2006 - The Year of Re-Regulation of Railroads?

[TomDiehl]

Correct on that one this is the same person that stated on an another thread stated that the current trailers out on the road could handle being loaded to a gross weight of 97000 lbs.  I think not I am a former driver and mechanic and know for a fact that the normal trailer out there would flat our buckle under the weight and also baukrupt all the large carriers from the expense of replacing the current trailers.

Most Western states now allow 105,500 GVW.  Some like Montana allow 129,000 GVW.

Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) includes the weight of the tractor. A separate figure from the gross weight of the trailer.

[Anonymous]

Correct on that one this is the same person that stated on an another thread stated that the current trailers out on the road could handle being loaded to a gross weight of 97000 lbs.  I think not I am a former driver and mechanic and know for a fact that the normal trailer out there would flat our buckle under the weight and also baukrupt all the large carriers from the expense of replacing the current trailers.

Most Western states now allow 105,500 GVW.  Some like Montana allow 129,000 GVW.

[edbenton]

Correct on that one this is the same person that stated on an another thread stated that the current trailers out on the road could handle being loaded to a gross weight of 97000 lbs.  I think not I am a former driver and mechanic and know for a fact that the normal trailer out there would flat our buckle under the weight and also baukrupt all the large carriers from the expense of replacing the current trailers.

[Anonymous]

 

(1/28/06) 

Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...

____________________________ 

2/4/2007

Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated.

 

What a shock.

 

Perhaps if the perfect storm would just blow FM back to his own private Idaho and knock out his internet service we would have some peace instead of the same old tired arguments which have little to do with regulation re-regulation or anything about railroads in the real world. FM needs to stick to his layout and DDC console and leave the real railroading to the railroaders and our Ilk... LOL...

LC 

And the insult orgy is reborn! 

I guess the real question is which event will occur first -  Reregulation of the railroads, or LC getting kicked off this forum permanently.

[Anonymous]

 

(1/28/06) 

Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...

____________________________ 

2/4/2007

Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated.

 

What a shock.

 

Which is why the topic title included a question mark.  That'd be one of these things - .

The gist of the subject is still valid if not more so, given that the Democrats have taken back Congress, thus making re-regulation even more likely. 

Seems we have a new Temperary Troll for the forum!  Welcome, "Signal Overlap" !  Hope you last longer than the last temp troll. 

[doghouse]

 

Wouldn't be as enteraining, though. 

[Limitedclear]

 

(1/28/06) 

Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...

____________________________ 

2/4/2007

Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated.

 

What a shock.

 

Perhaps if the perfect storm would just blow FM back to his own private Idaho and knock out his internet service we would have some peace instead of the same old tired arguments which have little to do with regulation re-regulation or anything about railroads in the real world. FM needs to stick to his layout and DDC console and leave the real railroading to the railroaders and our Ilk... LOL...

LC 

 

[Anonymous]

 

(1/28/06) 

Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...

____________________________ 

2/4/2007

Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated.

 

What a shock.

 

[Overmod]

This thread has become a little microcosm of why I stopped reading these boards.

You don't use GPS from satellites alone for railroad-signal location; you use NDGPS with appropriate ground-based beacons. "Radar" detection of impending collision is (with all due respect) an extremely dumb idea on most mainlines... by itself and as a primary sensor technology. Since there doesn't seem to be much 'thinking' about ATC evident here, I leave the solution 'for the readers' as to precisely why. Any of the current engineering methods of providing continuous PTC (or even PTS) involve better methods of assuring appropriate separation at appropriate train speed (admittedly most aren't fully autonomous using 'out-of-the-box technology from auto parts stores')...

I think this topic got raised because FM was being rhetorical about the tech methods that could (at least theoretically) be used to increase average train speeds. Continuous PTS/PTC will certainly optimize the number of trains you can have on a given line, and the speeds with which those trains can operate safely. I do believe that Ed, LC et al. are more correct in thinking that yard and terminal-related delays, and various crew-law situations, are far more significant causes of statistically slow speed numbers -- but we might then consider whether some form of "external action" might be either useful or expedient in solving either those issues or some of the underlying problems. I doubt sincerely that "regulation" could do that (reminds me of the old saw about what the new flight CO ordered when he found out that the #1 cause of aircraft damage at his new training command was 'hard landings') but it might be interesting to see what might be done, for example, to optimize infrastructure and operations management to facilitate clean and quick crew changes -- you would think that railroads would think this important enough to do it themselves, but I still see those little rental vans backing through mud puddles and over trackside debris to meet trains that have been standing for over an hour with clear track ahead...

Just for the record, I believe much of the last few pages of this thread involves a grammatical misunderstanding -- if you use the word "supplant" instead of "supplement", you get a better idea of what FM is almost certainly thinking with regard to "lineside signals", and it seems possible that this is the source of much of the resulting semantic 'confusion'. (Tongue-in-cheek: it might not be surprising to see this from someone who consistently misspells "supercede" even after having been given the correct spelling in the original post... he can even go back and find it, since he seems so good at locating and quoting the precise text of original material in this thread... ;-})

BLOCK signals are not really the issue when it comes to 'lineside' signals -- I think it has been well established (aka 'beaten to death') that block signals don't represent anything meaningful about train dispatching or actual authority to occupy track; they only serve as indicators of track occupancy or problem ahead of a given movement, with the implied sense that there be guaranteed space for the heaviest/slowest permitted train to stop. Perhaps I am overly naive in assuming (as I do, since I know something about the system architectures involved) that proper PTC systems inherently involve effective links to things like track-integrity sensors, lineside fences, etc. so that the in-cab signals will immediately reflect civil as well as operating problems at least as quickly and as well as fixed signals would. It does, however, seem clear to me that most of the 'need' for ABS (and its inherent 'hard' limitation on capacity) goes away with working continuous aspect, with or without enforced PTS... which I understood as being the original point FM was trying to make back there.

I won't take up the short vs. long train issue, except to disagree strongly with the idea that long trains have to be 'slower' than short ones, or conversely that a bunch of short, fast trains a la Perlman-in-the-West are going to "solve" low average mph. Didn't we beat that issue to death at least twice a while back? In a world with DPU, the rules are different -- of course, that assumes you actually use the technology when and where needed, and in an effective manner. But much more importantly, if you want point-to-point speed increased, by far the most important thing to do is arrange for expedited removal of 'delays' in what happens to the trains when they get where they're going (in other words, at yards or other terminal facilities). That has little to do with FM's point that, when possible, trains might be run as close to track speed as possible when actually operating over the road (which is valid, without getting into issues about whether max *permitted* speed on a given piece of line translates into a consideration about what 'track speed' for a given train might be, which I think is considerably less valid).

Left open amid all the name-calling and general cheap-shottery is at least one issue germane to the original topic: Does an outside agency (almost certainly some representative of a government) have either the authority or the right to *require* railroads to engage in more efficient operations or procedures on their "own" property? That remains an interesting topic (at least to me) -- technically, legally, and financially. Perhaps those of us who are not too childish at heart might take this up in a somewhat better-reasoned fashion.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

From this thread, page 6 post 6 from the same user:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

1. I would grant you that GPS is a lot cheaper than installing new CTC/ABS.
2. GPS could work in conjunction with EOT radar and lead unit radar detection, which would be activated if a lead consist slows below a safe speed range, or if it stops on the main, and would deactivate once a consist clears a siding. The point is, GPS wouldn't necessarily have to work alone to achieve the desired capacity improvements.

Note item 2.

Since you missed it the first time.

[Anonymous]

Tom,

Would you kindly post the link to where I ever said GPS should supplement current lineside signals? That is counter to the whole notion of using GPS in the first place, e.g. GPS should replace lineside signalling for managing fleet operations from a centralized dispatch.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom,

You have purposefully misrepresented what I said. You know it. Everyone who reads through this thread knows it.

I never ever said GPS should supplement lineside signals. You are the one who implied that, not me.

The quote from your own post seems to disagree with your statement. You quickly moved away from the notion that they should superceed the lineside signals.

