How to double capacity of U.S. railroads (without even building a single mile of new track)

[Anonymous]

1. Adopt my invention, Greenbrier's "stack n' half" intermodal car. This design would increase the load factor for moving containers by up to 30%. This translates into 30% more TEU equivalents per given train length, and would take care of much of the congestion at ports and intermodal terminals.

2. Return to the "Rail Whales", the mega cars from the 1960's that were effectively banned by the FRA. These railcars had six and eight axles, and allowed gross weights of over 400,000 lbs, another 30% increase in load factor. On the issue of track maintenance, these cars effectively spread the weight of the car over more axles, reducing wear and tear on trackage (except for the rigid three axle trucks. With the advent of radial steering a flex trucks, that potential problem has been eliminated). In conjuction with a return of six and eight axle freight cars, we can then.....

3. ....limit per axle loads to under 65,000 lbs per axle for these cars. This would obviously reduce wear and tear on track. This means less track being taken out of service for repair, and thus less delays. Current four axle cars would still be allowed at the 286k max (71,500 lbs per axle) to allow them to run out their life expectancy, and prevent any needless distruption in current car supply.

4. Allow container ships to carry a certain amout of U.S. spec domestic containers. Currently, much of the import cargo into the U.S. is being transloaded from 40' ISO containers into the 53' domestic containers and dry vans at U.S. ports before the cargo is transported into the interior. It has occured to more than one freight manager how much cheaper it would be if these domestic containers could be filled at the foreign port by lower cost labor and then shipped to the U.S. This would increase the load factor for container ships and reduce the number of lifts from ship to chassis to well cars. This would really help reduce congestion at ports such as LA and Long Beach.

5. Reroute Amtrak off high density corridors onto lower traffic lines. There are examples of routes where Amtrak runs over heavily used freight lines while parrellel lines with less traffic are available. Take Amtrak off BNSF's High Line and put it on the ex-NP (nee MRL) line through central Monana and North Dakota. Take Amrak off the ex-Santa Fe LA to Chicago line and reroute it to the ex-RI/SSW/SP line. This may increase the travel time for Amtrak passengers and deprive some towns of rail passenger service, but Harve and Minot's loss is Bozeman and Bismark's gain. It would certainly help clear up the heaviest used freight lines.

6. Last but not least, institute some form of open access. We are all aware of paper barriers, bottleneck price gouging, needlessly circuitous routing of freights to keep it all on the "home rails", e.g. examples of inefficient monopolistic practices that keep railroads from performing as they should in theory. Elimination of these practices and caveats would improve the fluidity of rail transit, and greater fluidity equals less congestion.

You are welcome to add or comment on this list, as it is a work in progress.....

[daveklepper]

Wrong on the SF Transcon. The freight moves via Amarillo and the Southwest Chief through Alburqurque. Check the maps and schedules. Is the NP line in good shape? How expensive would it be to put it good shape? The congestion that bothers Amtrak is not prevelant on the BNSF, but is definitely on the Coast Starlight and the Sunsset Limited. What secondary lines would do for them? In the east would you take the Lake Shore's Boston Connection off the B&A though Pittsfield, Springfield, Worcester? Let David Gun run Amtrak please. He is professional and just try to get him the money he needs.

I feel others can comment on the value of your freight suggestions better than I can.

As far as I know, "Schnable" multi-wheel cars are still occasionally used.

[Junctionfan]

One way of increasing capacity is trucking companies use 53 foot containers on a chassis instead of 53 foot trailers. This way you can stack and so a 100 car trailer train can be as little as a 50 car train which means a hundred car train could fit as much as 200 truck loads.

Another thing to look at is for the well cars to be extended to 80 feet so you could have 2 40 foots on the bottom and 2 on top or 4 20 foots on the bottom and 2 40 foots on top. Tofc and Cofc flats are 89 feet in length so size wise, it wouldn't be anything new really.

For transloading purposes, delegate more functions with the high capacity cars. If you can get 2 customers into one 60 foot high cube box instead of two 50 foot boxcars, as long as the loads are from the same industry and are heading to the same transloading facility, why not?

[jeaton]

Number 1. What is it?

[JoeKoh]

Dave
you might have some clearance issues with some of your larger cars.
stay safe
Joe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JoeKoh

Dave
you might have some clearance issues with some of your larger cars.
stay safe
Joe

Yes you start to get some major "dimentional load" issues if you are going to constantly have a whole bunch of oversize rail equipment.

