schlimm dakotafred Towns of any size had better have fire stations on both sides of the tracks. Period. Most do. In your opinion, do the railroads have any responsibilities to the communities?
dakotafred Towns of any size had better have fire stations on both sides of the tracks. Period. Most do. In your opinion, do the railroads have any responsibilities to the communities?
Towns of any size had better have fire stations on both sides of the tracks. Period.
Most do. In your opinion, do the railroads have any responsibilities to the communities?
Well, sure. (In many cases, the railroad is responsible FOR the community -- as in, the reason the community is there.) However, I don't think it's a fair burden on the railroad to expect it so fashion its operations that they inconvenience not a single community among the hundreds it passes through. I don't know how such a design could be contrived.
In my experience, the railroad tries to be responsive to local complaints. In the matter of crossings, for instance: Up here, at least until the recent oil and ag slowdowns, people are always after BNSF for new ones.
BNSF says, happy to oblige, but show us another that can be closed, so there's no net increase. (There are plenty of crossings that have only marginal use, but are worth as fierce a fight as the new crossing.)
In any case, the railroad pays plenty in local taxes (usually doled out by the state) that the subdivisions could apply to railroad-related problems, if they didn't choose to spend the money elsewhere. And the money doesn't even get the railroad representation on the local governing board.
There have been many cases of railroads making substantial efforts to minimize effects on communities. ROW elevation changes (up and down) usually serve to separate rail and highway traffic, which benefits both the communities and the railroad. For the railroad, a significant benefit is the ability to run at higher speeds, and in many cases, reduce grade issues.
There are crossings on the NYC "Water Level Route" across New York State, but not as many as one might expect. The St Lawrence Sub, running from Syracuse to Massena, on the other hand, has plenty of grade crossings.
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...
dakotafredIn any case, the railroad pays plenty in local taxes
Do you (or anyone else) actually know how much property tax BNSF pays in Noth Dakota?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Can't speak to ND, so I won't. I just looked up a little bit of CSX here in my county in NY.
The first parcel of ROW north of the city here is 72 acres and is assessed at $411,000.
A parcel in the next town north, 89 acres, is assessed at $1,276,000.
Moving north, 10 acres are assessed at $256.561.
Then we have 40 acres assessed at $571,000.
The next township north assessed 30 acres at $500,000.
A village assessed 18 acres at $390,000.
Back in the township for 30 acres assessed at $469,000.
Next township starts out with a 33 acre parcel at $560,775.
Another village has 10.5 acres at 192,000.
The next parcel is incorrectly listed in the rolls for some reason, so I won't guesstimate it. Probably another $500,000, though.
But then we're back with 33 more acres at $562,441, and 15 acres at $264,000.
The county tax rate varies by township, but for our purposes, is about $7 a thousand. Said rate does not include school taxes or local special assessments, which could easily double that number.
So just in county taxes, CSX is paying over $35,000 a year - and I only looked at half of one county! That's around 40 or so miles of single track railroad.
One would not be far off estimating as much as $2000 per mile in total property taxes.
YMMV.
I would guess that the rates and assessments would be lower in the upper plains, but one never knows.
kgbw49 In the April 2016 issue of Progressive Railroading in the MOW budget review section, it says that CN is working towards getting all passing sidings to have 12,000 feet of clear track. As the leader in driving down operating ratios it seems that they might be on the leading edge of the trend.
In the April 2016 issue of Progressive Railroading in the MOW budget review section, it says that CN is working towards getting all passing sidings to have 12,000 feet of clear track. As the leader in driving down operating ratios it seems that they might be on the leading edge of the trend.
CN has been running 11,000-12,000' trains on a daily basis for several years already up in the great white north, and they just keep getting longer. Recently they got an exemption from Transport Canada to run 15,000' from Prince George to Prince Rupert, BC (westbound only).
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
schlimm dakotafred In any case, the railroad pays plenty in local taxes Do you (or anyone else) actually know how much property tax BNSF pays in Noth Dakota?
dakotafred In any case, the railroad pays plenty in local taxes
That sounds like a worthy research project for somebody, all right.
dakotafredThat sounds like a worthy research project for somebody, all right.
While such information may have already been compiled by a state agency (DOT?), you can see from what I put together that it could well be a rather involved project.
Had I chosen to be much more precise, I would have had to either locate the specific tax bill for each parcel, or compute same by looking at the tax rates for each jurisdiction.
State Auditor/ Manager of Disbursement/ Board of Equalization/ Tax Commissioners in each state sure know. And to take it a little further, the tax bill is something in the neighborhood of $2000 to $ 4000 a year with the states getting a hefty check every 6 months. Usually $2000 - $4000 a year (NY on the high end and ND on the low end) per AAR.