The idea that your thoughts could be influenced by other's inputs is not intended to be an insult. MANY times, I've participated in an open exchange of ideas, where merits and pitfalls of different thoughts are openly discussed. The fancy buzzword for that is "brainstorming." Somewhere, in the mix of thoughts, experiences, and practicality, is a solution to just about every problem. Ideas and thoughts are easy to change, and should be, to meet the needs of the individual problem.

[Anonymous]

Tom,

You have purposefully misrepresented what I said. You know it. Everyone who reads through this thread knows it.

I never ever said GPS should supplement lineside signals. You are the one who implied that, not me.

What I have said (and I will paraphrase for you) is that consist-centric signalling aka radar and radar detection (simple, cheap stuff, you can buy it all at your local Schucks or Napa auto parts stores) can be the solution to the lack of pin-point accuracy of state of the art centralized control aka GPS. The GPS lets distpatch know where everyone is, the radar/radar detection lets the road crews know how close they are to the next/following consist is.

Block signals are old hat, and as such they could be eliminated, if indeed their usefulness in detecting and warning of rail malformities is not consistent.

[edblysard]

Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

pron. Scots
The same. Used following a name to indicate that the one named resides in an area bearing the same name: Duncan of that ilk.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ilke, same, from Old English ilca. See i- in Indo-European Roots.]
Word History: When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, “kind or sort,” is actually quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning “of the same place, territorial designation, or name.” This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning “Guthrie of Guthrie.” “Same” is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.

Not sure which usage he is trying for...the simple one or the verbose one....knowing Dave, I would guess the latter...

Ed

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl



So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals."

Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

Bad Tom, no biscuit.

Bad Dave, poor reading of your own posts.

Tom,

This is how incredibly stupid you really are:

This is what I originally said:

QUOTE: Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

As you or anyone with more than 5 braincells can clearly see, I did not deny using the term "'superceed signals' ". I did deny using the term "supplementing signals", because I did not say it. You rather claimed that I said it, then you go to the trouble of cut and pasting the "superceed" quote, and use that to aver the non-existent "supplement" quote.

What I did say in subsequent posts was a questioning of whether there would be a need for lineside signals soley for the purpose of indicating broken rails or other rail relay disruptions. That has nothing to do with "supplementing" GPS for the purpose of streamlining train operations, which is the path you've trod.

And again, why is it you feel a need to misrepresent posters to obfiscate the subject matter? Either you have an opinion on options for streamlining operations, or you don't. Why not just leave it at that?

I stand by the truth, which is that you make up quotes attributed to others, when in fact they did not say them, and you do so to skew the discussion away from the subject. Perhaps you are hoping to induce yet another Bergie lockdown?

And you wouldn't qualify as an ilk, you've got a lot of subhuman pissing and hissing to do before you can get that membership.

Cheers!

OMG Dave you get more funny with each post.

1. Both quotes are attributed correctly to you. Directions to the original posts are given.

2. You DID make a post about having "GPS superceed signals."

3. You made another post stating that "GPS could be used in conjunction with (a synonym of supplement) radar positiong or other traffic control methods.

4. I said you moved from superceed to "supplement signals," not supplement GPS, which makes no sense how it would make dispatching or traffic control more efficient. The signal system is still the primary traffic control system because the technology of GPS isn't advanced enough to make it a safe system for superceeding signals, or add enough information to the traffic control system to make the expense worth while. In your post where you tell me that I can't have a biscuit, you even admit that lineside signals won't be eliminated. Where is the savings? How many MORE things are you going to put in front of the engineer to watch? MORE chances for operator errors?

5. You've resorted to juvenile name calling, which is a good indication that you've run out of "facts" to offer.

6. I'll leave it to Ed to define "ilk" for you.

7. Your quotes are there for all to read, so spinning the info won't do you much good. Nothing was "misrepresented."

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl



So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals."

Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

Bad Tom, no biscuit.

Bad Dave, poor reading of your own posts.

Tom,

This is how incredibly stupid you really are:

This is what I originally said:

QUOTE: Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

As you or anyone with more than 5 braincells can clearly see, I did not deny using the term "'superceed signals' ". I did deny using the term "supplementing signals", because I did not say it. You rather claimed that I said it, then you go to the trouble of cut and pasting the "superceed" quote, and use that to aver the non-existent "supplement" quote.

What I did say in subsequent posts was a questioning of whether there would be a need for lineside signals soley for the purpose of indicating broken rails or other rail relay disruptions. That has nothing to do with "supplementing" GPS for the purpose of streamlining train operations, which is the path you've trod.

And again, why is it you feel a need to misrepresent posters to obfiscate the subject matter? Either you have an opinion on options for streamlining operations, or you don't. Why not just leave it at that?

I stand by the truth, which is that you make up quotes attributed to others, when in fact they did not say them, and you do so to skew the discussion away from the subject. Perhaps you are hoping to induce yet another Bergie lockdown?

And you wouldn't qualify as an ilk, you've got a lot of subhuman pissing and hissing to do before you can get that membership.

Cheers!

[TomDiehl]

And Dave/futuremodal is strangely silent.

[?]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

The man is in like Flynn...
Anyone who is that persistent, plus being a PITA, has to be Ilk material!

Ed

[:D]

I accept!

[edblysard]

The man is in like Flynn...
Anyone who is that persistent, plus being a PITA, has to be Ilk material!

Ed

[PNWRMNM]

Ed,

I nominate Tom Diehl to membership in the loyal order of Ilk. What say you Grand Exalted Ruler Ed?

Mac

[TomDiehl]

There have been MANY times I was nominated for the PITA club.

[PNWRMNM]

Tom,

Nice job. Glad to see someone trying to keep FM somewhere near the facts. If Ed does not offer you membership in the Ilk Club, FM will likely soon declare you one.

Mac

[edblysard]

Yeah, but your still gonna give him a biscut...or at least a chew toy to keep him occupied, right?

Ed[8D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl



So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals."

Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

Bad Tom, no biscuit.

Bad Dave, poor reading of your own posts.

[TomDiehl]

From this thread, page 6 post 6 from the same user:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

1. I would grant you that GPS is a lot cheaper than installing new CTC/ABS.
2. GPS could work in conjunction with EOT radar and lead unit radar detection, which would be activated if a lead consist slows below a safe speed range, or if it stops on the main, and would deactivate once a consist clears a siding. The point is, GPS wouldn't necessarily have to work alone to achieve the desired capacity improvements.

Note item 2.

[TomDiehl]

From this thread, page 5 post 4, some user named "futuremodal" posted this:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

(4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.

Note the first line "GPS to superceed lineside signals"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl



So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals."

Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

Bad Tom, no biscuit.

The proper way to paraphrase what I said is that the GPS can be the primary central dispatch system variable, and the radar/radar detection system would be used with each consist under the observation of the engineer. If a train gets within a certain distance of another (as exhibited by the GPS data), the radar/radar detection system would kick in.

And yes, this system could eliminate lineside signals for the most part, but you'd still want a way to detect broken rails, et al.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

FM, I think you're missing the point about DME. For better ot worse, de-regulation has been the trend since the 80's. DME shows the market is working.....

Except if the market was really working, DM&E (and any other railroad company who could conceivably stretch their rails into the PRB) would have been able to build their extension entirely with private funds.

The question then is what is the primary reason for this need for government backing for rail projects? Is it perhaps that railroads have never really had the private sector viability capable of a nationwide network (otherwise why did we need the land grants and why do we need the anti-trust exemption)? Should a nation's rail network be reflective of it's total multi-modal package of infrastructure, rather than trying to exemplify a quasi-private sector investment?

What we do know is this: The current private closed access rail system does not engender the ideal of a genuine working free market, either historically or presently.

Loan guarantees aren't direct subsidies and there's an alphabet soup list of them available. Everything from SBA and FHA backed loans to the FDIC and PBGC insurance programs. People sometimes think of them as bailouts, but like land grants, what they do is lower the risk premium companies pay for capital. They may mean the difference between selling investment grade bonds and junk bonds.