If you were to start making them all that large then everything from the positioning of signals to entire railyards would have to be re-designed.

It opens up an entire can of worms.

[Overmod]

I think the primary thing about the 'stack-and-a-half' is that it's somewhat more complicated to get the containers on and off the bridged frames. I concur that the idea seems reasonable, but would like to see some directed reasoning why existing services haven't adopted it.

I'd be interested to see a listing of prospective "rail whale" car types that have good current business cases -- with grain and perhaps coal being possibilities. My understanding of the logic behind the FRA ban was that it involved tank cars, and more particularly hazardous-material tank cars: the construction of the large cars made them somewhat more 'fragile', and the large volume per car made consequences of even single-car incidents more troublesome. I would think that volumetric limits might apply to some 'mega' bulk cars before weight limits were reached, and this in turn might pose some metacenter, balance, or suspension-oscillation issues that might be difficult to address with conventional cost-effective freight truck technologies. This isn't a particularly valuable thing for intermodal traffic, however, since articulation is a more workable solution all 'round, and a solution for TOFC is more likely to resemble CargoSpeed than an "Auto-Max for van trailers".

I like the idea, in principle, of limiting rail loadings for large cars, perhaps in similar ways to how Cooper loadings on bridges are adjusted for multiple axle loadings that are relatively close. How did you pick 65,000lb/axle? Seems to me that you could carry a larger nominal axle load if appropriate equalization over the multiple axles on a big car were implemented, which would increase the potential attractiveness (and reduce the unavoidable opportunity risks) associated with larger units.

I do not believe much existing ocean-shipping capacity is compatible with 53' containers, even those specifically designed to take marine stresses. Even 48' containers are specialized. There's more than just the issue of deepwater ship cells; for example, the elevators on ro/ro vessels, load limits on river and canal traffic (especially in Europe), spreader or crane limits based on ISO series 1, etc.

The Army field manual 55-80 notes

Because of incompatibility with most ship cells, these longer units (particularly the 45 and 53 footers) have generally been considered a domestic asset. Forty-eight footers, 8 feet wide, are becoming popular on some international routes, with the servicing carriers moving these assets either in specially modified holds or above deck.

But I think that expecting a major shift to make these containers common in overseas end-to-end "lanes" will require considerable political and economic 'push' -- and the money to accompli***hat would have to come entirely out of the marginal contribution from the larger containers, which I think is almost incredibly unlikely within the next several years.

There may be some merit in the Amtrak-rerouting scheme, and I suspect that the current Administration might find particular interest in it -- both in terms of helping freight transportation, and perhaps in helping sabotage retention of part or all of the long-distance service!

The open-access system approaches are the most interesting part of this debate for me. The single great problem with it involves main lines at or near capacity, which would be expected to have 'fair' allocation of traffic slots for any approved operating company. I think that in the near term, it's still a good idea to have the company or companies with authority over the track structure also be the company or companies actually operating trains over it.... which differs very, very little from the current paradigm for intermodal operations, the principal difference being that the 'railroad' company might not own the freight-transporting vehicles, and perhaps not all the locomotives.

Junctionfan -- if you look at the beam loadings and equalization for two 'well cars' with double-stacked 40' containers in them, you'll see why it isn't done that way (given current wheel loadings). Note that even adjacently-loaded conventional well cars require special wheels and loading accommodation.

With regard to transloading -- yes, if you're putting LCL loads into cars running between well-defined destination pairs, or in established lanes, there are benefits to it. Given palletized shipments, cheap stevedorage, and a bunch of other things. Are you suggesting that the "60 foot high cube box" is being shunted from one siding to another until filled, then dispatched to the transloader's dock? Might be some security, dunnage, or time considerations there, not to mention the mickey-mouse switchout and associated train delays involved with it. Note how much simpler, in actual practice, this operation is if the various shippers all are using 20' or 40' standard containers, cheap as dirt and about as ubiquitous these days, and can send those either by rail or road to the transloading facility... after which the container is available for other moves to a wide variety of standards-compliant destinations, via a wide variety of standards-compliant modes...

