OAT : Open Access Thread

[edblysard]

Well, if you don’t have an opinion, then you just wasted a lot of time and computer work...
Quite a few of your statements sounded a lot like opinions.

And what’s up with your obsession with your age...you think being old is better...that works with wine and bleu cheese...not necessarily with all people.

And what makes you think you get to choose the contents of any question and tthe relevance they have to what you see as a single topic thread?

Explain again why your are the only person who gets to decide what is, and is not asked?
After all, you seem to be the only one objecting.


But last question, why didn’t Milwaukee embrace open access?
The concept was around, even way back in the old days when you toted water...
Ed

[Anonymous]

And just how much time does it take to form that 100 loose car consist? vs forming a 25 car consist? How much additional time is taken to break apart that 100 loose car consist on the opposite end? vs breaking up the 25 car consist on the other end? And don't those 25 car consists often get to go direct to the end destination, while the 100 car consist often needs to be broken up and rebuilt at some intermediary yard, perhaps having to go hundreds of miles out of the way just to be torn down/rebuilt? This is the conundrum of the loose car business, there is needless inefficiency encapsulated in the "efficient" long slow consist concept.

I notice that neither you nor greyhounds has dared comment on the one carload per month observation, a sad reality of today's "efficient" railroads. It's not just track that is being tied up by the long slow concept, it's rolling stock as well.

Regarding the BNSF grain shuttles, from the shipper's perspective it is an added capital cost because they can't get BNSF to simply collect and consolidate the 26 and 52 car shuttles from the outlying elevators into the long consist that BNSF demands, instead forcing longer truck shipments to the 110 car facilities. If I operated a Montana short line as you suggest, I can guarantee you I would prefer to run my own "inefficent" trains to Portland or Kalama and pay a true track user fee to BNSF, than put up with BNSF's demands that I truck all the grain to their 110 car facility.

[Murphy Siding]

Ed: That was an "uber" interesting thread-thanks.[^]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And what makes you think you get to choose the contents of any question and tthe relevance they have to what you see as a single topic thread?

Explain again why your are the only person who gets to decide what is, and is not asked?

After all, you seem to be the only one objecting.

If other people actually enjoy your emotional name-calling diatribes ... well, I like the idea of coherent threads that deal with facts and honest discussions, not a bunch of ad hominem and sarcastic babbling. I don't have all day, like you apparently do despite the demands of assembling trains, to read this stuff and to read all about your personal problems and weird statements.

Actually, since you bring it up, I had specifically asked you what you knew about European railroading, since you had brought up your knowledge of European railroading, and it did seem relevant to this thread.

Ironically, you were the one who failed, or couldn't, answer.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

But last question, why didn’t Milwaukee embrace open access?
The concept was around, even way back in the old days when you toted water...

I understand, fully now, that you don't see the connection between the fully regulated environment that Milwaukee Road operated under, and the discussion of Open Access as it relates to the current problems resuting from de-regulation when there are no longer competing rail lines within economic trucking distance at many localities.

Congress set National Rail Policy and the ICC implemented it. National Rail Policy at that time promoted the idea of competition between carriers.

There is not a single reference to Open Access anywhere in the National Rail Policy at the time Milwaukee Road existed. Milwaukee Road, and all Class I carriers, operated under the National Rail Policy. Milwaukee did not set that policy. Nor did any other Class I carrier. Nor did Ed.

Based on a National Rail Policy that did not even recognize the concept, why do you think Milwaukee Road didn't "embrace" Open Access?

I am gathering that based on your youth and inexperience in the rail industry, you never dealt with the ICC of that era. If you had, you would know and understand the answer to your question.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[edblysard]

My experience with European railroads is limited to several discussions with their crews, in particular, a crew on a Soviet freight train.
We exchanged several ideas, and email addresses, and still keep in contact. with each other, along with several other railroaders from different parts of the world.
A very good friend of mine works for a British freight railroad, and if he had his way, they would scrap the entire system they use now, and go back to what he refers to as the good days.
Given the fact that the current system has turned his "out and back in a day" run into an "lucky if we get out and when we do, we just wait" run, I can see his point.