Capital markets today are focused on short term returns rather than long term growth. The large number of 401Ks and mutual funds is partly to blame along with Federal tax policy that favors earnings instead of long term capital gains.

[Anonymous]

Personally I don't see how government ownership of the track is any different than government (or public) ownership of roads and airports. I do agree that ownership of the operating companies should be left in private hands. This would provide more competition because there would be greater ease of entry into the business since upstarts would not have to build their own infrastructure. This would put rail, road and air on more equal funding footings. It would lead to a more rational network with more double track and less duplicate single track between major centres. Who knows, Amtrak or its successor might actually run on time depending who was doing the dispatching for the system. Of course the railroads wouldn't like this but on the other hand they are slow to dig into their own pockets to do any substantial expansion of the system. On the other hand they are probably all willing to accept money from the public ( government) domain for improvements as long as there are no strings attached.

[edblysard]

LC,
I think that is a normal occurrence already.

Dave seems to lose sight of the KISS theory...and its application to railroads.
The simpler, the better.

One poster mentioned the turn around time as a factor...you and I already know that, if given a dedicated rail line, we could run 50 mph coal train, (new specialized equipment would be needed) and run them an hour apart from each other...the problem isn’t so much how fast can you run a coal train, but how fast can you mine the coal and load it in the train, then what to do with the coal once you get it to the plant...there is a limited amount of storage.

Plastic makers have solved that problem with SIT yards...but you can't do that with coal.
The just in time delivery system isn’t the result of the railroads not wanting to run their lines at capacity, but a direct result of the plants ability to store and use the product.

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)]

Well, a sophomoric allegation deserves a sophomoric response.

Good work guys, now you've got FM talking to himself...FOFLMAO...

LC

[TomDiehl]

Well, at least we're helping FM move his theory to a more practical level.

So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals." Although he still has yet to tell us how it will supplement signals to the point that the expense will be worth while.

One of these days, he may actually look at the problem instead of a symptom.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)]

Well, a sophomoric allegation deserves a sophomoric response.

Well........I guess I'll just have to study up on when it is, and isn't appropriate to quote literary passages from Scooby Doo.[:D]
Note a grammatical error in my last post: ([}:)]) should have actually read ([;)]) [;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

FM, I think you're missing the point about DME. For better ot worse, de-regulation has been the trend since the 80's. DME shows the market is working.....

Except if the market was really working, DM&E (and any other railroad company who could conceivably stretch their rails into the PRB) would have been able to build their extension entirely with private funds.

The question then is what is the primary reason for this need for government backing for rail projects? Is it perhaps that railroads have never really had the private sector viability capable of a nationwide network (otherwise why did we need the land grants and why do we need the anti-trust exemption)? Should a nation's rail network be reflective of it's total multi-modal package of infrastructure, rather than trying to exemplify a quasi-private sector investment?

What we do know is this: The current private closed access rail system does not engender the ideal of a genuine working free market, either historically or presently.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)]

Well, a sophomoric allegation deserves a sophomoric response.

[Anonymous]

How long does it take the mines and the utilities to turn around a coal train i.e. time it arrives until the time it departs? Unless the entire system is in balance, getting the trains there faster won't help.

FM, I think you're missing the point about DME. For better ot worse, de-regulation has been the trend since the 80's. DME shows the market is working, and as I understand it the problems are largely maintenance related on the Orin sub. DME provides redundancy, which as the large gulf coast refineries have shown, is a good thing. Of course the Dems may win back the House, Pelosi would become Speaker and a terrorist attack away from becoming President.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

FM should also be aware that GPS for civilian use is only accurate to about 10-15 feet of actual position, insufficient accuracy to determine which track on a multiple-track main line. Is GPS enough of an improvement over existing systems to justify the expense of installation or is it a case of hi-tech for its own sake?

1. I would grant you that GPS is a lot cheaper than installing new CTC/ABS.
2. GPS could work in conjunction with EOT radar and lead unit radar detection, which would be activated if a lead consist slows below a safe speed range, or if it stops on the main, and would deactivate once a consist clears a siding. The point is, GPS wouldn't necessarily have to work alone to achieve the desired capacity improvements.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken
Will keep waving the banner of quack science until he brainwashes enough witless souls to further his cause.

Oh no [:0], mudchicken is on to our secret conspriacy to brainwash professional railroaders (or as he calls them "witless souls")[:D].

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Of course, what he's really afraid of is the fact that GPS is the primary component of the crewless consist concept. Even I'm not a proponent of that!

Isn't it ironic that UPS has a better idea of where their trucks are than the railroad that is carrying them?

The railroad seems to know where they are when it's time to unload them.

BTW, isn't the tracking system that UPS uses mounted in the tractor, not the trailer?

Still, I notice no answer to WHERE or WHY the trains are being slowed down. Just a few high tech buzz words rather than answers or solutions.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken
Will keep waving the banner of quack science until he brainwashes enough witless souls to further his cause.

Oh no [:0], mudchicken is on to our secret conspriacy to brainwash professional railroaders (or as he calls them "witless souls")[:D].

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Of course, what he's really afraid of is the fact that GPS is the primary component of the crewless consist concept. Even I'm not a proponent of that!

Isn't it ironic that UPS has a better idea of where their trucks are than the railroad that is carrying them?

[mudchicken]

CSSH: He's just trotting out the term because he thinks that it is some sort of magic bullet that solves all the world's problems. He has no clue about what's involved or its mechanics. Will keep waving the banner of quack science until he brainwashes enough witless souls to further his cause. If he spend others hard earned income to suit his warped agenda, so much the better.

GPS can contribute (witness GES locomotive monitoring), but not where he thinks it is going to.

[V][V][V]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

(4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.

*******************************************************************************

You're dreaming again - your lack of a "grounding in reality" is amazing. The relative precision of GPS data collected even with the pdop military inhibitors removed is poor, even with post-processing. Ain't gonna happen until computer technology makes a quantum leap. GPS is not the panacea you reckless clowns think it is.(about as bad as the call for GPS tracking in coal mines made recently[:D])

Now I have heard some stupid things before but that has to be one of the stupidest. GPS in a cave? HELLO, is there anybody home?[V]

OMG Chad is the Verizon guy. [:D]

"Can you hear me now?"

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM should also be aware that GPS for civilian use is only accurate to about 10-15 feet of actual position, insufficient accuracy to determine which track on a multiple-track main line. Is GPS enough of an improvement over existing systems to justify the expense of installation or is it a case of hi-tech for its own sake?

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

(4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.

*******************************************************************************

You're dreaming again - your lack of a "grounding in reality" is amazing. The relative precision of GPS data collected even with the pdop military inhibitors removed is poor, even with post-processing. Ain't gonna happen until computer technology makes a quantum leap. GPS is not the panacea you reckless clowns think it is.(about as bad as the call for GPS tracking in coal mines made recently[:D])

Now I have heard some stupid things before but that has to be one of the stupidest. GPS in a cave? HELLO, is there anybody home?[V]

[Anonymous]

You know, I come with some really great theories when I am in the bathroom on the throne......Should I start posting them here too. Maybe I should ponder re-regulation in my next deposit session. Is this the time when you hatch all of your master plans FM?

[mudchicken]

HAL = Heavy Axle Load

Adding elevation to the curves equates to more rail wear or car stability problems (High center of gravity - unbalance) ... The elevations set now are there to keep a happy median elevation that all the typical railcars using the line can handle based on MGT and maintenance cycle considerations.

FM: On the GPS comment above, I assume that the railroads are: (1) going to build a special car to get the GPS antennae away from the multipath nightmares called main generators on those D-E locomotives. (2) are going to remove every tree over 15 foot tall within 200 feet of the track, (3) remove every bridge and daylight every tunnel, and remove every high tension power line near the tracks (most of them forced on the railroad because the r/w adjoiners made placing them where they ought to go too expensive to do the right way) and haul around a Cray super-computer the size of a small locomotive just to process real-time GPS data.......JUST so a collection of greedy 5 Watt dim-bulbs in the power biz can get their way?[(-D][(-D][(-D]

[oltmannd]

Capacity on main tracks is generally not the problem. It's bottlenecks. Most bottlenecks are generally around terminals. Trains having to double in and out of terminals, tying up main track while they do it, trains arriving and departing yards at restricted speed, slow speed, crossing routes in terminal areas are the kinds of things that kill average train speed.