[Junctionfan]

Overmod

I am suggesting that say if Home Depot and Beaver Lumber was to get a half a boxcar full of tools from Black and Decker and Home Depot was to get almost a 50 foot boxcar of tools from Black and Decker and they are going to be picked up at a railroad transloading facility, use a 60 foot or greater box and just seperate the Home Depot going loads from the Beaver Lumber loads. It works like a marshalling yard except you are not breaking up a train and shunting cars, you are breaking up the contents of a railcar and shunting the loads. Could even work for some chemicals if done safely. All that would be required is if the industries rented or leased storage tanks or bins for the desired chemical but I would say non hazardous materials would be more likely a plus. Since a lot of thease loads are not very profitable for the railroads as say some chemicals and coal, it makes sense to try to find away to consolidate on the less profitable loads.

[jeaton]

Andrew

I believe there are a number of transloading operations around the country where carloads of bulk materials are transfered to trucks for final delivery. I think this is, or at least was, an effictive way to move plastic pellets to small plastic product manufacturers who were off rail. I am sure other products have also moved this way.

When it comes to finished products, i.e., anything that is packaged ready for sale to the end user, the transloading is performed at warehouse or breakbulk facilities that are owned by,or under contract to the manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer. Ownership of warehouse facilities is very diverse and the business is very competitive. These facilities will receive carload or truckload shipments from multiple manufacturers and reload the products in trucks for delivery to retailers. Because of the handling and storage costs associated with this process, it is sometimes less expensive to ship direct from the manufacture to the retail store, but often this only works when full truck loads can be shipped either to one consignee or with multiple stops in a peddler operation.

Here is my point. There is a very large infrastructure in place to get retail products to the point of sale. In turn, there is a large and effective management force that making the decisions as to the most cost effective way to move the goods. Frankly, I do not believe the railoads would want to get into the warhousing and final distribution end of the chain. First, it is difficult to make good return on the investment in this business, and second, it won't do anything to increase the business moving on rails. So, what is the point?

Jay

[Wdlgln005]

I'd only worry about Amtrak trains on high density passenger corridors. One train each way for the Empire Builder should be no problem. There could be some adjustment in stations for the freight to stay off the passenger lines, and keep passengers out of slow yards. I'd build some higher speed connections out of major cities like Chicago so it dosen't take an hour to go 50 miles from downtown.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Number 1. What is it?

Go to the U.S. Patent Office website at....

http://www.uspto.gov/

......and search for patent numbers 6,510,800 and/or 6,546,878. Basically, it is a set of well cars with a mini spine body in between to handle 20' containers in the intermediate position.

For a look at six and eight axle freight cars e.g. the "Rail Whales", go to.....

http://railwhales.railspot.com/

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Andrew

I believe there are a number of transloading operations around the country where carloads of bulk materials are transfered to trucks for final delivery. I think this is, or at least was, an effictive way to move plastic pellets to small plastic product manufacturers who were off rail. I am sure other products have also moved this way.

When it comes to finished products, i.e., anything that is packaged ready for sale to the end user, the transloading is performed at warehouse or breakbulk facilities that are owned by,or under contract to the manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer. Ownership of warehouse facilities is very diverse and the business is very competitive. These facilities will receive carload or truckload shipments from multiple manufacturers and reload the products in trucks for delivery to retailers. Because of the handling and storage costs associated with this process, it is sometimes less expensive to ship direct from the manufacture to the retail store, but often this only works when full truck loads can be shipped either to one consignee or with multiple stops in a peddler operation.

Here is my point. There is a very large infrastructure in place to get retail products to the point of sale. In turn, there is a large and effective management force that making the decisions as to the most cost effective way to move the goods. Frankly, I do not believe the railoads would want to get into the warhousing and final distribution end of the chain. First, it is difficult to make good return on the investment in this business, and second, it won't do anything to increase the business moving on rails. So, what is the point?

Jay

Don't really need werehouses for this. All you need is an unloading facility and the customer's trailer or the deliverer's trailer. If they don't show up right away, haul it to a parking spot and they can pick it up later. As far as I know, the railroad usually doesn't own the transloading facility but rather the trucking company does and so any warehousing involved would be owned by them.

[jeaton]

Andrew

I agree that you don't need a warehouse to do box car to truck transloading. What I was saying is that facilities capable of doing this kind of transloading exist all over the place. They have the docks, the material handling equipment and the people to do the work. Given that it is a very competitive business, you would probably find that a facility strictly dedicated to this work would not offer any significant cost savings for the customer.

