The railroad companies would cease to be "rail" road companies. They would become no different than a trucking company. If BNSF wanted to haul a train to NYC, they could. Just pay the tolls...
Balt - You've got probably the biggest question of the whole concept. Maybe it would be an outright purchase, maybe Uncle Sam would simply lease the plant from the existing companies and let anyone run on it. The current railroads might break out their MoW operation into a separate division entirely, contracting with the new owner for maintenance while the transportation folks run trains. And there might be other options.
I've got the feeling that we would see a major change in traffic flows. Currently, each railroad uses the routes they own to get between point A and point B. If Railroad X has the better route, guess what would become the preferred way... Railroad Y's circuitous routing, which they use because they own it, might just become a non-entity. There would probably be upgrades to the line(s) to handle the increased traffic.
Yeah - this is pie-in-the-sky stuff - but we aren't hurting anyone by day-dreaming.
Euc - your question, "why would they" probably sums up the question of why they haven't pretty well.
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...
Question for Tree (Larry). According to Wikipedia, (ASR operates between Utica and Remsen over trackage of the Mohawk, Adirondack and Northern Railroad, part of the Genesee Valley Transportation Company. The Remsen-Lake Placid segment is owned by the state of New York and designated as a multi-use corridor for rail traffic during the spring, summer, and fall seasons, and as a snowmobile trail during the winter months.) So who maintains the plant (rails, ties, Xing signals, etc)? Does GVTC operate any freight on the line and dispatch it? If a utility wants to obtain an easment to cross (over/under) who do they negotiate with? What investment does Adirondack have in the plant?
schlimm Euclid A while back, the railroads got out of the business of using their own rail-borne equipment to clean up wrecks, and they contracted that out to private, independent specialists with mobile crawler tractors. The motive was cost reduction. Why didn’t they hire the government to clean up wrecks? As on CMStPnP's thread on WSOR, the government can and does contract out maintenance and dispatching, etc.
Euclid A while back, the railroads got out of the business of using their own rail-borne equipment to clean up wrecks, and they contracted that out to private, independent specialists with mobile crawler tractors. The motive was cost reduction. Why didn’t they hire the government to clean up wrecks?
As on CMStPnP's thread on WSOR, the government can and does contract out maintenance and dispatching, etc.
Well yes, I understand that government can and does farm out work to private contractors, but why add the government in there as a middleman in the first place? Why add their tremendous cost overhead to the transaction between a railroad company and a contractor that does work for them? What does the involvement of the government add that makes it worthwhile to add them to the transaction?
EuclidA while back, the railroads got out of the business of using their own rail-borne equipment to clean up wrecks, and they contracted that out to private, independent specialists with mobile crawler tractors. The motive was cost reduction. Why didn’t they hire the government to clean up wrecks?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmThe core principle is to allow the rails to do what they do best and get out of capital-intensive RoW ownership and maintenance, as was pointed out earlier.
What exactly is it that the railroads do best? And whatever that is, how it is determined that it excludes the ownership and maintenance of track? Somebody has to do it, so who better than the ones who have been doing it for 175 years?
A while back, the railroads got out of the business of using their own rail-borne equipment to clean up wrecks, and they contracted that out to private, independent specialists with mobile crawler tractors. The motive was cost reduction. Why didn’t they hire the government to clean up wrecks?
UPRR carries on its balance sheet "Property, Plant and Equipment" minus "Accumulated Depeciation" ~ $30 bil. Of that amount, "Land & Improvements" is only $5.2 bil. Not enough to exactly strain a federal budget.
CSX's number for property, plant and equipment is similar ($30.4 bil.) but they don't break out land or accumulated depreciation.
So multiply $5 bil. x 4 = $20 bil., add another $8-10 bil for other lines in the 48 states, and you get ~$30 bil. total.
So with all this Blue Sky thinking - who compensates the current owners for their plant, and where does that compensation come from - as the current plant and it's real estate would have the value of several hundred Billion if not into the Trillions. And we all know how well govenmental agencies maintain their existing property (not).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimmAnd no more real estate taxes, however much they actually are.
I figured out the approximate taxes just in my county on another thread (or was that another forum?). They are not insubstantial.
In fact, I could see one opponent of going this route being local governments, which would lose a cash cow.
schlimmWhether access would be exclusive for company #3 over stretch C-J or not is one point that would need to be worked out.
I would opine that the only way that there would be "exclusive access" to anything other than a company facility (ie, shop or similar facility) would be by default - nobody else is interested in going there. Even then, an operator that did choose to go there would still pay for access.
