to pass.
If futuremodal doesn't come out of his cave, we'll be all right.
In other locations, open access, both freight and passenger, was developed where the entire rail system was government-owned and continues as such. I don't believe that it has been attempted in a situation similar to the United States, where the rail system is privately owned.
Larry(tree68) said : "...We've had some pretty heated discussions here in the past. Most folks seem to fall into the "never gonna happen" camp..."
Larry; That remark could hang in the rafters of the annals of understatement, like a championship banner !
Either one. I know both exist.
schlimm Direct labor in the operating expenses seems low or missing.
Direct labor in the operating expenses seems low or missing.
Conductor, engineer & brakeman are in the railroad charges. That is far less complex way to do it than hiring own operating crew.
Mac
PNWRMNMLets assume that your end points are 100 miles apart to make the math easy. Assume $50 per train mile and $100,0000,000 dollar investment that you need to make 15% or $15,000,000 per year on. That is $41,100 in capital cost per DAY. Your payment to the railroad is $5,000 per train, or $10,000 per round trip. You also have fuel, equipment maintenance, and car cleaning cost, lets say $1,000 per round trip which is probably low. Again to make the math easy, lets assume four round trips. Costs are $10,000 capital recovery, $10,000 to the railroad and $1,000 operating costs excleuding overhead and marketing. Each round trip costs $21,000 per day, or $10,500 each way. Note that if frequency is reduced the capital charge per train increases.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Assuming you mean passenger the answer is yes and no.
Open access for passenger service exists now in a way. If you want to run a passenger train, or a whole fleet of them between here and there, and you have many millions of dollars, verifiable cash in the bank, you can walk into any railroad in the country tell them your plans, and legally both parties can enter into a contract the size of a small book for the service.
The no part is practical. You will not enjoy Amtrak's forced access at absurdly low rates. First the RR will need to figure out what capital investment you need to make so that their operation will not be worse off for hosting you. That could be anything from several to several hundred million dollars depending on the route and the train frequency you want. Then the railroad will demand to be paid a compensatory rate, basically in the ballpark of what their average freight train grosses, less whatever assets you plan to supply, say locomotives and cars. For talking purposes that will probably be in the range of $40-60 per train mile.
Lets assume that your end points are 100 miles apart to make the math easy. Assume $50 per train mile and $100,0000,000 dollar investment that you need to make 15% or $15,000,000 per year on. That is $41,100 in capital cost per DAY. Your payment to the railroad is $5,000 per train, or $10,000 per round trip. You also have fuel, equipment maintenance, and car cleaning cost, lets say $1,000 per round trip which is probably low. Again to make the math easy, lets assume four round trips. Costs are $10,000 capital recovery, $10,000 to the railroad and $1,000 operating costs excleuding overhead and marketing. Each round trip costs $21,000 per day, or $10,500 each way. Note that if frequency is reduced the capital charge per train increases.
What will your fare be and what will your average load be? The IRS allows about $.50 per vehicle mile. Passengers need an economic incentive to use your train and will probably incur local costs on each end for bus or taxi that they would not otherwise incur. Maybe you could get $30, but I think $25 is more reasonable. How elastic is your demand curve? You will need to hire a consultant to figure it out and at the end of the day it will not be much more than a sophisticated guess.
AT $25 per head and $10,500 per train, both one way, you need an average of 420 passengers per train on every train every day to break even. To hit that average you will probably need about 50% extra cars due to variation in load, so build that into your capital budget. To handle 420 people in a single level 48 seat car you need 9 cars, maybe 5 bilevels. Food service adds costs faster than revenue, so I assumed none.
Oh, if you want to make an economic profit, which is the whole point of the exercise you need more passengers and longer trains.
If ATK, with virtually no cost access to the railroad network can not make money, who is going to be crazy enough to think they can and walk through that open access door?
In theory, since the entire rail network shares a common gauge and is interconnected, open access could work.
In reality, it would require a major paradigm shift in many areas, including labor, maintenance, infrastructure ownership, and a host of others.
We've had some pretty heated discussions here in the past. Most folks seem to fall into the "never gonna happen" camp.
Probably the biggest single stumbling block would be the infrastructure. Signalling issues and the like notwithstanding, there is the question of whether someone would be willing to pay the existing railroads what said railroads are currently assessed for (for property taxes).
If we can maintain a harmonious atmosphere, maybe we can have a decent discussion on the topic.
Explain what you mean. You mention passenger service. I usually think of freight service where every railroad gets 'access' to every industry, even if is not connected to their railroad.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Could an open access operator work in the US like it does in Europe? Such as Eurostar and Heathrow Express.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.