Jay

[dehusman]

Just remember that railroads are not public domain, they are private companies. Forcing railroads to provide open access to anybody that wanted to run a train would be like telling GM that they had to let Ford build cars in their plant, or telling Coke that they had to bottle Pepsi, or telling UPS they have to let Fedex or DHL use they trucks for shipments.

Dave H.

[Overmod]

Dave H., not quite the right operational model.

More like telling AT&T Longlines that they "have" to let resellers (competitors) buy blocks of bulk time or bandwidth, or cable operators that they have to allow open access to the 'last mile'.

Of course, the situation is much the same as for post-deregulation branch lines: while the Government may still deny abandonment, there is no rule that forbids railroads to charge rates that recover costs... which, in essence, may be so prohibitively high that shippers give up and allow abandonment. Presumably any open-access arrangement would involve full pro-rata allocation of the 'stranded costs' of the infrastructure involved... and of any improvements or changes necessary to make the operation practical, such as additional service or maintenance facilities. It would also probably involve as full an indemnification of the "owning" carrier as possible (cf. Amtrak's arrangements). I suspect that any railroad that didn't want open-access traffic could find as many Mickey Mouse objections and petty restrictions as needed to make a "competitor's" operations ultimately inconvenient or unprofitable, but this is really no different from current procedures involving trackage rights (cf. KCS/TexMex over UP in Texas!)

I did not see Federal Express turning down the carriage of USPS traffic... last time I looked, just as much a "competitor" as UPS or DHL in certain segments...

Andrew, having run a hardware store, I can tell you that the weekly resupplies are handled from distributor warehouses via truck runs, and several stores may be supplied off the same truck. You might get the original supply to these warehouses -- in your example, from Black and Decker's plant -- via rail shipment, but I strongly suspect that both the convenience and the cost-effectiveness of truck-based ground or intermodal service would outweigh a setup involving rail moves for anything less than full containers... and if you have full containers there's no need for an intermediate stripping/stuffing setup at a cross-dock facility.

In my childhood, I remember the local hardware stores would receive lumber via rail (on the Northern branch of the EL) which would be set out on flatcars and picked up and transferred via a straddle loader, a piece of equipment that particularly fascinated me then. Long ago this changed to truck delivery, straight to the lumberyard, with either self-unloading (via truck-mounted crane or, as in Home Depot's bulk delivery, straight truck with 'pup' lift attached) or yard unloading with a simple forklift. I'm sure there are still a few chains that receive end deliveries by rail, but none of the 'chains' I'm familiar with (Ace, True Value, ServiStar) or the specialty hardware suppliers do that.

Appliance crossdocking was traditionally done within the confines of an equipment supplier's facility, and would almost never involve the kind of full or partial carloading that would make your proposal a worthwhile proposition on the regular basis necessary to establish it. The whole point of a distributor's warehouse is to allow full-carload, or distinctive LCL block deliveries to be made periodically, with subsequent delivery to retailers from stock -- crossdocking is for special or custom orders, which are almost never of sufficient volume to invalidate the advantages of truck delivery.

Dedicated rail transloading facilities are a cute idea, and technically feasible if you had a 'clean sheet of paper' -- but are utterly divorced from the reality of business operations today.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

I am no fan of open access as I see it only as another way for shippers to beat carrier's rates into the ground, which believe me they try to do daily. Setting that aside, how will open access improve capacity? I see no necessary or natural connection between the two.

Mac

[tree68]

True open access would require a national control system, a la FAA. In fact, the very operation would probably resemble that of air - filing a "flight" plan, etc, etc. There would have to be a nationally recognized license (like a CDL), and a means of certifying operators for specific routes. After all, if there is open access and I want to develop a market and run trains from here to there, all I need is the necessary equipment and licenses. I pay my tolls and run my trains.