And I didn’t ask if open access was part of the national rail policy at the time, I posed the question that, given the fact that open access was an idea that existed at the time, why didn’t your railroad attempt it?

And to add to the question, since the ICC is now gone, and the surf board seems to be willing to interpret the rules a little more loosely, why don’t the current Class1 roads embrace it today?

As for why I don’t think they embraced it then, well, no liked the idea of going bankrupt any faster than they already were.
It wasn’t a workable concept back then, and I don’t see it working today either, at least not under the current form of government we have.

Still stuck with the age thing?
Man, jealousy and bitterness really isnt good emotional baggage to carry around for long, maybe you should seek professional help...
Both of my sisters are medical professionals, the oldest one is a professor at the University of New Mexico, at Albuquerque, maybe if your close enough, she can make a referral for you?


Ed

[Junctionfan]

I am not a big fan of pure open access as it reminds me of the chaos of highways. People can seem to get where they are supposed to due to conjestion, people don't drive worth a darn most of the time and cause accidents or more conjestion, nobody car pools and well...............it's just to busy (I said that already). With open access, I picture folk running signals, rail-rage, accidents, EOT to headlight traffic (bumper to bumper), lots of short trains occupying one big block and making problems with the bigger and higher priority ones, lot's of honking, plenty of folk waiting at crossings, and alot more Senator McCain and Secretary Mineta supporters.

[bobwilcox]

In summary, you experience as a railroader was working a couple of summers in MOW, two years on a staff job and two years doing something else. This all happened a long time in the past. Since then you have been one of the expert witnesses we hired by the dozen. Of course that was fair since the other side would dip into the same pool for their expert witnesses.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Great...
And your position at the Milwaukee?
Ed

Well, actually, thinking about it, my first job with the Milwaukee was when you were about seven or eight years old. It was a temporary position, a couple of summers, on and off for fire control/prevention. Hot sweaty work, and the backpack water pump seemed about as heavy as I was. Yeah, railroad work on the tracks in the middle of fire season is hot, sweaty, dirty, hard work. Not to mention snakes. I don't know if you actually did anything like that, or just like to hint around that you did, but I actually did some of it, and so my experience is something more tangible than your plaintive complaints about how tough it is in the trenches.

What did you do on track crews?

But for my real job, later on, for the first two years of it I was assigned to the Office of the President, under Curtiss Crippen.

Oddly enough.

After four years, I resigned and took a position with the US Department of Agriculture in a research, engineering, and transportation related capacity.

Ten years later I went back into the private sector. I retired last year after 15 years as a director of a national corporation, but was brought back this spring as Chairman of the committee to oversee the selection of a director to a streamlined board. I was working on that today as a matter of fact.

During my last year as an active director, it was my sad duty to ask our president to resign, based on apparent financial misfeasance. I also had the unpleasant duty to report the matter to the attorney general of the state involved. The president was an old friend of mine, but the accounting didn't add up. And I didn't like the way that our annual reports emphasized the good news, but made the bad news almost undiscoverable. Normal accounting analysis showed something quite wrong. The problem is, few folks ever take the time. I did, and I didn't like what I saw. The corporation has been completely reorganized as a result.

Aside from private sector activities, I have railroad consulted on the side, and aside from numerous economic studies for clients, have appeared as an expert witness before the Interstate Commerce Commission on traffic related matters, subject to serious cross-examination by railroad attorneys. During one memorable moment, I was able to conclusively show that the Vice President, Market Development and Pricing, had completely misinterpreted the carloading data regarding the Burlington Northern merger impacts. And I was using the raw data he had personally provided to me!

Much of this has been in conjunction with the practice of law which I have done for a quarter century now. I primarily do business and transportation law with some emphasis on Constitutional law. I recently won a Supreme Court case on First Amendment grounds, and was asked three weeks ago to submit an Amicus Brief on a Supreme Court case, for which the brief will primarily be a constitutional argument regarding "status" relationships between litigating parties.

I have also been a University faculty member for about 20 years.