Admittedly, there are congested single track routes that need some relief, and lack of superelevation in curves does slow things down a bit, but these aren't where the real problem is.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Adding axles is also a major expense. A flexible 6-wheel truck like a Buckeye is going to cost a lot more to purchase and maintain than the simple 4-wheel three-piece design. Span bolsters (if you want to go to 16 wheels per car), are also an added expense, both initial and ongoing. This is an awful lot of money to spend to avoid having to spend money to upgrade a branch or short line to handle 286k or 315k cars.

[owlsroost]

HAL = high(er) axle load, maybe ?

Tony

(or IBM taken down a step......)

[Murphy Siding]

I lost track-what is HAL? Isn't that the computer in 2001 A Space Odyssy?

[Anonymous]

beaulieu,

It's not HAL for trucks, it's GVW. Remember, trucks spread the weight of the rig over more axles as the GVW increases. Railroads have gone the opposite direction, prefering to put more weight on the same number of axles.

HAL is death to shortlines. It is somewhat ironic that if railroads had gone the spread axle route, all the shortlines would have to do is fix the bridges to stay in the good graces of the Class I's. With HAL we're talking a complete extreme makeover of branchlines, and usually the cost of doing so exceeds the value of the line to begin with.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Yeah, GPS is too newfangled for the railroads to touch. Better wait another 50 years until trucks and ships prove it's value, then finally adopt it.

Just remember being off by 15ft doesn't mean much to a ship to a train it can mean being on a different track, also it won't help with things like switch position and broken rails.

QUOTE: [i]
Tom, just remember "more trains" does not mean more congestion, it means greater fluidity of the system. Occupying a slot is a function of time, not train length. The less time a train occupies a slot, the faster that slot becomes available for the next train. If longer consists could get faster, great, but it seems that the practical solution to reduce the time a slot is occupied is to run 'em shorter and quicker, until someone comes up with a way to run 'em longer and quicker. Even then, the longer consists will always take more time to make up and break up. Parking cars in a yard somewhere is not a solution to discapacity.

But time of occupancy IS a function of speed plus length, plus safety buffer.

QUOTE: [i
Regarding GVW, it must be pointed out that increasing a truck's GVW will not have any effect of adding to highway congestion, because that heavier truck is still booking along at the max speed limit except on grades, and most grades these days have passing lanes, so no one is being inhibited by that heavier truck. There's plenty of places to pass on most highways. In fact, increasing GVW standards for trucks will reduce the number of trucks required to haul a set tonnage of cargo, so the effect can be reduced ambient highway congestion.

On railroads, it's different, because "passing" zones are few and far between, so one heavy train bumbling along will clog up the whole system. Do what ever it takes to limit the amount of time a consist spends on a slot, and then and only then can you effectively "add" capacity without laying a single new set of rails.

HAL is good for trucks but not trains? Breaks up the pavement quicker, etc.
One thing to remember about going to lower axle loadings is that the tare to payload ratio will deteriorate and costs will go up. A car built for 286,000 gross weight does not cost proportionately more than a 268,000 car. Material cost does increase but the labor cost, which is the driver, increases hardly at all.
Speeding up traffic WILL increase track capacity to a point. But harmonizing train speeds will generate better utilization faster than speed will. Don't forget that speeds aren't held down by just curves but also grades. One other factor not mentioned by the Utilities because it isn't on their agenda is that a few years ago when coal prices were at their nadir, the coal companies just closed several mines to create a shortage and drive spot prices back up. Also right now there is a serious shortage of tires for heavy mining equipment, it is so bad that Elk Valley Coal in Canada has announced that they will be unable to fill about 7 million tons of orders in the first half of 2006 for Met. Coal. CP is storing some power and parking some coal train consists.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Tom

Speed limits are not a function of train length. They may be a function of train type. Unit coal trains are sometimes held to a lower speed than others, for example. Lower speed limits are sometimes imposed on trains with high tons per operative brake TPOB. This is because a train with high TPOB will take longer to stop that will one with lower TPOB. This is done where signals are relatively close together and speed needs to be limited to assure they can stop for an adverse signal.

Mac

Dave has been a bit vague about what is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the sections of the railroad in question. I was continuing along the line of his proposal that shorter trains could run faster.

[PNWRMNM]

Tom

Speed limits are not a function of train length. They may be a function of train type. Unit coal trains are sometimes held to a lower speed than others, for example. Lower speed limits are sometimes imposed on trains with high tons per operative brake TPOB. This is because a train with high TPOB will take longer to stop that will one with lower TPOB. This is done where signals are relatively close together and speed needs to be limited to assure they can stop for an adverse signal.

Mac

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Regarding GVW, it must be pointed out that increasing a truck's GVW will not have any effect of adding to highway congestion, because that heavier truck is still booking along at the max speed limit except on grades, and most grades these days have passing lanes, so no one is being inhibited by that heavier truck. There's plenty of places to pass on most highways. In fact, increasing GVW standards for trucks will reduce the number of trucks required to haul a set tonnage of cargo, so the effect can be reduced ambient highway congestion.

On railroads, it's different, because "passing" zones are few and far between, so one heavy train bumbling along will clog up the whole system. Do what ever it takes to limit the amount of time a consist spends on a slot, and then and only then can you effectively "add" capacity without laying a single new set of rails.

I guess the Pacific Northwest doesn't have traffic jams and slow spots like we do here in the east. There's been MANY times I seen (from the road) that all traffic is moving at nowhere near the speed limit. If it moves at all.

And again, what is the speed limit of a heavy train as compared to a lighter train? How much of a difference can be achieved with this change?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom, just remember "more trains" does not mean more congestion, it means greater fluidity of the system. Occupying a slot is a function of time, not train length. The less time a train occupies a slot, the faster that slot becomes available for the next train. If longer consists could get faster, great, but it seems that the practical solution to reduce the time a slot is occupied is to run 'em shorter and quicker, until someone comes up with a way to run 'em longer and quicker. Even then, the longer consists will always take more time to make up and break up. Parking cars in a yard somewhere is not a solution to discapacity.

Now you're making it sound like a train's speed limit is determind by its length. If so, what is the speed limit of a 50 car train as compared to a 100 car train? Plus, is yard dwell time figured into your average speed equation?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, GPS is too newfangled for the railroads to touch. Better wait another 50 years until trucks and ships prove it's value, then finally adopt it.

Tom, just remember "more trains" does not mean more congestion, it means greater fluidity of the system. Occupying a slot is a function of time, not train length. The less time a train occupies a slot, the faster that slot becomes available for the next train. If longer consists could get faster, great, but it seems that the practical solution to reduce the time a slot is occupied is to run 'em shorter and quicker, until someone comes up with a way to run 'em longer and quicker. Even then, the longer consists will always take more time to make up and break up. Parking cars in a yard somewhere is not a solution to discapacity.

Regarding GVW, it must be pointed out that increasing a truck's GVW will not have any effect of adding to highway congestion, because that heavier truck is still booking along at the max speed limit except on grades, and most grades these days have passing lanes, so no one is being inhibited by that heavier truck. There's plenty of places to pass on most highways. In fact, increasing GVW standards for trucks will reduce the number of trucks required to haul a set tonnage of cargo, so the effect can be reduced ambient highway congestion.

On railroads, it's different, because "passing" zones are few and far between, so one heavy train bumbling along will clog up the whole system. Do what ever it takes to limit the amount of time a consist spends on a slot, and then and only then can you effectively "add" capacity without laying a single new set of rails.

[mudchicken]

(4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.