[jchnhtfd]

Seems to me... that there is a fundamental difference between 'open access' on a rail system vs. either a telcon (e.g. AT&T) or the air traffic control system (and I have been involved in all three, at one time or another). With a telcon, with modern technology, it is quite simple for multiple transmissions to occur over the same path (be it fiber optic, coax, or conventional copper). There is a complete break between the 'message' and the carrying medium, up to the capacity of the line (which, with fiber optics, is immense). Open access is, and never really has been, a technical problem; rather a regulatory or political problem. In a very real way air traffic is similar: the capacity of the travel lanes, while not unlimited, is very large indeed (although some airports are restricted -- and -- surprise! -- there you do not have open access at all). Further, conflicts between units run by different groups -- in this case, airplanes -- are easily resolved; you can move up, down, or sideways to pass or go in different directions. Same thing is true of highways, within broad limits. With rail, however, there is a distinct difference: you are on a track. Opportunities to pass or meet are few and far between (ask any dispatcher!) and everything has to go through specific terminals -- which are highly capacity limited. If one were to have open access, just who would decide who could go when? And which way? Please note that the FAA does NOT do that for air service; it's first come, first served except at those airports where there is a reservation system (and those reservations, called slots, are fixed -- and very very expensive). Would we have a Federal agency trying to dispatch the system in response to unpredictable demand? Oy... If you think Union Pacific has had problems now and then, I hate to think...

[Overmod]

tree, there will be MUCH more to it than that. Aside from specific and ongoing mechanical inspection and maintenance assurance, etc., there is the question of destination capacity and handling.

I see no reason why coordination of private 'scheduling' systems and dispatch won't work at least as well as an "ATC" (here, air-traffic control) model -- we're not talking time-critical operations in three dimensions, at high speed, with no safe way to 'hold everything' in case of emergency. But the coordination will specifically include strategic delays and optimizations to 'normalize' yard and terminal capacity for the 'open access' train movements. You wouldn't, for example, be able to stick your 100-car intermodal into the approach queue for an already-overloaded facility on short notice, whether you paid the basic "toll" or not -- that's fundamental unfairness to the pre-existing operators. What the system for allocating 'open' routing would be is, of course, open, but I advocate surcharges and incentives to influence it via market mechanisms, rather than re-introduce massive amounts of 'bureaucracy' (and associated opportunities for influence-peddling, special favors, enforcement actions and New York Times outcry against perceived special favors, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam...

[dehusman]

Everybody looks at the mainline when they talk open access but very few people address the terminal issues. OK, I have access to drive my train from A to B, but what do i do with it at the other end? Where do I put the cars and engines not on spot? How do i switch or block the train? In order for open access to work each user has to have a yarding facility at the other end.

So I guess we form terminal companies that operate the terminals. Then since you have onesy-twosey runs all over theplace, not enough to support a stable crew structure, you could have a third party that provided qualified crews.

So you have one comany that owns the mainlines, one that runs the terminals, one that provides the equipment and one that provides the crews. Sounds great?

Betcha if you did that within 10 years they would start merging and you'd end up with one overall company that provided the track, the terminal, the equipment and the crews, which is pretty much right where we are now.

I fail to see how splitting up the transportation product up into a dozen smaller subcontractor pieces, each getting their own profit will result in cheaper, more efficient operations. When we had a gazillion little railroads and each town was served by many different roads, the rates weren't cheaper.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

I am no fan of open access as I see it only as another way for shippers to beat carrier's rates into the ground, which believe me they try to do daily. Setting that aside, how will open access improve capacity? I see no necessary or natural connection between the two.

Mac

Mac,

I'll give you an example of how an open access system could alleviate congestion. In the Pacific Northwest, UP's line to Puget Sound runs through the Columbia Gorge to Portland, then up the I-5 corridor via BNSF trackage rights to Seattle-Tacoma. When UP hauls a unit grain train to a Puget Sound port, it runs through the heavily congested Gorge then up the congested I-5 lines. After it is emptied, it runs back the same way. Of course, BNSF owns a line over Stampede Pass that runs from the Puget Sound down to the Tri-Cities (and a UP connection) and has only a few trains a day e.g. it has alot of extra capacity. If UP could run their eastbound empties back over this line, it would obviously free up capacity through the Gorge and the I-5 lines. But of course, BNSF won't let them do that, at least at some reasonable price, whereas if that line was open access, UP could take advantage of it.

I'm sure if one could study the situations of one line being heavily congested while a competitor's parallel line has extra capacity, you would find literally hundreds of such scenarios.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

You picked a good example but there are some problems.

First you are going to one way operations on both legs. Portland is crew change on UP. Getting from Tacoma to Hinkle in one crew day would be a challenge so UP would probably have to change crews at Yakima. This means you have four working crews plus four deadhead crews per round trip. You have doubled UP crew costs. Not very appetizing..

Second problem is there is nothing preventing UP from making BNSF an offer. You are assuming, without evidence that BNSF would want an outrageous rate, and that UP wants to go over the mountain.

