BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD:
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).
daveklepper BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD: Stub-end siding saw-by:
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
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?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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).
And what is your objection to the FRA regulating crew size? Aircrew sizes are regulated.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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?
You figure it out. Enough of your pretense at questions.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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?
As on CMStPnP's thread on WSOR, the government can and does contract out maintenance and dispatching, etc.
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?
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?
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?
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.
tree68The 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...
I was thinking along those lines, but don't you get into the question of having qualified crews? I guess they could contract with another road to furnish pilots or to run the trains for them. Eventually each road could have their own crews qualified all over the country, and eventually that might lead to more mergers. Then again, with much more elaborate signage and signals, maybe any crew could take a train anywhere the way it is with highways. We can go on and on.... I'm just rambling here, so don't take this too seriously.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington I'm just rambling here, so don't take this too seriously.
As are we all....
Going back to the airlines (and for that matter, the highways), any pilot who's worth his salt can take any airplane (at least that he knows how to fly) and fly from any airport, to any airport.
Along the way, all control is consistent. The navaids are all the same, including those needed for landing.
Yes, there are "those" airports. And there are "those" railroad lines. So you have to pick up a "pilot." Ships often use pilots for waterways the captain isn't familiar with. So do railroads, for that matter...
Bringing that back to the rails, signals would have to be consistent nationwide, and so would rules and procedures.
THE LONG TRAINS WITH SHORT SIDINGS THREAD WAS PROMTED BY MEMORIES OF STORIES TOLD ME BACK IN 1953 ON THE BOSTON AND MAINE. IF THESE SORT OF THINGS DO NOT HAPPEN ANYWHERE, EVEN IN EMERGENCIES, TODAY, SO BE IT. AND THE FACT THAT THE THREAD HAS MOVED ON TO A POSSIBLY MORE RELEVENT TOPIC DOES NOT BOTHER ME.
If a locomotive was like a car you could just put the gear selector in "P" and step on the parking brake. For good measure the engineer could put pennies on the rail on both sides of each engine wheel. But with so many rules you railroaders have to put up with, I bet the brakeman speaks up now and then to ask "are we there yet"? I once applied at a smaller local railroad but never got a call back. I don't think real railroading is for me. I enjoy switching. I need to clean off my train table and lay my new Gargraves stainless steel track.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.