OAT : Open Access Thread

[TH&B]

Quote; Murphy siding;
"I'm just wondering how well this guy is at predicting the future. I thought that ,maybe as a comparison, someone could find predictions from 28 years ago,to see if they predicted 2005 correctly. In about 2nd grade (1968), we were taught that by the far-in-the-distant year of 2000, people would all drive floating cars like the Jetsons."

That is exactly why I refuse to get a late model car, I mean by now cars were to have no wheels and stuff. I'd love to "supe up" my Plymouth Fury with no wheels on and faster then it ever was hehehehe.

Anyways anybody that ever predicts the future correctly I always consider a coinsidence, nobody knows and there are so many angles. If you guessed right, good for you but it's still a coincidence.

If somebody invented the partical beam transporter, would that doom the railroads? or would trains still be a cheap and slow way of moving the majority of low value tonnage?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, it comes down to whose predictions you put faith in. If you believed in the theories of the population bomb, if you believed back in the late 70's that if Ronald Reagan got elected there would be a nuclear war before his first term was up, if you believed that disco was here to stay and that rock and roll was dead, well you'd have been wrong. If however, you believed those who saw a brighter future for the U.S., if you believed those who said Soviet communism would be defeated, if you believed those who said that the Berlin wall would come down and the Germany's would be reunited, well then you would have been right. It all depends on the moral, spiritual, intellectual, and relative optimism of the predicter in question. Those who always see the glass half empty are usually less vindicated than those who see the glass half full.

So........You can put faith in whomever's predictions you feel fit *your* prediction of the future? That doesn't work! My car still has wheels.[;)]


...........Meet George Jetson..........

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, it comes down to whose predictions you put faith in. If you believed in the theories of the population bomb, if you believed back in the late 70's that if Ronald Reagan got elected there would be a nuclear war before his first term was up, if you believed that disco was here to stay and that rock and roll was dead, well you'd have been wrong. If however, you believed those who saw a brighter future for the U.S., if you believed those who said Soviet communism would be defeated, if you believed those who said that the Berlin wall would come down and the Germany's would be reunited, well then you would have been right. It all depends on the moral, spiritual, intellectual, and relative optimism of the predicter in question. Those who always see the glass half empty are usually less vindicated than those who see the glass half full.

So........You can put faith in whomever's predictions you feel fit *your* prediction of the future? That doesn't work! My car still has wheels.[;)]


...........Meet George Jetson..........

No, you misunderstand. What I am trying to point out is that those whose predictions tend toward optimism are right more often than those whose predictions tend toward pessimism.

[Murphy Siding]

How ironic! Since the writer in question has predictions that tend toward pessimism,he has a less than 50% chance of being right.[;)]. The Jetson prediction was quite optimistic.[:)]


..........His boy Elroy.......

[Anonymous]

Hmm.

I admit, I didn't read the whole thread - but here goes.

How about IO actually providing track and locomotives - thus any transport company would pay for HPs and Car-Miles. Without much hassle it would nicely un-captivate captive shippers if the rate for Car-Mile and HP was fixed systemwide.

Another option - would be if RRs allowed 'fair use' - eg infrastructure is open for anyone but:
A train can load or unload on given RR trackage, but cannot do both on the same RR.
RR's trains get the priority in dispatching
The train can run at most 50% of its run on the RR in question.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

How ironic! Since the writer in question has predictions that tend toward pessimism,he has a less than 50% chance of being right.[;)]. The Jetson prediction was quite optimistic.[:)]


..........His boy Elroy.......

Yes, and if we parse his statements, we can see that his prediction of open access is an optimistic view of the future, so it will probably come to pass. His predictions of hydrocarbon fuel shortages are pessimistic, so they will probably be proved wrong.

Speaking of the Jetson's, did you ever wonder why they never showed the surface of the planet, only the skybuildings, or why they never explained why everything was up in the sky? What was so terrible down there that they couldn't show it on Saturday morning kiddie friendly time slots[?]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

How ironic! Since the writer in question has predictions that tend toward pessimism,he has a less than 50% chance of being right.[;)]. The Jetson prediction was quite optimistic.[:)]


..........His boy Elroy.......