Now, once again, what does any of this have to do with Open Access and the fact that I have repeatedly stated I don't have a particular opinion on railroad Open Access proposals? What is your obsession?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And I didn’t ask if open access was part of the national rail policy at the time, I posed the question that, given the fact that open access was an idea that existed at the time, why didn’t your railroad attempt it?

If you don't get the connection between what railroads were permitted to do in the era of regulation, and the idea that a railroad couldn't just decide to go off and introduce a new model into a highly regulated system on its own, well, you obviously don't understand that era and the specific role of the National Rail Policy which controlled mergers, passenger service, rates, and just about everything else railroads did.

As a specific matter of fact, the Milwaukee Road did entertain a proposal, called the Frank Quinn Plan (no relation to the Chairman), which was very close to an Open Access proposal. And if I recall correctly, it was the dauntihg prospect of seeking regulatory approval that finally killed the plan although some employees felt that it was an innate lethargy and inability of the Milwaukee and the industry as a whole (the idea was marketed to other railroads as well) to consider or adopt new ideas that actually killed the plan. Well, I'm sure you already knew that.

QUOTE: why don’t the current Class1 roads embrace it today?

I have already stated, multiple times now, I don't have an opinion on whether it would be a good idea for railroads or not. Unlike you, I simply don't know enough about it to generate strong opinions on the topic. I do specifically state, early on, coming from an earlier era of Class I railroading, I'm probably not comfortable with the idea at all. But, you are the know-it-all, and you already have all the answers, why ask anyone else? I don't think you even want an actual answer to anything, it would interrupt your flow of knowledge outbound which apparently has been a one-way street for quite some time.

QUOTE: As for why I don’t think they embraced it then, well, no liked the idea of going bankrupt any faster than they already were.
It wasn’t a workable concept back then, and I don’t see it working today either, at least not under the current form of government we have.

Well, see, you already know all the answers about "why" railroads did things, even 35 years ago. Nationalization was specifically discussed during the period, 1978-1980. Railway Age I believe ran some commentary on it. The economic turnaround changed everything for railroads, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief. However, while the idea that organizational structures are inherently adverse to change undoubtedly has nothing to do with it at all, as I also stated I doubt anything like this would be considered at all unless there were a major financial crisis in the railroad industry. And then, I specifically stated, I am sure it would be one of the options that would be discussed. What is so unclear about all of this?

QUOTE: Still stuck with the age thing?

Actually you brought up your age and financial status, which I thought odd for a thread on Open Access in railroading. I don't particularly care about your life story, but since you initiated the topic, I am reminding you at each opportunity that I do think it odd that a 46 year old man throws 12 year old tantrums on internet forums. So yeah, your specific invocation of "the age" thing prompts me to remind you at every opportunity that your experience is limited, and if you act like a twelve year old, you will be treated like one.

QUOTE: Man, jealousy and bitterness really isnt good emotional baggage to carry around for long, maybe you should seek professional help...

You are probably the expert on this too. Personal experience?

Maybe other people enjoy your ranting and raving on this thread, but I think its inappropriate to say the least. Your dishonest representation of my remarks on another thread wasn't corrected by you until you were caught, and your "correction" was equally dishonest. I have a particular sensitivity to people who fabricate remarks or shade data. You have shown yourself to be dishonest in that regard. You are careless with the truth, your credibility is zero.

To reiterate. My "contribution" to this topic was limited to a very few observations. First, there are specific studies out there on the topic. Interestingly, of all the people who have opinions all over the place, only one, Futurmodal, actually asked for a copy of that study. Notably, you didn't. ask for a copy because you aren't really interested in how it might work or how the numbers might play out. You already have perfect knowledge. Why bother to actually study something? As I also pointed out, that study comes to a negative conclusion about the concept. Now why do you "think" I would point to a study that comes to a negative conclusion about Open Access?

My second point was that there is an existing open access model. Open Access is not a theoretical construct, but actually happens to be the rule, rather than the exception. Of course you pointed out you "knew" all about that too, because some relative builds highways and of course that makes him an expert on Open Access models. Another interesting connection. Osmosis, I suppose. But, it was odd, you didn't seem to be able to point it out at the time.

Thirdly, adopting an Open Access model in the freight rail industry is not going to happen voluntarily. It will take a crisis to even consider it.