Third problem is this would no where near double anybody's capacity. As you know there are two lines down the gorge, UP and BNSF. I doubt that the UP has as much as one grain train per day to Tacoma. Rerouting less than one train per day, and one way at that is a long, long way from doubling UP capacity.

In fact rerouting does not increase capacity at all. The capacity of all the routes involved in you example, and I suspect in general, is what it is as controlled by track configuration and signal system. It may be true that BNSF could run a few more trains via Stampede. They have plenty of their own they could divert to it at considerable saving in mileage. Why have they not done so?

The moral problem is that you are proposing to rob the BNSF to pay the UP. How can you justify a below market rent to UP? Remember BNSF invested a reported $165 million in Stampede to reopen it. I might love to have the government make you let me live in your spare bedroom for free, but I sure do not want you in mine.

I am not convinced on either practical or ethical grounds.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

You picked a good example but there are some problems.

First you are going to one way operations on both legs. Portland is crew change on UP. Getting from Tacoma to Hinkle in one crew day would be a challenge so UP would probably have to change crews at Yakima. This means you have four working crews plus four deadhead crews per round trip. You have doubled UP crew costs. Not very appetizing..

Second problem is there is nothing preventing UP from making BNSF an offer. You are assuming, without evidence that BNSF would want an outrageous rate, and that UP wants to go over the mountain.

Third problem is this would no where near double anybody's capacity. As you know there are two lines down the gorge, UP and BNSF. I doubt that the UP has as much as one grain train per day to Tacoma. Rerouting less than one train per day, and one way at that is a long, long way from doubling UP capacity.

In fact rerouting does not increase capacity at all. The capacity of all the routes involved in you example, and I suspect in general, is what it is as controlled by track configuration and signal system. It may be true that BNSF could run a few more trains via Stampede. They have plenty of their own they could divert to it at considerable saving in mileage. Why have they not done so?

The moral problem is that you are proposing to rob the BNSF to pay the UP. How can you justify a below market rent to UP? Remember BNSF invested a reported $165 million in Stampede to reopen it. I might love to have the government make you let me live in your spare bedroom for free, but I sure do not want you in mine.

I am not convinced on either practical or ethical grounds.

Mac

Mac,

You give some good counterpoints.

My understanding of BNSF operations in the PNW is that they do route empty grain shuttles back over Stampede, and (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe they do manage to run from Tacoma to Pasco in one trip. For UP to shuttle a crew between Hinkle and Pasco would only take 20 minutes or so, so there would be no need for increasing crew costs.

My assumption of BNSF either not allowing UP to reroute over Stampede or else wanting an exhorbinant rate is based on my own business experiences with BNSF trying to establish a third party short haul intermodal move from Yakima/Pasco to the Puget Sound. No matter how favorably we crunched the numbers in BNSF's favor, they just didn't want to be bothered with it. Go figure!

Also remember that this is just one aspect of an aggregate solution for increasing capacity. Open access by itself would not double capacity, you would need to incorporate the other possible solutions provided in this thread.

Finally, I do not believe we are robbing BNSF or any other railroad company by breaking up the vertical oligarchy, anymore so than suggesting that AT&T was "robbed" by its breakup. The fortunes of the telecom industry exploded after that breakup, and given the economic points in favor of open access, you could see a lesser but still substantial increase in railroading's share of intercity freight. If anything, we are doing BNSF and all the other Class I's a favor by removing a huge part of their capital liabilities, and opening the door for substantial public investment in the rail infrastructure. The moral question thus is not whether breaking apart infrastructure from operations is a form of "taking" private property, but whether it is right to give public aid to companies that will continue to restrict access to the infrastructure to only their trains. If the railroads really want (or need) public assistance for infrastructure upgrades, then that infrastructure must be accessable by all qualified operating companies. Otherwise we are subsidizing a monopoly.

[dehusman]

Assuming that the BNSF had a better route and open access allowed the UP to use it at a rate that matched the costs of the UP operating on their own line, what incentive would the UP have to maintain or even retain their route. If they can run on the BNSF for the same cost, abandon their line and just use the BNSF.

Besides what will you do with the NS and KCS trains operating over that corridor?

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

Assuming that the BNSF had a better route and open access allowed the UP to use it at a rate that matched the costs of the UP operating on their own line, what incentive would the UP have to maintain or even retain their route. If they can run on the BNSF for the same cost, abandon their line and just use the BNSF.