Yes, and if we parse his statements, we can see that his prediction of open access is an optimistic view of the future, so it will probably come to pass. His predictions of hydrocarbon fuel shortages are pessimistic, so they will probably be proved wrong.

Speaking of the Jetson's, did you ever wonder why they never showed the surface of the planet, only the skybuildings, or why they never explained why everything was up in the sky? What was so terrible down there that they couldn't show it on Saturday morning kiddie friendly time slots[?]

What makes you think there was a planet down there? Think outside of the box.[:)]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, it comes down to whose predictions you put faith in. If you believed in the theories of the population bomb, if you believed back in the late 70's that if Ronald Reagan got elected there would be a nuclear war before his first term was up, if you believed that disco was here to stay and that rock and roll was dead, well you'd have been wrong. If however, you believed those who saw a brighter future for the U.S., if you believed those who said Soviet communism would be defeated, if you believed those who said that the Berlin wall would come down and the Germany's would be reunited, well then you would have been right. It all depends on the moral, spiritual, intellectual, and relative optimism of the predicter in question. Those who always see the glass half empty are usually less vindicated than those who see the glass half full.

So........You can put faith in whomever's predictions you feel fit *your* prediction of the future? That doesn't work! My car still has wheels.[;)]


...........Meet George Jetson..........

No, you misunderstand. What I am trying to point out is that those whose predictions tend toward optimism are right more often than those whose predictions tend toward pessimism.

In 1918, the world thought they had just finished "The War to end all Wars" [V] I'll bet that if someone did serious research,pessimism vs.optimism would be a 50-50 tie.

[Murphy Siding]

Dave: Read "Broken Rails" by Christien Wolmar. It's about the privatisation of the British system, and the pitfalls of seperating infrastructur from operations.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Dave: Read "Broken Rails" by Christien Wolmar. It's about the privatisation of the British system, and the pitfalls of seperating infrastructur from operations.

If and when I have time, I might peruse it, but it is a safe bet to say that the book was written by a socialist pessimist. Whenever there is change for the positive on the whole, there is always a minority group that loses out. I expect Mr. Wolmar is one of that loser group. "Broken Rails" sounds like a British railroad version of Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed", a total hack job on the fine Chevy Corvair back in the early 60's.

Here's a metaphoric equivelance - Writing a nasty critique of something that is having the predictable startup snafus in it's infancy aka Network Rail is like someone back in the 1790's writing a nasty critique of representative democracy based on the early problems experienced by the newly formed United States of America. Time has proven the superiority of representative democracy, and time will prove the superiority of open access.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Dave: Read "Broken Rails" by Christien Wolmar. It's about the privatisation of the British system, and the pitfalls of seperating infrastructur from operations.

If and when I have time, I might peruse it, but it is a safe bet to say that the book was written by a socialist pessimist. Whenever there is change for the positive on the whole, there is always a minority group that loses out. I expect Mr. Wolmar is one of that loser group. "Broken Rails" sounds like a British railroad version of Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed", a total hack job on the fine Chevy Corvair back in the early 60's.

Here's a metaphoric equivelance - Writing a nasty critique of something that is having the predictable startup snafus in it's infancy aka Network Rail is like someone back in the 1790's writing a nasty critique of representative democracy based on the early problems experienced by the newly formed United States of America. Time has proven the superiority of representative democracy, and time will prove the superiority of open access.

While the author definately does have *issues*, it deals a lot with the political and financial issues,similar to a lot of what this thread has been about.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It is most interesting to note that most of the "optimists" who believe that OA (it seems to mean different things to different people) is the wave of the future are also subscribing to the Marxian concept (and fallacy) of historic inevitability. A review of past predictions often shows that flows of events are often turned on seemingly unrelated or minor occurences.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

It is most interesting to note that most of the "optimists" who believe that OA (it seems to mean different things to different people) is the wave of the future are also subscribing to the Marxian concept (and fallacy) of historic inevitability. A review of past predictions often shows that flows of events are often turned on seemingly unrelated or minor occurences.