Exclusive use would preclude siting a new industry on a line that another operator may wish to serve.
Bear in mind that I'm not an advocate for open access - but it is interesting to consider ways that such a scheme could work. An exercise in problem solving, if you will.
tree68 dehusman The part you and Schlimm aren't addressing is that having a train and having a track doesn't get you anything because you still can't MOVE the train. Somebody has to be in charge of dispatching the whole thing. That means either the government/owner of the tracks has to also decide who gets access when (everybody can't be first) and who gets priority, or you have to farm that out to a third party. This is why I suggest that such an arrangement would have to include a rail version of ATC (ie, dispatchers). Access to the rails would be no different than access to the airways. Got a unit train to run from point A to point B? File a "flight" plan. The dispatchers let you out with your train at the appointed time and route you where you want to go. Just like airplanes. You'll pay a fee (toll) based on some standard measurement (axle miles?). That is already being done on some railroads where a tenant runs over someone's rails. Factored into that fee/toll would be the cost of the control system and system maintenance, just like on a toll highway. Might there be special, higher rates for priority users? Maybe. Perhaps a base rate gets you on the tracks in the next available time slot. Plenty of variables too diverse to get into here. It's possible there may be lines that only have one operator, so they might get standing permission to occupy the tracks at will - kinda like flying below a certain altitude can happen without filing a flight plan. Turning the rails over to a government entity has issues all by itself. The financial and legal considerations are huge. Is this ever going to happen? I, too, have my doubts. But if it did, this is one way it could work.
dehusman The part you and Schlimm aren't addressing is that having a train and having a track doesn't get you anything because you still can't MOVE the train. Somebody has to be in charge of dispatching the whole thing. That means either the government/owner of the tracks has to also decide who gets access when (everybody can't be first) and who gets priority, or you have to farm that out to a third party.
This is why I suggest that such an arrangement would have to include a rail version of ATC (ie, dispatchers). Access to the rails would be no different than access to the airways.
Got a unit train to run from point A to point B? File a "flight" plan. The dispatchers let you out with your train at the appointed time and route you where you want to go. Just like airplanes.
You'll pay a fee (toll) based on some standard measurement (axle miles?). That is already being done on some railroads where a tenant runs over someone's rails. Factored into that fee/toll would be the cost of the control system and system maintenance, just like on a toll highway.
Might there be special, higher rates for priority users? Maybe. Perhaps a base rate gets you on the tracks in the next available time slot. Plenty of variables too diverse to get into here.
It's possible there may be lines that only have one operator, so they might get standing permission to occupy the tracks at will - kinda like flying below a certain altitude can happen without filing a flight plan.
Turning the rails over to a government entity has issues all by itself. The financial and legal considerations are huge.
Is this ever going to happen? I, too, have my doubts. But if it did, this is one way it could work.
I think Larry's notion is one way it could work. Other countries use one of several varaiations on this idea, so we really do not need to rerinvent the wheel. Dispatching, access, etc. would be arranged by this quasi-government corporation. Whether access would be exclusive for company #3 over stretch C-J or not is one point that would need to be worked out. The fees would pay for day-to-day operation and maintenance for the most part; the government would pay for major expansions or improvements. What the railroads would receive for their RoW would depend on its improved current value, possibbly not including the actual land if it was originally granted by the government. Details, details!
The core principle is to allow the rails to do what they do best and get out of capital-intensive RoW ownership and maintenance, as was pointed out earlier. And no more real estate taxes, however much they actually are.
tree68 Euclid So why should I want to pay taxes for a public railroad line that I don’t need and will never use? I suppose the answer is that I would buy products shipped by that railroad by the independent rail transport companies. You could insert any number of items in place of "Public Railroad Line" - that you never use and never will, but you still pay for. School taxes is one excellent example - if you've never had kids (or they've long since graduated), you are getting absolutely nothing for that rather large property tax bill you pay every year, either directly or indirectly (through your rent)...
Euclid So why should I want to pay taxes for a public railroad line that I don’t need and will never use? I suppose the answer is that I would buy products shipped by that railroad by the independent rail transport companies.
You could insert any number of items in place of "Public Railroad Line" - that you never use and never will, but you still pay for.
School taxes is one excellent example - if you've never had kids (or they've long since graduated), you are getting absolutely nothing for that rather large property tax bill you pay every year, either directly or indirectly (through your rent)...
Oh sure, I realize that. I am just talking about the overall frairness in bulk terms, rather than simple individual exceptions. For instance not everybody who pays for roads drives, but what I am talking about is massive discrepancies in fairness in relative terms.