Finally, discussion of alternative models is a useful process, as it can illuminate weaknesses in existing models and, if there is a crisis, point the way to alternatives in an industry where no one can really afford to let a railroad go bankrupt anymore.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[oltmannd]

Open Access analogy:

In rural WV, there are THOUSANDS of old "company houses" than have had indoor plumbing added on where the septic system is a pipe straight into the stream out back. (really! I'm not making this up!)

Almost none of the people in these homes could afford a proper septic system, but you might make a case that the ones who can and do have proper septic systems should afford those who don't "open access" for the common good. The user would have to bring his own TP and pay the owner per flush!

(and maybe you thought this thread couldn't go any lower!)

[bobwilcox]

Michael - Once again its time to take a deep breath.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And I didn’t ask if open access was part of the national rail policy at the time, I posed the question that, given the fact that open access was an idea that existed at the time, why didn’t your railroad attempt it?

If you don't get the connection between what railroads were permitted to do in the era of regulation, and the idea that a railroad couldn't just decide to go off and introduce a new model into a highly regulated system on its own, well, you obviously don't understand that era and the specific role of the National Rail Policy which controlled mergers, passenger service, rates, and just about everything else railroads did.

As a specific matter of fact, the Milwaukee Road did entertain a proposal, called the Frank Quinn Plan (no relation to the Chairman), which was very close to an Open Access proposal. And if I recall correctly, it was the dauntihg prospect of seeking regulatory approval that finally killed the plan although some employees felt that it was an innate lethargy and inability of the Milwaukee and the industry as a whole (the idea was marketed to other railroads as well) to consider or adopt new ideas that actually killed the plan. Well, I'm sure you already knew that.

QUOTE: why don’t the current Class1 roads embrace it today?

I have already stated, multiple times now, I don't have an opinion on whether it would be a good idea for railroads or not. Unlike you, I simply don't know enough about it to generate strong opinions on the topic. I do specifically state, early on, coming from an earlier era of Class I railroading, I'm probably not comfortable with the idea at all. But, you are the know-it-all, and you already have all the answers, why ask anyone else? I don't think you even want an actual answer to anything, it would interrupt your flow of knowledge outbound which apparently has been a one-way street for quite some time.

QUOTE: As for why I don’t think they embraced it then, well, no liked the idea of going bankrupt any faster than they already were.
It wasn’t a workable concept back then, and I don’t see it working today either, at least not under the current form of government we have.

Well, see, you already know all the answers about "why" railroads did things, even 35 years ago. Nationalization was specifically discussed during the period, 1978-1980. Railway Age I believe ran some commentary on it. The economic turnaround changed everything for railroads, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief. However, while the idea that organizational structures are inherently adverse to change undoubtedly has nothing to do with it at all, as I also stated I doubt anything like this would be considered at all unless there were a major financial crisis in the railroad industry. And then, I specifically stated, I am sure it would be one of the options that would be discussed. What is so unclear about all of this?

QUOTE: Still stuck with the age thing?

Actually you brought up your age and financial status, which I thought odd for a thread on Open Access in railroading. I don't particularly care about your life story, but since you initiated the topic, I am reminding you at each opportunity that I do think it odd that a 46 year old man throws 12 year old tantrums on internet forums. So yeah, your specific invocation of "the age" thing prompts me to remind you at every opportunity that your experience is limited, and if you act like a twelve year old, you will be treated like one.

QUOTE: Man, jealousy and bitterness really isnt good emotional baggage to carry around for long, maybe you should seek professional help...

You are probably the expert on this too. Personal experience?

Maybe other people enjoy your ranting and raving on this thread, but I think its inappropriate to say the least. Your dishonest representation of my remarks on another thread wasn't corrected by you until you were caught, and your "correction" was equally dishonest. I have a particular sensitivity to people who fabricate remarks or shade data. You have shown yourself to be dishonest in that regard. You are careless with the truth, your credibility is zero.