Whodathunk that you could kill thousands and thousands of people with one bullet? (WW1).

I think it's been said before (I'm not reviewing the entire thread to find out) that economics will drive the entire process. When OA becomes economically desireable, it will happen. Notice that I didn't use the word "feasable."

[Murphy Siding]

So ..... When do I get my Jetson car?......(pretend there's a smilie icon here that looks like an "intelligent donkey")

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

So ..... When do I get my Jetson car?......(pretend there's a smilie icon here that looks like an "intelligent donkey")

Click you heels three times and repeat "there's not place like home, there's no place like home......"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

It is most interesting to note that most of the "optimists" who believe that OA (it seems to mean different things to different people) is the wave of the future are also subscribing to the Marxian concept (and fallacy) of historic inevitability. A review of past predictions often shows that flows of events are often turned on seemingly unrelated or minor occurences.

Why would you equate historic inevitability with Marx? Look at the stock market - it is historically inevitable that the stock market will continue to rise in the long run, and it has since it's inception despite the occasional downturn. The stock market is the antithesis of Marx.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

So ..... When do I get my Jetson car?......(pretend there's a smilie icon here that looks like an "intelligent donkey")

Click you heels three times and repeat "there's not place like home, there's no place like home......"

[(-D] There you go Dave. Keep excercising that sense of humor, otherwise it'll get out of shape, and unuseable.[:)]

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE:

[Why would you equate historic inevitability with Marx? Look at the stock market - it is historically inevitable that the stock market will continue to rise in the long run, and

Does it? Historically it has, but in Britain it hasn't done so well over the last few years, which is why we;ve got the pensions crisis right now. (Lots of pension funds have not got enoug money to pay out pensions to their members).

Futuremodal - before dismissing Mr. Wolmar's book I suggest you read it. It might even broaden your mind.

I don;t know if you read my post about the Nantle Tramway in Wales on the British Operations thred but just to re-cap. The Nantle Tramway original worked on open access principles when in opened in 1828 but by the 1850's the problems this caused resulted in it becoming vertically integrated. By then it needed to upgrade itself to locomotive operation which it did so by selling itself to the London & North Western Raiwlay, which by then was one of the 4 largest railways in Britain.

[Anonymous]

Tulyar - It's not that I'm dismissing Wolmar's book so much as what I think is a valuable use of my precious time and resources. Open Access is a concept that is a result of natural evolution of transportation systems, and it has proved itself invaluable in it's economic benefits to society. Since the title of the book is a dead giveaway as to it's spin, it is unlikely that my reading it will result in any benefits to me or my POV. It would be like me taking the time to read a book espousing the benefits of Marxism after we all have seen the superior benefits of capitalism (which is something we had to do in college). We already know the truth of Marxism vs capitalism, so why engrouse ourselves in a regurgitation of a failed system? There's much better reading out there.

It is irrefutable that a transportation system that extracts monopolistic powers over domestic producers has a detrimental effect on a domestic economy. Any nation that continues to allow such degradation of domestic production via inhibited transportation parameters in favor of sustaining an import transportation system with competitive characteristics is a nation that is not long for this planet. Australia has learned this, most of the European nations have learned this, most Asian nations have learned this, but somehow this realization has escaped the notice of North America's social leaders.

Would that this nation called the USA could have a rail system wherein the participants fall all over themselves to get domestic production to market or to port the way they currently fall all over themselves to bring in cheap Chinese imports (and practically at cost.)

[CrazyDiamond]

Before I read this thread through....(I got a whole new year to do it [;)] ) I wanted to say that the telecommunications industry went through the same thing. The incumbents fought hard to keep the system closed with practically no competition to local and long distance telephone services.