*******************************************************************************

You're dreaming again - your lack of a "grounding in reality" is amazing. The relative precision of GPS data collected even with the pdop military inhibitors removed is poor, even with post-processing. Ain't gonna happen until computer technology makes a quantum leap. GPS is not the panacea you reckless clowns think it is.(about as bad as the call for GPS tracking in coal mines made recently[:D])

[TomDiehl]

1) Cooperation between the BNSF and the UP? Have to see that one to believe it.

2) But the real question is "why aren't they running at max allowed speed now?" Just requiring them to do it won't compensate for problems in the infrastructure.

3) The problem here is shorter trains will require MORE trains to move the same number of cars. So this alone will negate or even worsen the slow delivery problem.

4) Signalling or other traffic control system changes would have to be proven reliable and safe before a railroad would consider using them. And would need to show an actual improvement. GPS, being the "new and flashy" technology, doesn't necessarily mean that it would work better.

The difference in GVW for trucks and trains has more to do with the route they travel. The trucks, running on the highways, are weight limited based on the structure of the public highways and roads they will travel. The railroad, running on it's own right of way, has the same type restriction, but more control over the weight limit.

Again, you're second guessing the decision of where to invest the railroads investment in infrastructure from the outside looking in.

And as stated many times in this thread, reregulation would be more a political move than a practical move because a few shippers complain about rates.

[Anonymous]

Of course, we're drifting away from the subject heading, but for what it's worth here's a few suggestions to raise average speeds within the constraints of the current culture:

(1)Implement directional running where possible, even if it means cooperating with another railroad to achieve this end. The WP and SP did it in Nevada. BNSF and UP could do it between Spokane and the Tri-Cities/Wallula area. BNSF has the necessary redudancy through the Northern Tier states to do this. And doesn't UP do directional running along parts of the Southern Tier?

(2)As per (1) above, require all trains to run at the maximum allowable speed. If that means requiring a minimum hp/ton ratio to achieve this, than so be it. It makes no sense to have a 79 mph stretch of track only to have some heavy tonnage bumbling along at 35 mph in that zone.

(3)If indeed shorter trains can achieve over the line speeds that a longer train cannot, then shorten the trains to achieve this end. If that means 1 man crews to make up for ostensible increases in labor costs, then find a way to do it. The unions may go for some form of 1 man crew if it results in increased employment opportunities, and the necessary incentive/safety backup is implemented, such as a shorter work day at the same pay rate as a longer work day, pay the 1 man crew the equivalent of a 1.5 man crew, and/or require an incab video assist. The railroad should be able to achieve an increase in revenue via higher revenue carloads per year to more than offset the increase in per man labor costs. And shorter consists means cars spend less time dwelling in yards.

(4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.

Beyond those suggestions, I would point out that even a partial shift to bi-modal operations can achieve tremendous line speed increases. The problem is that bi-modal operations are diametrically opposed to the trend toward HAL. For the longer term, someone needs to step back and analyze whether HAL is indeed in the best inerests of railroads. Is HAL counterintuitive to the concept of JIT, after all JIT is the continuing trend for the supply chain? Is HAL counterintuitive to the concept of premium priced TOFC? Do we really need HAL doublestacks, if most containers only max out a well at 160,000 lbs? Isn't it counterintuitive to oppose increased GVW for trucks, yet want to increase load factors for domestic COFC and TOFC?

As for heavier cars, the railroads did just fine with the six and either axle "rail whales" which were subsequently banned by the FRA based on possible damage to bridges and other structures, yet HAL would put the very same stress on structures as the spread axle loads! At least the rail whales fit into the higher speed infrastructure characteristics since their average axle loadings were still at 33 tons, so we could still have greater superelevation on curves than the HAL allow.

As for re-regulation, I would think if such were to occur it would probably be a blanket requirement for all rates to be reflective of the 180% R/VC standard. This would raise rates for import intermodal, but lower rates for domestic coal and grain movements. The question then is, can the railroads survive without the ability to gouge captive shippers? As for the argument that a blanket 180% R/VC standard would kill infrastructure investments, we already know that most infrastructure investments are going to those lanes where rates are less than 180% R/VC. Of BNSF's capital improvement plan, only one aspect of that plan is addressing PRB coal corridors, the rest goes to intermodal lanes. Maybe if those intermodal lanes are forced to pay for themselves..........

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And of course, it needs to be pointed out that in all likelyhood neither ed, Tom, ironken, LC, or mudchicken have any experience in economic analysis, which is why they think the world of expertise stops at the union hall.

Some punk management type tells them it can't be done, and they gladly regurgitate the misinformation. And woe to those who beg to differ if they are not professional railroaders, 'cause if you ain't ever jacked a run 8 or took some slack up the backside, "why you don't know nuthin' bout how these here railroads funkshun."

Suffice it to say, older transportation theories state that the logical upper limit of steel wheel on steel rail is around 125 mph, so to expect railroads to achieve a doubling of average industry speed from 25 mph to 50 mph is only "impossible" to those who have not studied transportation theories. And to try and explain revenue maximization to those who think revenues are derived from increasing load factor per car, not tons of revenue-producing product delivered per time period, is like trying to explain fiduciary fiscal factuality to a feculent foppish frump.

That may be true. But the problem is that there's a point where theory has to become practice. Otherwise it's just so many words and thoughts.

Or plainly put HOW do you raise the average speed? What areas are lacking? What needs to be upgraded? How much does it cost? Where do you get the money? Will it provide enough return on investment to make it worth while?

[Anonymous]

LC,

I will just reiterate as I did for Tom - the railroads don't need to increase track speed limits per se (which are fine being between 40 mph and 79 mph for most mainlines), they need to increase average train speed above the pathetic 25 mph average now at the fore.

The problem with HAL as it relates to lowering average train speeds lies mostly with the elimination of superelevation around curves. Trains have to (1) slow down for the curve (2) go slow through the curve, and (3) try to accelerate back up to the posted speed afterward. The move from 25 tons per axle to 35 tons per axle has corresponded with the loss of speed-friendly curvature.

Railroads are the only mode I know of that have in many respects gotten slower over the years, while airlines, trucks, and even ships have gotten faster. This relative slowing of the system is THE major contributor to the current capacity crunch, not the increase in traffic. The current network would be just fine for current traffic conditions if only they'd get the trains accross the system in a more expedient fashion.

Now the "Crunch of 2006" will be heard around the world. The railroads' modus operandi is already causing them to fall behind the demand curve, and there is no reason to believe things will get better anytime soon. As coal plants are forced to shut down due to lack of coal supply, possibly triggering major blackouts this summer, politicians will be getting an earfull, and the buck will stop right at Ft. Worth and Omaha.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And of course, it needs to be pointed out that in all likelyhood neither ed, Tom, ironken, LC, or mudchicken have any experience in economic analysis, which is why they think the world of expertise stops at the union hall.

Some punk management type tells them it can't be done, and they gladly regurgitate the misinformation. And woe to those who beg to differ if they are not professional railroaders, 'cause if you ain't ever jacked a run 8 or took some slack up the backside, "why you don't know nuthin' bout how these here railroads funkshun."

Suffice it to say, older transportation theories state that the logical upper limit of steel wheel on steel rail is around 125 mph, so to expect railroads to achieve a doubling of average industry speed from 25 mph to 50 mph is only "impossible" to those who have not studied transportation theories. And to try and explain revenue maximization to those who think revenues are derived from increasing load factor per car, not tons of revenue-producing product delivered per time period, is like trying to explain fiduciary fiscal factuality to a feculent foppish frump.

FM -

This thread is not a license for you to get on your high rocking horse...

Doubling of the industry speed is likely to be a project of significant length as we who actually run the trains and see on a daily basis the inefficiency of the system. The aging infrastructure, the inadequate locomotive power and lack in many cases of enough decent cars to haul the product. The repetitive BS from customers who are constantly trying to use the rail system in ways never intended and always seeking to avoid payment of valid transportation charges through one loophole or another. Gee, I wonder why farmers have fought so hard to keep grain movements subject to tariffs instead of contracts in a last gasp to keep a regulatory hold on railroad pricing...