It is just a general observation about comparing subsidies that is often left out of the conversation. And leaving it out serves to highlight just how complex subsidies really are. HSR boosters always leave it out of the conversation about subsidizing HSR versus subsidizing highways. In relative terms, a whole lot more people would be paying for something they would not use with HSR than would be the case with highways.
But, as I said, I look beyond that and mainly object to governments nationalizing activities in the name of the public good.
But if we set that aside, I would like somebody to clearly explain the details of a proposal to have the public sector take over the operation of railroad lines as they are used by private train companies. Please keep the explanation simple and clear.
Show me how the money changes hands and the advantage over the present system.
EuclidSo why should I want to pay taxes for a public railroad line that I don’t need and will never use? I suppose the answer is that I would buy products shipped by that railroad by the independent rail transport companies.
This comes up every time there is a discussion about the government subsidizing HSR. The discussion always turns to comparing the amount of subsidy to various forms of transportation, and it is inevitably called unjust to heavily subsidize roads while not building HSR.
What is always left out, however, is the distribution of the utility of a means of transport among the taxpayers who would provide the subsidy tax revenue.
The use of HSR would be very narrowly distributed among the taxpayers, whereas, the use of highways is widely enjoyed by taxpayers. So with highways, the payers are getting a relatively fair use out of what they pay for. That would not be the case with HSR.
So why should I want to pay taxes for a public railroad line that I don’t need and will never use? I suppose the answer is that I would buy products shipped by that railroad by the independent rail transport companies.
I think that to discuss this topic, there needs to be a highly defined proposal put on the table, and then we can debate whether it offers any benefit over existing private railroads. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I vote to keep the government out of it. I believe that things get nationalized ostensibly in the public interest, but it is really a pretext to expand government for its own self-interest. If nobody objected, government would nationalize everything in sight.
dehusmanThe part you and Schlimm aren't addressing is that having a train and having a track doesn't get you anything because you still can't MOVE the train. Somebody has to be in charge of dispatching the whole thing. That means either the government/owner of the tracks has to also decide who gets access when (everybody can't be first) and who gets priority, or you have to farm that out to a third party.
schlimm You don't need to own or even lease the roads. Our roads, etc. are pretty good, considering how underfinanced they are because one group in this country doesn't want enough taxes to pay to maintain.
You don't need to own or even lease the roads. Our roads, etc. are pretty good, considering how underfinanced they are because one group in this country doesn't want enough taxes to pay to maintain.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm Murphy Siding Wouldn't this just be a way of transferring the amount of capital invested in the plant from one group of investors (the railroads) to another group of investors (taxpayers). I don’t see what the advantage would be. Would it be that railroad investors want to see a return on their investment, but taxpayers would not? You figure it out. Enough of your pretense at questions.
Murphy Siding Wouldn't this just be a way of transferring the amount of capital invested in the plant from one group of investors (the railroads) to another group of investors (taxpayers). I don’t see what the advantage would be. Would it be that railroad investors want to see a return on their investment, but taxpayers would not?
You figure it out. Enough of your pretense at questions.
To be right up front with you, I am trying to figure it out. It's not working and I don't feel it's because I'm dense. I feel it's because I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Correct me if I'm wrong. You're suggesting that the railroads could invest more money and effort in operating trains and expanding business if someone else's money was used to finance the ROW the trains operate on. That part I understand. Our company owns out delivery trucks. Some of my competitors lease theirs so they have more working capital for other things.
If the government owned the ROW, the railroads would have to lease their use from the government. Yes? Either way, the railroads have an expense involved in covering track expense. That makes sense. To lease a ruck out, a third party will typically borrow money to purchase the truck, and then make payments from the leasing. I would think your scenario would be similar?
Not directed at anyone in particular, just a thought about the government owning the rails.
Exisiting infrastructure in the US is suffering badly for lack of funding and maintenance due to money being siphoned off for other needs and pet projects. Most of that infrastructure is in the custody of local, state and federal government. Would anyone be so naive as to believe those governments would take better care of the rails than they have of other infrastructure? Were the rails to be allowed to deteriorate like our highways our economy would surely suffer.
Opinions welcome.
Norm
dehusmanWhile it wasn't intended for that and isn't being deployed to that end, if you think about it, PTC provides a lot of the infrastructure that would be required for an automated train.
PTC is a road that indeed does lead to automated trains. For the time being, the road ends short of that destination. But I think the practical reality is that the PTC will remain a work in progress of continuous development and improvement just in pursuit of its now stated goal. So it is natural for that goal to be extended right along with the development.