Besides what will you do with the NS and KCS trains operating over that corridor?

Dave H.

The example we are discussing involves taking some of UP's Puget Sound trains off the heavily traveled UP mainline through the Columbia Gorge in Oregon and transferring them onto BNSF's underutilized Stampede Pass line. UP is not going to abandon the water-level Columbia Gorge for rights over Stampede Pass!

What we are trying to point out is that heavily used e.g. congested mainlines of one railroad often are parallel to some degree to underutilized lines owned by another railroad. Obviously, taking empties back over the underutilized line makes sense and frees up capacity on the overused line. But because of the owner-operator makeup of the U.S. railroad industry, that aspect of common sense goes wanting. That in and of itself makes a strong case for open access.

[daveklepper]

I think it makes a better case for heads-up thinking on the part of railroad managements like the deals worked out by NS and CN, for more intensive use of the old D&H in the East, and CN and UP routing more traffic to bypass Chicago. I wouldn't be surprised to see a deal worked out by UP and BNSF. They do some power sharing in the Powder Raiber Basin.

[dehusman]

I know we are talking about the PNW. That's not the point.

The reason I mentioned the NS and KCS is because you are talking OPEN ACCESS. What started this whole thread was that Dave futuremodal wanted to operate a 3rd party train on the BNSF. If you have open access you will have every railroad in the country going every which way. There is nothing to stop any shortline from establishing transcontinental service. So thinking that establishing open access and then only parallel routes will use it is not realistic.

If you have open access there is nothing to prevent or limit the NS or the KCS or the FEC from offering service from the east coast to the Puget sound.

Dave H.

[mudchicken]

Roadmaster's point of view:

(1) You can have your Rail Whales IF AND ONLY IF you also pay to upgrade the light rail and the sharp curves (6 degrees radius and above)and turnouts (#9 and below) that are cause and effect linked to track/train dynamics failures.

(2) Open Access? - Not on my watch! (Shippers unwilling to pay for track maintenance as part of the cost of doing business. The shipper beancounters are no more qualified to do brain surgery than they can determine track maintenance. As bad getting funding to do proper track maintenance now is, Open Access would make it really scary.)[|(][|(][|(]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Roadmaster's point of view:

(1) You can have your Rail Whales IF AND ONLY IF you also pay to upgrade the light rail and the sharp curves (6 degrees radius and above)and turnouts (#9 and below) that are cause and effect linked to track/train dynamics failures.

(2) Open Access? - Not on my watch! (Shippers unwilling to pay for track maintenance as part of the cost of doing business. The shipper beancounters are no more qualified to do brain surgery than they can determine track maintenance. As bad getting funding to do proper track maintenance now is, Open Access would make it really scary.)[|(][|(][|(]

Regarding Rail Whales and their effects on track, it is my understanding that the eight axle cars are just as flexible as four axle cars, because they are really two sets of pairs of two axle trucks. And with the advent of radial steering, three axle trucks no longer have a problem with curve negotiability. I can see where cars of 400,000 lbs plus would be a problem on branchlines that still have a problem with the 286,000 lbs cars.

I think we will agree to disagree on open access. I do think the idea has evolved to the point of there being an understanding that open access in conjuction with government incentives (to reduce the capital liabilities) would probably be the way to go. If it can be proven that some type of open access + federal incentives would result in overall reduced capital expenditures for railroad operating companies, then logic dictates that they would take a more positive outlook on the whole idea.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

I know we are talking about the PNW. That's not the point.

The reason I mentioned the NS and KCS is because you are talking OPEN ACCESS. What started this whole thread was that Dave futuremodal wanted to operate a 3rd party train on the BNSF. If you have open access you will have every railroad in the country going every which way. There is nothing to stop any shortline from establishing transcontinental service. So thinking that establishing open access and then only parallel routes will use it is not realistic.

If you have open access there is nothing to prevent or limit the NS or the KCS or the FEC from offering service from the east coast to the Puget sound.

Dave H.

If FEC, KCS, or NS provided service to some mill in the Pacific Northwest, why would this be a bad thing? No matter how you analyze it, it suggests nothing but benefits for all involved. On the larger picture, if rail shippers have more competitive rate offerings from more than one railroad, doesn't that make it less likely that they will ship by truck or barge, and thus rail's share of intercity freight increases?