(1) The current tax method had started with the 1913 Interstate Commerce Commission ICC Uniform System Of Accounts. It's been simplified somewhat by Staggers and the advent of depreciation accounting (since 1983) which cut down the pedantic beancounting a whole bunch. After 1996, it became pretty much status quo after the ICC was phased-out and STB began.
(2) You do not want the state run systems in place prior to 1913. They were pretty much a model as to why local politicians should not be allowed to interfere with interstate commerce. The inequities were horrendous. (The valuation sections in the system still work well today. Insomniac? - see 49CFR1201 on the current rules.)
Wish I had a nickel for every time I heard in county offices that the railroads don't pay taxes (usually the assessor's office on a power trip). The disbursement checks given to the counties by the state auditor for railroad taxes, were they to cease, would have the commissioners screaming from the rooftops over the loss of guaranteed income. It keeps some small counties out here afloat.
Build more underpasses and bridges and the costs of that will force the railroads to repent.
mudchickenWish I had a nickel for every time I heard in county offices that the railroads don't pay taxes (usually the assessor's office on a power trip).
Given that the money goes first to the state, then back to the municipality (and probably not directly to the assessor's office), I think I can understand the misconception. If I wasn't aware of the arrangement (maybe a new assessor), I might think that because I never saw a check from the RR, they didn't pay.
In a small village, it's more likely that one person would connect the two. In a larger outfit, the two offices might not talk to each other...
Unfortunately, if that assessor makes a public fuss, that "knowledge" now becomes part of the public awareness, even if it is wrong.
While in the Duluth-Superior area on business, I had the opportunity to check out Pokegama Yard. I sat at a crossing while CN ET44AC 3046 and a CN ES44AC whose number I did not catch pulled an eastbound mixed manifest freight out of town. It had to be 10,000 feet. It was very impressive - the lead units went by with exhausts barking as they headed on a slight upgrade from the St. Louis River valley. The cars kept coming and coming, gathering speed the whole time. It seemed like half of Canada was tied on. By the time the FRED went by they had the whole parade rolling about 40 mph as I was able to pace on an adjacent road. It was hands down the longest freight I have ever experienced, even longer than UP coal drags across Nebraska. Very impressive indeed.
Can I state the obvious (to me, anyway) answer to the original question?
As trains get longer and more people experience unacceptable (to them) delays, it will foster a mindset that going around the gates will be an acceptable risk. We all know where that will lead.
I hope railroads will realize that labor costs to run more trains is cheaper/better in the long run than sinking costs into longer sidings and upgrading every terminal to handle these longer trains. But, since that most likely isn't true, they will continue to invest in the physical plant in hopes of bigger revenues later.
I doubt that there is a consensus in the industry that longer trains are advantageous. It may be truer with some management or some railroad conditions, but I doubt that the issue has ever been fully analyzed.
Regarding longer grade crossing delays encouraging more risk taking to beat the train; that would definitely be the result, however, that mindset is already well entrenched. It does not come so much from waiting for moving trains to pass as it does from being blocked by trains stopping on crossings or conduction switching moves over them. That driver annoyance has had 150 years to inculcate itself into the mind of the motoring public.
rrnut282 As trains get longer and more people experience unacceptable (to them) delays, it will foster a mindset that going around the gates will be an acceptable risk. We all know where that will lead.
That mind set is already is in place - no matter the normal train length in the area.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
So what happens when a 2 mile train goes across a auto crossing then immediately goes into a 2 mile siding with only a restrictive signal? 15 MPH = 8 minutes + crossing signal lead time ( 1 MIN ? ) not counting slowing to a stop at far end signal.
30
blue streak 1So what happens when a 2 mile train goes across a auto crossing then immediately goes into a 2 mile siding with only a restrictive signal?
I'm thinking that there may be some political pushback from the delays to the motorists and the railroads so far seem to be ignoring it. It will become an itch that will spark some kind of legislation that may prove costly to the RR's. How long it will take to raise to the threshold of action remains to be determined. It was one of the issues raised in towns along the EJ&E when the CN bought it and increased the traffic on the J.
rrnut282 I hope railroads will realize that labor costs to run more trains is cheaper/better in the long run than sinking costs into longer sidings and upgrading every terminal to handle these longer trains. But, since that most likely isn't true, they will continue to invest in the physical plant in hopes of bigger revenues later.