If automatic trains were the goal today, you would need PTC as it is presently defined as an objective for the starting point for the full objective of automatic trains.
schlimmAnd what is your objection to the FRA regulating crew size? Aircrew sizes are regulated.
The government has tried regulating crew size on trains before (full crew laws) and they were horribly inefficient. Air crews are not the same as train crews. If a train crew has a problem I can drive people to the train to help them. Can't do that with an air crew. Technology and labor agreements should drive crew size. We have driverless cars, driverless busses, driverless subways, driverless space craft. Maybe the technology doesn't exist to do driverless or single crew trains today but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be developed in the next couple decades.
So far all the major incremental improvments in safety have been done by improving technology, not by adding people (roller bearings, air brakes, defect scanners, ABS, CTC, PTC, etc).
The government instead should be developing the critera for what conditions should be met to permit any further reductions in crew size that affect safety (train has to have continuity, has to be able to stop in what distance, what failsafes, etc, etc). Don't think any railroad is there yet. Obviously there was woefully inadequate regulation and execution on the part of the MMR.
While it wasn't intended for that and isn't being deployed to that end, if you think about it, PTC provides a lot of the infrastructure that would be required for an automated train.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Murphy SidingWouldn't this just be a way of transferring the amount of capital invested in the plant from one group of investors (the railroads) to another group of investors (taxpayers). I don’t see what the advantage would be. Would it be that railroad investors want to see a return on their investment, but taxpayers would not?
wanswheel schlimm Had you bothered to read more carefully, you would see I proposed a quasi-government corporation own RoW, not own operating railways. Had you never begun a sentence with ‘had you’ before I’d be stung. The government (FRA) already proposes two-man crews. If they own the rails they’re the landlord, and tenants accept terms (two-man crews, for instance).
schlimm Had you bothered to read more carefully, you would see I proposed a quasi-government corporation own RoW, not own operating railways.
Had you bothered to read more carefully, you would see I proposed a quasi-government corporation own RoW, not own operating railways.
Had you never begun a sentence with ‘had you’ before I’d be stung.
The government (FRA) already proposes two-man crews. If they own the rails they’re the landlord, and tenants accept terms (two-man crews, for instance).
And what is your objection to the FRA regulating crew size? Aircrew sizes are regulated.
While open access implies that any qualified entity can operate a train to and from any point, it also implies that nobody has to serve any point. The owner of a small grain elevator on the Weedgrown Branch may think that open access will give him a better rate for his small grain shipments but he could wind up with no service at all since nobody could afford to go there.
schlimm ....... This general idea is a simply a way of enhancing what could be a capitalistic, free-market business by reducing the amount of capital tied up in plant.
....... This general idea is a simply a way of enhancing what could be a capitalistic, free-market business by reducing the amount of capital tied up in plant.
Wouldn't this just be a way of transferring the amount of capital invested in the plant from one group of investors (the railroads) to another group of investors (taxpayers). I don’t see what the advantage would be. Would it be that railroad investors want to see a return on their investment, but taxpayers would not?
daveklepper BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD: Stub-end siding saw-by:
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD:
What IS the point of this post? Sidings, tracks used to meet or pass trains are double ended as a practical matter. Even on a modestly trafficed line they were typically about ten miles apart, say 30 minute travel time.
No dispatcher in his right mind would set up this move due to the huge delay it would impose on both trains. If a siding had the switch at one end out of service, the solution is to make the meet at an adjacent siding because even if one train is disadvantaged, it will be delayed far less than making this move would have been even in the days of four or five man crews and cabooses.
You might as well discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
Mac McCulloch
Paul_D_North_JrIf you think about it, building and maintaining the track has little in common with running the trains in terms of 'core competencies' - they just happen to have a common physical interface/ connection at the top of the rails.
The part you and Schlimm aren't addressing is that having a train and having a track doesn't get you anything because you still can't MOVE the train. Somebody has to be in charge of dispatching the whole thing. That means either the government/owner of the tracks has to also decide who gets access when (everybody can't be first) and who gets priority, or you have to farm that out to a third party.
In that case you now have 3 competing entities all with conflicting priorities and nobody really having ownership of the complete operation.
That's why the US system is the most efficient. There is clear ability to set priorities and coordinate activities to maximize efforts across all functions.
wanswheel If the government owned the rails, trains would probably have firemen again. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/03/15/2016-05553/train-crew-staffing “FRA proposes regulations establishing minimum requirements for the size of train crew staffs depending on the type of operation. A minimum requirement of two crewmembers is proposed for all railroad operations, with exceptions proposed for those operations that FRA believes do not pose significant safety risks to railroad employees, the general public, and the environment by using fewer than two-person crews. This proposed rule would also establish minimum requirements for the roles and responsibilities of the second train crewmember on a moving train, and promote safe and effective teamwork.”