The level of investment required to double speed would be HUGE. It is unlikely that an economic return could be earned on such an investment even in a world where railroads show some hope of earning their cost of capital. I know you'll see this as an opening to hawk your open access foolishness, again, but no amount of OA and financial mumbo jumbo analysis will change the amount or character of the necessary investment. That is something you have to learn by inspection and observation, all the analysis in the world is worthless without facts, as are most of your speculative "analysis" .

LC

[Anonymous]

And of course, it needs to be pointed out that in all likelyhood neither ed, Tom, ironken, LC, or mudchicken have any experience in economic analysis, which is why they think the world of expertise stops at the union hall.

Some punk management type tells them it can't be done, and they gladly regurgitate the misinformation. And woe to those who beg to differ if they are not professional railroaders, 'cause if you ain't ever jacked a run 8 or took some slack up the backside, "why you don't know nuthin' bout how these here railroads funkshun."

Suffice it to say, older transportation theories state that the logical upper limit of steel wheel on steel rail is around 125 mph, so to expect railroads to achieve a doubling of average industry speed from 25 mph to 50 mph is only "impossible" to those who have not studied transportation theories. And to try and explain revenue maximization to those who think revenues are derived from increasing load factor per car, not tons of revenue-producing product delivered per time period, is like trying to explain fiduciary fiscal factuality to a feculent foppish frump.

[Anonymous]

Michael Sol wrote:

"I don't lecture you on trains or how to run them. Never had anything to do with them, except an occasional ride."

Thanks for the confirmation Mike.

LC

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by [e-mail]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

50 MPH average speed for coal trains huh? [(-D][(-D][(-D]

No matter the condition of the track structure, that coal train equipment isn't going over 45 MPH.

you have no idea what you are talking about. on the bnsf in winslow, az the max speed for a coal train is 55. throughout the powder river the max speed on all bnsf unit coal trains is 50.

Even with distributed power letting you go a max of 55 MPH on part of BNSF [Other Class 1's restrict to 45 - You gotta be able to stop] , you still have OTR dwell time and you don't exactly go from zero to 55 in the bat of an eye. The issue is AVERAGE speed and to get an average of 50, I hope you're in good with the rules people. I don't expect to see an average speed of 50 in my lifetime)

Maybe Paul Thomas can come up to Ya-Ta-He Central from Phx/Glendale and 'splain it to yaz. He would be what I would classify as an expert on running trains. (I never said I run -em, I am more responsible for what the hopeless operating types run their shiny toys ON)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

50 MPH average speed for coal trains huh? [(-D][(-D][(-D]

No matter the condition of the track structure, that coal train equipment isn't going over 45 MPH.

you have no idea what you are talking about. on the bnsf in winslow, az the max speed for a coal train is 55. throughout the powder river the max speed on all bnsf unit coal trains is 50.

[mudchicken]

The PE who professes to "know all" will be sitting in front of the State Board who licensed him/her explaining to them in short order why he deserves to not have his license pulled for operating outside of his area of expertise. We have some folks here who don't know what either kind of engineer does (trade or profession) and still claim to know it all - Excuse me while I give you both a VERY wide berth.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Actually, Mike...
I am a yardman because I have enough seniority to hold the nice morning trick lead job with the days off I want, work, or not work the holidays I chose, and have both a nice lunchroom, with a coffee pot on all the time, and the privilege of being the lead man on our switch crews...I am here by choice, I don’t have to walk brake sets in the rain, or replace knuckles by myself, and pretty much am allowed to run things at my pace and in the manner I choose...as opposed to you being "out of the loop" for 30 plus years.

And I am certain that when I retire, I will have met many, many men, and a few woman, that are much better railroaders than I... and most certainly much better, and less bitter people than you.

But enough of the pissing contest; trust me, mine’s younger, squirts farther, and I have better aim than you...

The real question is: Do you plan on answering Tom's question, or not?

Ed

Don't know what Tom's question was. I stopped reading after he fabricated some studies on another thread, then plagarized a website offering it as his own knowledge.

I've answered a lot of Tom's questions, in a straightfoward fashion. When he demanded on another thread that I explain why a Professional Engineer was not the same thing as every engineer that the railroads had, I did so without rancor or drama. A PE is a specific thing and it was not what Tom thought. He was fairly arrogant about his assumptions, but presumably that was put to rest.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I see Michael's reading ability isn't any better on this thread than the other.

Since you have trouble reading, let me give you directions and see if you can at least follow them. This thread, page 3, post 9 Edblysard; then again on post 10 bobwilcox asked about your background. On post 11, I commented that they had "beat me to it."

Of course you stopped reading it. You just have a problem with people point out your BS.

And I "plagarized a website offering it as his own knowledge?" Just more proof that you can't read. I NEVER claimed that any of that info was my own.

And a "professional," by the dictionary definition, is "n. A member of any profession; one who makes a living by arts, sports, etc., in which amateurs engage." So I guess the railroads only had amateur engineers working for them. BTW, they're called "licensed engineers" in this area. Maybe that's because they need a license?

Oh, and that reference: Webster's Dictionary, which is on my desk. I won't bore or try to impress people with a long, self-serving list of the other books there.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Actually, Mike...
I am a yardman because I have enough seniority to hold the nice morning trick lead job with the days off I want, work, or not work the holidays I chose, and have both a nice lunchroom, with a coffee pot on all the time, and the privilege of being the lead man on our switch crews...I am here by choice, I don’t have to walk brake sets in the rain, or replace knuckles by myself, and pretty much am allowed to run things at my pace and in the manner I choose...as opposed to you being "out of the loop" for 30 plus years.

And I am certain that when I retire, I will have met many, many men, and a few woman, that are much better railroaders than I... and most certainly much better, and less bitter people than you.

But enough of the pissing contest; trust me, mine’s younger, squirts farther, and I have better aim than you...

The real question is: Do you plan on answering Tom's question, or not?

Ed

Don't know what Tom's question was. I stopped reading after he fabricated some studies on another thread, then plagarized a website offering it as his own knowledge.

I've answered a lot of Tom's questions, in a straightfoward fashion. When he demanded on another thread that I explain why a Professional Engineer was not the same thing as every engineer that the railroads had, I did so without rancor or drama. A PE is a specific thing and it was not what Tom thought. He was fairly arrogant about his assumptions, but presumably that was put to rest.

When he asked who and what paid for a particular engineering study on another thread, I gave him a detailed history of who, and the background of the firm as well, from its beginning to its end. Spent some time doing it. Suffice it to say, notwithstanding my efforts, I did not receive so much as a thanks, rather something else. Tom turns out to have fabricated a series of studies that he referred to as "railroad studies," and it turns out he had never seen a one of them and apparently they didn't exist.

My opinion on "responding" to any of his comments, questions, or remarks has been changed by my experience with him and his penchant for fabricating whatever convenient "reference" happens to come to mind to sustain an argument on something he actually knows nothing about either by experience, by study, by training, or as near as I can tell, even by anecdote.

As for being "out of the loop for 30 years," at that time and at that age, I had no idea what a "loop" was. Whatever I was in, I was in. Whatever I was out of, I was out of. I did my job. I spend more time discussing and consulting on rail issues and operations, and history, with senior people now than I ever did. There are a variety of specific reasons for that. Whether they are any of your business or not, issues should stand on their merits. If what you or I say is accurate or makes sense, it will be accurate or make sense. If it isn't, it isn't. I have known enough complete idiots in several lines of work that I do not take them as representative, and enough astute observers to know that smart people exist irrespective of "experience."

I don't lecture you on trains or how to run them. Never had anything to do with them, except an occasional ride. Haven't noticed the same humility in return.

If the class of some of the people I see on this list is typical, I am rather glad I got out when younger. Accordingly, the people I still know and see frequently, as regular correspondents or at the annual retired employee picnics, seem better by comparison all the time. They were and are classy people. I don't see that much on this List.