To reiterate. My "contribution" to this topic was limited to a very few observations. First, there are specific studies out there on the topic. Interestingly, of all the people who have opinions all over the place, only one, Futurmodal, actually asked for a copy of that study. Notably, you didn't. ask for a copy because you aren't really interested in how it might work or how the numbers might play out. You already have perfect knowledge. Why bother to actually study something? As I also pointed out, that study comes to a negative conclusion about the concept. Now why do you "think" I would point to a study that comes to a negative conclusion about Open Access?

My second point was that there is an existing open access model. Open Access is not a theoretical construct, but actually happens to be the rule, rather than the exception. Of course you pointed out you "knew" all about that too, because some relative builds highways and of course that makes him an expert on Open Access models. Another interesting connection. Osmosis, I suppose. But, it was odd, you didn't seem to be able to point it out at the time.

Thirdly, adopting an Open Access model in the freight rail industry is not going to happen voluntarily. It will take a crisis to even consider it.

Finally, discussion of alternative models is a useful process, as it can illuminate weaknesses in existing models and, if there is a crisis, point the way to alternatives in an industry where no one can really afford to let a railroad go bankrupt anymore.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TH&B]

Everone is arguing, but there are two kinds here as I see it, based on the asumtion that we all like trains that is why we are on this forum.

1) Those that observe the railway industy as it is, adapts to and become good at operating it as it is.

2) Those that observe the railway industry as it is and imediaitely wants to improve the way system is operated with new ideas.

I don't see anyone as "wrong".

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

Michael:

Cant find Note 54 in the BNSF report...the one I looked at went up to 15. I am probably looking in the wrong place tho. What page is it on?
ed

Ed, I recognize hot air when I hear it, and its been pretty windy here lately. I thought it would be useful to test the gentleman's claims to know all about financial statements and annual reports, in addition to all the other things he knows all about, including Open Access, what railroads thought in the 1970s, and the European Railway system. So, why not see how serious he is about a legitimate discussion, how careful he is with facts, and whether or not he truly comprehends financial statements and annual reports as he says.

Hence my suggestion that we would have a useful conversation about it, if he would go look at Note 54, which he could easily do if he was so conversant with Consolidated Financial Statements of the BNSF.

Obviously, as you found, he did not look, or he would have been the first to squawk.

There is no Note 54.

It was a trick question.

The gentleman failed his test.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Junctionfan]

For open access, I would think a Highway and Traffic Act like laws would be required with law enforcement ensuring it be follow such as a highway patrol or in this case a railway patrol.

How do countries with open access keep things safe?

[MP173]

Regarding note 54....I sure feel better, having spent the better part of an hour searching high and low for it...or maybe I dont feel better.

I am outta here.


ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

Regarding note 54....I sure feel better, having spent the better part of an hour searching high and low for it...or maybe I dont feel better.I am outta here.
ed

Ed, it was a personal invitation, not intended to be taken up by anyone else. It was fully intended to smoke out a windbag and it did.

However, it does, as always, speak volumes about people who are careful with their analyses, careful with their conclusions, and careful with their statements, that they would take the time to look.

And, importantly in this context, know where to look.

I know some very talented people in the rail industry. We discuss issues such as these regularly. But, the quality of some of the "rail" people here is poor. They are a flat out embarrassment to the industry.They don't know what variable costs are, but talk about them pretending they do, they talk about all they know, then it turns out based on email exchanges with a railroad crew somewhere.

There's an old saying about having forty years' experience, or one year's experience forty times. Unfortunately, in railroading, some of these guys look like that were on the last track, not the first one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[edblysard]

Actually Michael, I never said I had any interest in BN's financial information, all I said was I could read the statement, never did I say I wanted or intended to.

And no, I never claimed to "know" anything about the highly regulated era...you did.

I was asking you a straight forward question, nothing more.
You just gave part of the answer, and I will be happy to research the plan you mentioned.

I was not asking your opinion, but was looking for whatever info you might have had, yet you seem bent on claiming that you have no opinion, while at the same time expressing one through out your slanted and OA supportive replies, which is fine with me, pretending to not having an opinion means you are either a mental neuter, or a natural born fence sitter, either way it makes you a null factor in any equation.

You do, on the other hand, seem to enjoy the semantics game where you read things into simple question that are not there, and use that as justification to be the rude snob you pretend to be.