The CRTC& FCC both rules differently and mandated the incuments open up their network access to competitiors. Approx 15 years later, after a pile of bickering from all parties, we have the following:

#1 Lower customer prices.
#2 Rapid deployment of truly innovative services.
#3 Companies have downsized, become very efficient, and are quite profitable.
#4 Companies that failed to deliver #1, #2, and #3, have been eliminated via competition, and bankruptcy, or were swallowed up via mergers&acquisitions and then turned around into a company that delivered #1, #2, #3.

While acknowledging that the telecommunications industry is very different than the RR industry, I see no reason why the RR industry would not expereince the same growing pains and then long term benefits like other industries have.

Why do you think the tractor-trailor trucking industry has flourished no nicely.....because they have been allowed to compete against one another on open access infrastructure. The dead wood gets eliminated, and those companies that bring true value to the customers dollars will continue to grow and flourish.

Bring on RR OA I say!!!

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond
While acknowledging that the telecommunications industry is very different than the RR industry, I see no reason why the RR industry would not expereince the same growing pains and then long term benefits like other industries have.

British Rail sounds like it followed the standard deregulation model rather than anything in partiular to do with OA. Because there has been so much of it over the past 25 years, deregulated industries have probably gotten more attention than any other type. They follow a pattern. British Rail sounds like it followed that pattern. Is that an argument against OA, or for that matter an argument against deregulation? In the long run, as telecommunications shows, both deregulation and open access became strong positives.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH


13. Why would any trucking company want to run its own trains? The capital investment in locomotives, cars and Z-van trailers would be steep. They would also have to hire train crews. Other labor contract issues would also need to be addressed and could be quite expensive in their own right.

I would think, if market conditions are right, they could use a RR business to help drive their trucking business, and vice versa. Instead of the trucking company operating the RR business directly, it would be a case of a holding company (i.e CrazyDiamond Holdings) owning a: trucking company, a RR company, and maybe even a postal/courier company, etc, etc.

Each individual company is managed by a team solely dedicated to making that company the best possible company in the marktet, and driven to take business away from fellow competitors. The holding company would have a team of managers dedicated to integrating the companies so that the hand-off of traffic to one another is done efficently, effectively, economically, and from in ways that meet/exceed customer expections.

There are companies in various industries that are doing/trying this, and some are proving to be very successful at leverage each daughter company to drive business for their sister companies.

[Murphy Siding]

I would suggest you go back and read some of those 20 pages. The thread was started to somewhat consolidate all the discussions (both good and bad ) about open access that *flared up*(?) on other threads. There is lots of good stuff, and a fair amount of arguing to wade through. Also, the first couple of pages of the British Railways Operations thread discusses open access in Britain. It contains a fair amount of input from posters in Britain, and it's quite informative as well.

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I would suggest you go back and read some of those 20 pages.

Who me? Gee, I just started today, and managed to get the first few pages read in what little time I had. [?]

[Anonymous]

I would suggest one thing: OA would work better for the NA rail system if it was introduced incrementally, rather than a one time wholesale changeover. We already have areas where two or more railroads use a single line's trackage, so an OA introduction is not without precident. Some of those regional railroads and those currenly underutilized Class I lines would make the best candidates for an OA changeover.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

One issue that has barely been addressed in this whole thread is the issue of labor relations. Open access would almost certainly be viewed as a union-busting tactic by both the operating and non-operating unions, and not without some justification. Guilford's use of Springfield Terminal to get around existing contracts and a similar attempt by BN with Winona Bridge could be cited. One of the goals of power-by-the-hour leases by BN was to outsource locomotive maintenance away from existing contracts with the shopcraft unions.
While the various railroad unions do not quite have the influence and power of the GCT in France, labor resistance to open access can be a real barrier that could be quite difficult to overcome.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue that has barely been addressed in this whole thread is the issue of labor relations. Open access would almost certainly be viewed as a union-busting tactic by both the operating and non-operating unions, and not without some justification.

Certainly can't deny said possibility, but one has only to look at the very Open Access trucking industry to see that unions can and do flourish in that environment.

What is going to be problematic is the blurring of craft lines - always an issue with labor. What happens when a truck driver climbs aboard a locomotive in a small local facility and shuffles some cars around for loading (for which he also runs the loader)?