Best wishes on your career. When you retire and mellow out, I hope your memories are as pleasant as mine

Best regards, Michael Sol

[edblysard]

Actually, Mike...
I am a yardman because I have enough seniority to hold the nice morning trick lead job with the days off I want, work, or not work the holidays I chose, and have both a nice lunchroom, with a coffee pot on all the time, and the privilege of being the lead man on our switch crews...I am here by choice, I don’t have to walk brake sets in the rain, or replace knuckles by myself, and pretty much am allowed to run things at my pace and in the manner I choose...as opposed to you being "out of the loop" for 30 plus years.

And I am certain that when I retire, I will have met many, many men, and a few woman, that are much better railroaders than I... and most certainly much better, and less bitter people than you.

But enough of the pissing contest; trust me, mine’s younger, squirts farther, and I have better aim than you...

The real question is: Do you plan on answering Tom's question, or not?

Ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
By the way, you raised the question, not I.
All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience.
Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero.
[

Interesting. No allegation that there was a qualification, but rather a comment by TomDehl that suggested he knew all about it.

A single question: what's the background to the comment?

The gentleman fabricated some sources on another thread. Naturally, when anyone comments on a technical question, it is appropriate to ask what the source is. It may be personal experience, training, it may be a reference source. Most people gladly provide it. You always seem threatened.

And the question of course, as both of you carefully evaded, was never answered.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Ed, between people here that are armchair rails and newbies who haven't ever paid off any of RRB's tiers or for that matter put in enough time to qualify for RR unemployment, I just wanna puke! On annother thread, this chick is "cutting people in," that have been through the hiring prcess on how the cow eats the cabbage......The MODOC way. Crap! I am not a pro for Peat's sake....but, If you Havn't done it yourself, then have some respect for those that have!

I heartily agree...

Michael Sol is an attorney for those who don't know. As far as I can determine he has no real railroad experience. Having both my attorney's license in a few jurisdictions and an engineer's card and conductor's qualification, I think you can see where I stand...

Also, that woman on the Modoc thread is a FOOL...

LC

So much for your "determination." I don't know you from Adam, and you don't know me. Don't pretend to know what you don't know. That's where I stand.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Ladies and Gentilemen, the promoted AND educated L.C. Nuff Said!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Ed, between people here that are armchair rails and newbies who haven't ever paid off any of RRB's tiers or for that matter put in enough time to qualify for RR unemployment, I just wanna puke! On annother thread, this chick is "cutting people in," that have been through the hiring prcess on how the cow eats the cabbage......The MODOC way. Crap! I am not a pro for Peat's sake....but, If you Havn't done it yourself, then have some respect for those that have!

I heartily agree...

Michael Sol is an attorney for those who don't know. As far as I can determine he has no real railroad experience. Having both my attorney's license in a few jurisdictions and an engineer's card and conductor's qualification, I think you can see where I stand...

Also, that woman on the Modoc thread is a FOOL...

LC

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Tom,
I never had to hide behind anonymity, nor have I pretended to be an expert...what you see is what I really am, an engine foreman/switchman/conductor at the PTRA in Houston.
Unlike the armchair railroading both Dave and Michael play at, I do it for a living.
They do this (trolling) as a sport, neither on has any experience running a train...Michaels total experience in railroad operations is that as a teenager; he carried a fire extinguisher on a ROW brush fire squad, for a summer.
Which qualifies him to pee on a match...?

Pretty sensitive there Ed, stuck in the yard job and never got promoted out eh? Of course, as you know from the fire extinguisher story, there was a little more to it, but that wouldn't be the whole story, then, would it? Wouldn't expect the whole story from you.

And yeah, I did run some of your comments past a "couple of friends" the kind with more years of experience in railroading that you will ever have; the kind who would have been your bosses if you had ever made it a real railroad. They chuckled over how much you knew, and how little they did, since none of them had ever "put together a train", but they had run railroads. One asked the other day: "what about that switch engine guy that knows how to run a railroad, is he still around?"

When I left the rail industry, I left an industry that I held in a high, if somewhat pessimistic regard (1974). I am still glad to say that every single railroader I knew was a better man than you.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Rock, I don't have a vast amount of years in either. The people I'm talking about know who they are. If the shoe fits......

[route_rock]

Too true Ken. Be the first to admit I havent been out here that long. But I do know every coal train I have been on ( there has been a few trust me) has run at 50 except when on the hills! Most trains I have been on run the speed they are supposed to, If we are catching yellows its cause of a meet, a slower train, a junction ahead, or whatever. Point is we are doing it out here.

What is it besides car velocity or mainline speeds?Ever think to toss in rested crews? Equipment? Oh crap the motors for this train are still on that train! And THAT train is still 5 hours out!

I dont know ,but I can tell you this. Its going to come to those who have never worked it deciding the best way to fix it. Thats the truth for any buisness anymore. You can learn all you can from a book or a class, but until you get your hands dirty and sweat your tush off repeatedly,you dont know jack! I cant run the books. I kinda understand demurrage But by god I know that the departure tracks shouldnt be clear across the yard where you have to fight past switch engines pulling out and trains coming in to get power to the outbounds.So now someone is suggesting if a yardmaster or trainmaster was sitting there keeping us in line we could move faster. (maybe they will whip us till we pick up the motor and carry it over on our backs so we dont have to foul the tracks we need)

Which armchair guy wants a job they are hiring at my terminal for a trainmaster.

[Anonymous]

Ed, between people here that are armchair rails and newbies who haven't ever paid off any of RRB's tiers or for that matter put in enough time to qualify for RR unemployment, I just wanna puke! On annother thread, this chick is "cutting people in," that have been through the hiring prcess on how the cow eats the cabbage......The MODOC way. Crap! I am not a pro for Peat's sake....but, If you Havn't done it yourself, then have some respect for those that have!

[edblysard]

Tom,
I never had to hide behind anonymity, nor have I pretended to be an expert...what you see is what I really am, an engine foreman/switchman/conductor at the PTRA in Houston.
Unlike the armchair railroading both Dave and Michael play at, I do it for a living.
They do this (trolling) as a sport, neither on has any experience running a train...Michaels total experience in railroad operations is that as a teenager; he carried a fire extinguisher on a ROW brush fire squad, for a summer.
Which qualifies him to pee on a match...?
Dave's is zero, if you ever get a chance to see his "railcar" design...well, they fit with his theories on how railroads should operate, sorta out there a bit and a few bubbles off plumb.

I know who, what and where Michael is...and as a former employee of an attorney, I can promise you that nothing he posts is the complete story.
His job as an attorney is to distort facts and re direct the reader’s attention, so they don’t focus on the main points...and you note he does this in every thread he participates in...he buries you in the statistics till you forget what the original question/topic was, and then leads you away from the questions he doesn’t want to answer...such as what railroad did he dispatch for...none, of course, but note he will not answer.
Instead, he answers a question with a question, and then tries to redirect the conversation away from the question he is too afraid or embarrassed to answer.
Basically, if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your BS...
He will, on the other hand, decry and deride the operating crafts, he was a office staff weenie for the Milwaukee road, and like most staff weenies, he thinks he knows more, and is better than those of us who get our hand dirty working for a living.
I doubt either he, or Dave, could get a train out of a yard, much less over the road to it's destination by themselves, they both have no clue how a train works, or why it does what it does.
And no Michael, I don’t care, and I am sure most here don’t care if you had coffee with the President of the Milwaukee Road, nor how many “important” people you want to claim to be buddies with….that doesn’t qualify you to run a train, it only qualifies you as a autonomous staffer.
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Sat in the PTRA's dispatchers/yardmasters seat off the extra board for a short time..and went back to the ground switching as fast as my feet would allow!
For the pay, the stress and headaches were not worth it.

The major constraints are as Tom pointed out, the limits of the system used to control train movement, and the ability of the yards to absorb the inbound traffic.
Bluntly, you have to have somewhere to put the trains, getting them there is only half the equation, as UP found out the hard way when they tried to run the Houston SP network in the same manner they ran the rest of their railroad.
By the way, you raised the question, not I.
All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience.
Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And yours, Michael?
You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad?