But, as Mother always said "breeding and class shows", although what you were bred from is rather debatable...but your lack of class is readily apparent.

Your small, but well written expose highlighting you opinion of how useless and replaceable T&E employees are explains quite a bit about you and your self image, and your insistence in repeating the same things over and over, as if by mantra like repetition you can either make your statements true, or convince others of it's validity is very revealing.

You seem be quite a paranoid fellow, and very defensive.

Shame, I thought you might have some useful information that you would be willing to share with the rest of the forum...but I see you do not.

So, due to the fact that all you have to contribute is a supposed "assignment" to a VP office staff, the fact that you claim to know which end of a fire extinguisher goes up, and a rather limited bag of insults, but have actually seen railroad tracks up close, this is the last question I will bother you with, and its just to see if you will give a straight forward answer.

Back in the day, you were “assigned to Cripens office" as what, janitor, file clerk, secretary, window washer, or just the water boy?

Ed

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Ed, it was a personal invitation, not intended to be taken up by anyone else. It was fully intended to smoke out a windbag and it did.

But, it WAS duplicitious...and justifies his ire.

Just my [2c]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And no, I never claimed to "know" anything about the highly regulated era...you did.

But earlier, you claimed exactly that:

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
... no [one] liked the idea of going bankrupt any faster than they already were. It wasn’t a workable concept back then,

Then, you claimed.

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysardYes, I understand quite well the European model, but you’re comparing apples to oranges, it is a completely different system, about the only thing both American railroading and European railroading have in common are flanged wheels.

But later, admitted

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
My experience with European railroads is limited to several discussions with their crews, in particular, a crew on a Soviet freight train.

A distinct, explicit and intentional pattern of msrepresentation to the people of this forum.

Your constant misrepresentations of your own "knowledge" combined with your amazing infatuation with invective is quite an abuse of people's time and patience and the hospitality of this forum. And you blame your mother for that? I am wondering if you really have a job, or are in fact the water boy in some office somewhere since you seem to have a penchant for putting other people in those jobs. You don't act professional, you don't seem to actually understand anything you talk about. Frankly, you don't have the qualifications to talk about half the stuff you do, and you can't tell the truth about the other half. Grow up and move on.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Junctionfan]

Would somebody like to answer my question on page 13 or has this thread turned into a blasted flame war circus?

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Would somebody like to answer my question on page 13 or has this thread turned into a blasted flame war circus?

I think the parties could work out something if their was an intrest in doing it. However, I can not think of a real regional or national railroad anywhere in the world using an open access model.

Perhaps someone knows of a real live open access rail system.

[edblysard]

Oh man, this is great!

Your posting above says it all!

I couldn’t have pointed out your rabid instability any better if I tried!

Thanks.

Oh, you still didn’t answer the question, janitor or water boy?

Ed

[Anonymous]

Not trawling thru every page - however answer the following:

1) how do you charge for open access operators - avoidable or marginal costs.
2) how can you stop the host railway discriminating against the open access operator except through regulation which some posters and contributors profess to loathe in all its forms.
3) Open Access can only work if there are a minimum of two routes to promote competition in a free market; otherwise a monopoly will form. Yes? So its back to regulation again.
4) It is Network Rail who DONT run trains who control the tracks. They set the timetable; they operate and invest in the infrastructure. Now; consider the following:

Mr Cogs Railway from A to B charges $5 per train for OA ops.
Mr Cogs Jnr Railway charges $7 dollars. So in economic theory OA operators will head to Mr Cog - who then ups those charges. Alas the OA's state - route knowledge; wrong type of axles; wagons cant have the clearance on Cog Jnrs railway - not fair not fair. Mr Cog replies. OK I will increase infrastructure available which will mean either a price increase to cover my costs or some sort of government funding. However will it be worth it for an additional lets say 5 trains per day and will that traffic remain with me anyway....so lets go back to regulation.

Anyway you look; "pure" Open Access is utter, total tripe of the highest order.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Would somebody like to answer my question on page 13 or has this thread turned into a blasted flame war circus?