You would think that, but right now they don't seem to care. They want all they can make today, even though tomorrow itll cost them. They're goin to keep running them long and even longer trains and refuse to spend a dime on track. Right now trains are have to triple and sometime even quadruple out of yards and there doesn't seem to be a sign of that stopping.
rockymidlandrr rrnut282 I hope railroads will realize that labor costs to run more trains is cheaper/better in the long run than sinking costs into longer sidings and upgrading every terminal to handle these longer trains. But, since that most likely isn't true, they will continue to invest in the physical plant in hopes of bigger revenues later. You would think that, but right now they don't seem to care. They want all they can make today, even though tomorrow itll cost them. They're goin to keep running them long and even longer trains and refuse to spend a dime on track. Right now trains are have to triple and sometime even quadruple out of yards and there doesn't seem to be a sign of that stopping.
Ever since steam stopped being the prime motive power for the carriers, trains that are run have routinely exceeded the track capacity of the terminals to handle the trains in a single move either departing or arriving. The more effective the diesel lomotives become, the bigger trains they are being asked to move.
While the carriers are investing in capacity improvement projects - most of those projects are on line of road - very few of the projects focus on terminal improvement. The biggest reason for this is that the terminals have become constrained by their neighbors building up to the carriers property lines - to make any meaningful expansion of the terminals, real estate acquisition costs have to be added to any track and/or signal improvements that are to be made.
The typical myoptic vision of a "mature" industry.
Check the myoptic political warped slant pov at the door before entering the forum please.
Here is a BNSF monster with 22,000 HP on the drawbar. But if one could actually count the wells I think it would still come up short of 2 miles. But maybe close.
It's a rare yard that has adjacent land available for expansion. NS is starting an expansion project at its 47th Street intermodal facility and there are still a handful of parcels that they haven't been able to acquire. Some of those property owners won't sell at any price so eminent domain proceedings may be required.
mudchicken Check the myoptic political warped slant pov at the door before entering the forum please.
Dont assume- what I stated are first hand observations of what my carrier/employer is doing. Learn a thing or two before you reply with assumptions.
rockymidlandrr mudchicken Check the myoptic political warped slant pov at the door before entering the forum please. Don't assume- what I stated are first hand observations of what my carrier/employer is doing. Learn a thing or two before you reply with assumptions.
Don't assume- what I stated are first hand observations of what my carrier/employer is doing. Learn a thing or two before you reply with assumptions.
Reasonable advice. Let me extend it just a bit. Don't assume that someone's comments are directed at you when they are not. And learn a thing or two about a poster's background and experience before you reply with snotty-sounding comments about their understanding of the railroad industry.
I'm thinking that there are two separate questions about RR xings being blocked by long trains. The first is in response to normal operation where the crossings may be blocked for several minutes for each train on a daily basis. The second is in response to blockage due to unusual events (e.g. broken knuckle, locomotive failure, derailment) lasting much longer.
For the normal operation case, it would be reasonable to ask what was there first, the road or the railroad? In the case of the former, the RR's would have more of a moral (and perhaps legal) obligation to mitigate the problem. In the case of the latter, the onus would or should fall on the local governments.
As for blockage from abnormal events, I'm wondering how is this much different from the case where a major highway is blocked because of an accident? We had an incident a week and a half ago where a semi jackknifed on I-5 about 4AM and I-5 was backed up for over 20 miles by the time the accident was cleared up around 9AM.
Shorter more frequent trains make more sense than one long behemoth of a train. The shorter trains can fit into shorter sidings if needed, and if something goes wrong you're tying up the entire mainline with a 250 car train.
Ulrich Shorter more frequent trains make more sense than one long behemoth of a train. The shorter trains can fit into shorter sidings if needed, and if something goes wrong you're tying up the entire mainline with a 250 car train.
It likely comes down to dollars and cents. Which is cheaper - crewing three trains on a regular basis or building/expanding sidings to handle the longer trains.
In two-track territory, it's not really a problem, as long as everything is running at near the same speed.
I think the question comes down to, how efficient do you have to get? When does attention to the bottom line become greed?
The rails' vaunted "efficiency" consists of two things: the comparatively frictionless movement of steel wheels over steel rails and the ability to move hundreds of truckload equivalents with only two people (with, admittedly, changes every couple of hundred miles).
I have trouble believing that you have to run two-mile trains to make this proposition pay. If so, you're (1) paying too much for your crews or (2) in an obsolete mode that might as well quit in favor of trucks.
If neither of the above is true, some hotshot executive may be trying to burnish his reputation, and inflate his bonus, at the cost of customer service and the long-term health of the business.
I suspect that if you double the train size, you cut the crew cost, but it more than doubles the rest of the operating expense. That is in addition to the cost of longer sidings and a possible loss of business due to compromising service.
The key word is optimization, which is the opposite of "one size fits all". Rio Grande found out that the short, fast train was not a solution in and of itself. A priority intermodal can be a shorter length with a higher speed limit and lots of power while 10,000+ tons of coal can be relatively long, rather slow and just enough power to get over the road. The size of a train depends a lot on what it is hauling.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.