If the government owned the rails, trains would probably have firemen again.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/03/15/2016-05553/train-crew-staffing
“FRA proposes regulations establishing minimum requirements for the size of train crew staffs depending on the type of operation. A minimum requirement of two crewmembers is proposed for all railroad operations, with exceptions proposed for those operations that FRA believes do not pose significant safety risks to railroad employees, the general public, and the environment by using fewer than two-person crews. This proposed rule would also establish minimum requirements for the roles and responsibilities of the second train crewmember on a moving train, and promote safe and effective teamwork.”
Wanswheel said: [in part] "...If the government owned the rails, trains would probably have......"?
Seems like "Groundhog Day" on the Forum.. It appears this topic of "Long Trains and Short Sidings" is devolving into a discussion of Open Access..
That being the case: Then you have to discuss WHO, or WHICH entity is going to HAVE TO PAY for use of the existing infrastructure? Brought about by what would be almost a Total Paradigm shift for American Business.
How will the improvements, and those costs to that existing infrastructure be parceled out ?
Who will deteermine the schedule of adding enhancements to the existing railroad infrastructure?
Will the "USERS" or "The Owners" of said existing infrastructure be responsible for paying for those enhancements?
So does the Federal Government just step in, and take-over the existing infrastructure from current owners and operators? Then run the National Rail Network as if it were 'open access' similar to our National Network of Airlanes, and airports?
Does the 'Government simply declare or deem that each rail operator PAY a Toll for its use between specific points?
HOW, or WHO will establish 'priorties' for usage by the rail operators?
WHO wil control 'The Controlers' ? Then you get down to the afore mentioned ' Crews' Lots of questions there as well.
Murphy SidingOK, so the railroads would then lease the tracks from the government? This sounds like how a lot of small town post offices operate now. How is spending government funds to own the tracks much different than spending government funds to just subsidize the railroads?
No - the operators would pay tolls to use the tracks. Never mind that figuring out those tolls would be a can of worms...
As Schlimm points out - anyone meeting established requirements could then use the rails. With the coordination that would be required, methinks you'd have a combination of toll roads and FAA air traffic control.
Thus, if you wanted to buy a locomotive or three and bid a contract to haul a commodity from A to B, you could. Or a person could go to work for one of the big companies...
Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm Very different. It lets the rails (freight and passenger, public or private) operate trains on public RoWs, like truck companies on public roads, doing what they do best. It frees up huge amounts of capital. Not lease. Compete for routings and pay an access fee. It also allows more efficient routings than now. Amazingly, none other than Trains' Professional Iconoclast John G. Kneiling (a conservative capitalist if ever there was one) advocated such a system in the 1960's and 1970's. That was to enable innovation in equipment and services - such as his pet integral bulk and container trains - independent of the poorly-run railroads then owning the track. He liked to point out that was the intention or business model of the early railroad enterprises, but the operating and control methods of the day weren't up to supporting such a system. So what we got instead was the ownership and maintenance of the track combined with the operation of trains (also marketing). If you think about it, building and maintaining the track has little in common with running the trains in terms of 'core competencies' - they just happen to have a common physical interface/ connection at the top of the rails. - Paul North.
schlimm Very different. It lets the rails (freight and passenger, public or private) operate trains on public RoWs, like truck companies on public roads, doing what they do best. It frees up huge amounts of capital. Not lease. Compete for routings and pay an access fee. It also allows more efficient routings than now.
Amazingly, none other than Trains' Professional Iconoclast John G. Kneiling (a conservative capitalist if ever there was one) advocated such a system in the 1960's and 1970's. That was to enable innovation in equipment and services - such as his pet integral bulk and container trains - independent of the poorly-run railroads then owning the track.
He liked to point out that was the intention or business model of the early railroad enterprises, but the operating and control methods of the day weren't up to supporting such a system. So what we got instead was the ownership and maintenance of the track combined with the operation of trains (also marketing).
If you think about it, building and maintaining the track has little in common with running the trains in terms of 'core competencies' - they just happen to have a common physical interface/ connection at the top of the rails.
- Paul North.
Thanks for pointing out Kneiling's view on this. This general idea is a simply a way of enhancing what could be a capitalistic, free-market business by reducing the amount of capital tied up in plant.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.