I have invited edblysard to take this off list, as I happen to think it is highly inappropriate. However, as you can see from his recent post, however, he not only refuses to take it off list, he is enjoying the whole thing. Much easier than discussing railroad issues and other stuff he doesn't understand like pie charts and studies and financial statements.

My opinion: this is idiotic. Now I'm supposed to answer another ridiculous question, "janitor or water boy."

Well, since he has narrowed it down, I am guessing he is a 46-year old janitor in a railroad office in Pasadena.

However, for further information on the ACTUAL LIST THREAD, several open access rail systems are operating.

For Australia, a nice powerpoint overview:

http://www.worldbank.org/transport/learning/presentations/Railways/williams-bullock_AustNZp
resRGB.ppt

A University study:

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubmancenter/pdfs/working_papers/gomezibanez_04_railway.pdf
RAILROAD REFORM:
AN OVERVIEW OF THE OPTIONS
José A. Gómez-Ibáñez
Harvard University
Draft –September 8, 2004
Paper to be presented at the
Conference on Railway Reform
Rafael del Pino Foundation
Madrid
September 18-19, 2004

Railway Age, July, 2004, had the following article (excerpt):

The days when each national railroad in Europe had absolute control of both the infrastructure and train operations are rapidly coming to an end. Most European countries now have separated the operations from infrastructure management and maintenance, and open access for freight operators is rapidly becoming a reality.

This major change is being pushed through by the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union. The EC is determined to break the monopoly of the national railroads, which it believes has stifled the development of international railfreight because each railroad was purely focused on its own narrow national interest.

The EC is forcing the railroads to change through a series of directives, enforceable by law. Open access for international railfreight on a defined network of routes came into force in March 2003. The entire EU rail network, which now covers 23 countries, will be opened up for international freight traffic on Jan. 1, 2006, followed a year later by open access for domestic freight services.

These legal changes already have had a profound effect on railfreight in Europe, although the pace of change varies from country to country. Germany and Italy have the largest number of open-access operators, but most countries have at least a handful of new operators. Some countries have tried to resist change. France, for example, has separated infrastructure from operators, but until this year tried to prevent other operators from gaining access to the network.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Will edit.Apologies.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cogload

Not trawling thru every page - however answer the following:

1) how do you charge for open access operators - avoidable or marginal costs.
2) how can you stop the host railway discriminating against the open access operator except through regulation which some posters and contributors profess to loathe in all its forms.
3) Open Access can only work if there are a minimum of two routes to promote competition in a free market; otherwise a monopoly will form. Yes? So its back to regulation again.
4) It is Network Rail who DONT run trains who control the tracks. They set the timetable; they operate and invest in the infrastructure. Now; consider the following:

Mr Cogs Railway from A to B charges $5 per train for OA ops.
Mr Cogs Jnr Railway charges $7 dollars. So in economic theory OA operators will head to Mr Cog - who then ups those charges. Alas the OA's state - route knowledge; wrong type of axles; wagons cant have the clearance on Cog Jnrs railway - not fair not fair. Mr Cog replies. OK I will increase infrastructure available which will mean either a price increase to cover my costs or some sort of government funding. However will it be worth it for an additional lets say 5 trains per day and will that traffic remain with me anyway....so lets go back to regulation.

Anyway you look; "pure" Open Access is utter, total tripe of the highest order.

You got right to the nub of the situation.

[edblysard]

Andrew,
http://www.railwayage.com/nov00/access.html (this one is pretty well balanced)
http://www.railwayage.com/nov00/fromtheeditor.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n2g.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_10_203/ai_93611715
The last link might be of particular interest to your, its about CN...

Start here, then work your way around...several different opinions are out there, but from the American railroads point of view, none of the Class 1s seem to want it.
But, do your own research on this, don’t let my or other posters opinions sway you one way or another, draw your own conclusions, after reading what you can find...

And look at the AARC; they work on a limited open access system, which, so far, seems to be working for them.

It’s a fairly new railroad, built from scratch with a limited open access system in mind.
http://www.aarc.com.au/

Ed

Originally posted by Junctionfan

Would somebody like to answer my question on page 13 or has this thread turned into a blasted flame war circus?
[/quote

23 17 46 11

• Reply