Ed

And you?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Ed,

Is it just me, or did you notice that we posted our backgrounds on this topic, but have YET to hear about Michael's?

Maybe he's still "theorizing" or reading papers and never had any real world experience.

[Anonymous]

Check out January, 2001 Trains. A panel of 9 railroad experts (experienced rail executives) talks about the subject.

One possible scenario with open access they mention is this: "someone goes to congress, says ' The small shippers are being exluded; they can't get access to the network. ' And then we have legislated slots for small shippers."

In other words, those little wheat shippers in WA and MT are still out of luck with open access. FutureModal, I am surprised to hear you support an idea like this with such enthusiasm.

[Anonymous]

And the war wages on between those of us who have actually turned a wheel and those of us who have not.

[mudchicken]

50 MPH average speed for coal trains huh? [(-D][(-D][(-D]

No matter the condition of the track structure, that coal train equipment isn't going over 45 MPH.

[Anonymous]

Pass the bottle.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Sat in the PTRA's dispatchers/yardmasters seat off the extra board for a short time..and went back to the ground switching as fast as my feet would allow!
For the pay, the stress and headaches were not worth it.

The major constraints are as Tom pointed out, the limits of the system used to control train movement, and the ability of the yards to absorb the inbound traffic.
Bluntly, you have to have somewhere to put the trains, getting them there is only half the equation, as UP found out the hard way when they tried to run the Houston SP network in the same manner they ran the rest of their railroad.
By the way, you raised the question, not I.
All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience.
Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And yours, Michael?
You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad?

Ed

And you?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Ed,

Is it just me, or did you notice that we posted our backgrounds on this topic, but have YET to hear about Michael's?

Maybe he's still "theorizing" or reading papers and never had any real world experience.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Try this hypothetical for size: Which would ultimately have the greatest revenue ton/miles per year (all other factors being equal)- a 263k car moving at an average speed of 50 mph, or a 315k car moving at an average speed of 25 mph?

Now this throws ANOTHER fly into the ointment of your whole scenerio. Tracks that are certified to handle a 263K car can't necessarily handle a 315k car without upgrading. Another expense. Now it's not only "how fast can it move" it's also "can it even run on these tracks."

I have a tendency to think in terms of reality rather than hypothetical.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access?

Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains.

I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity.

OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph.

Disagreeing with this is TOO easy. Just a few facts of the rail industry.

Under the access of only the owning railroad, I guess they're not using their assets to the fullest potential? That is the most ridiculous claim of the entire "open access" concept.

Railroad speed limits are based on the condition of the trackwork. "Forcing" a railroad to run at 50 MPH can't be done if the trackwork isn't up to that standard. Upgrading and maintaining trackwork to the 50 MPH standard costs a good bit more than trackwork at 25 MPH. Speed limit is less dependant on the length of the train than the quality of the rolling stock. Again, a higher expense. Simply splitting these expenses up between an operating company and a trackwork company would add another level of management, increasing costs, not decreasing them.

Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.

....and the sound of left knees jerking commences!

Tom, this isn't about mainline speed limits, it's about the industry average velocity, which right now is a pitiful 25 mph.

The speed limits can stay as they are for the most part, what needs to happen is to get those slower than speed limit trains up to speed.

OMG, now you're trying to say that industry average velocity has nothing to do with mainline speed limits? Sounds like you need to go back to basic math classes to find out what "average"means.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access?

Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains.

I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity.

OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph.

Disagreeing with this is TOO easy. Just a few facts of the rail industry.

Under the access of only the owning railroad, I guess they're not using their assets to the fullest potential? That is the most ridiculous claim of the entire "open access" concept.

Railroad speed limits are based on the condition of the trackwork. "Forcing" a railroad to run at 50 MPH can't be done if the trackwork isn't up to that standard. Upgrading and maintaining trackwork to the 50 MPH standard costs a good bit more than trackwork at 25 MPH. Speed limit is less dependant on the length of the train than the quality of the rolling stock. Again, a higher expense. Simply splitting these expenses up between an operating company and a trackwork company would add another level of management, increasing costs, not decreasing them.

Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.

....and the sound of left knees jerking commences!

Tom, this isn't about mainline speed limits, it's about the industry average velocity, which right now is a pitiful 25 mph.

The speed limits can stay as they are for the most part, what needs to happen is to get those slower than speed limit trains up to speed.

You should also note that it is not necessarily axoimatic that longer trains cannot also increase their average velocity, it's just that the laws of practicality (along with a heavy dose of Murphy's Law) make such an increase less than likely. The advent of HAL has also contributed to a slowing of average speeds.

Try this hypothetical for size: Which would ultimately have the greatest revenue ton/miles per year (all other factors being equal)- a 263k car moving at an average speed of 50 mph, or a 315k car moving at an average speed of 25 mph?

Or here's one: In the March 2006 TRAINS, there's an article on HAL in which it is shown that a 315k car yields a 20% increase in capacity over a 263k car. Q: Which is a more meaningful statistic - a 20% increase in a car's capacity, or a 100% increase in average velocity?

Is it possible that the railroads erred in focusing on increasing load factor at a detriment to average speed? Should they instead have stuck to the 263k car and increased average velocity to at least a reasonable approximation of railroading's theoretical speed limit?

If the laws of physics dictate that LAL's would move faster overall than HAL's, wouldn't be wise to re-explore the old idea of getting the goods from point A to point B in an expedient fashion, and forget this obsession with overfeeding the 600lb gorilla?

[edblysard]

Sat in the PTRA's dispatchers/yardmasters seat off the extra board for a short time..and went back to the ground switching as fast as my feet would allow!
For the pay, the stress and headaches were not worth it.

The major constraints are as Tom pointed out, the limits of the system used to control train movement, and the ability of the yards to absorb the inbound traffic.
Bluntly, you have to have somewhere to put the trains, getting them there is only half the equation, as UP found out the hard way when they tried to run the Houston SP network in the same manner they ran the rest of their railroad.
By the way, you raised the question, not I.
All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience.
Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And yours, Michael?
You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad?

Ed

And you?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Just a few facts of the rail industry.

Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.

Your background in queuing theory and network practice is ... what?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I see a couple people beat me to it.

I obviously didn't propose what shorter trains did to the mainline, you clever gentlemen. TomDiehl proposed to know. Based on his fabrications on other threads, I am interested to know if he has a basis for his proposition, or is just making it up.

By the way Ed and Bob, since you raised the issue, do either of you have any experience in queuing theory or network practice?

Or were those just your usual rhetorical questions?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Very simple, and based on real world experience. One train can occupy a given block at any one time. A train following in the next block has to slow or possibly stop before entering the occupied block, it cannot enter the next block until the train currently occupying it has cleared that block. Some of the experimental systems now in development are capable of variable block size, but would be an improvemnt of SIGNALLING SYSTEMS, that would increase their CAPACITY.

Well Mr Know-It-All (wow, flashbacks of Bullwinkle), just what DOES determine the frequency of trains on a given line if not the limits of the signalling or traffic control system?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And yours, Michael?
You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad?

Ed

And you?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Just a few facts of the rail industry.

Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.

Your background in queuing theory and network practice is ... what?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I see a couple people beat me to it.

I obviously didn't propose what shorter trains did to the mainline, you clever gentlemen. TomDiehl proposed to know. Based on his fabrications on other threads, I am interested to know if he has a basis for his proposition, or is just making it up.

By the way Ed and Bob, since you raised the issue, do either of you have any experience in queuing theory or network practice?

Or were those just your usual rhetorical questions?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Just a few facts of the rail industry.

Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.

Your background in queuing theory and network practice is ... what?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I see a couple people beat me to it.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And yours, Michael?
You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad?

Ed

Michael-What networks, of any kind, have you managed?

[edblysard]

And yours, Michael?
You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad?

Ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Just a few facts of the rail industry.

Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.

Your background in queuing theory and network practice is ... what?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access?

Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains.

I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity.

OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph.

Disagreeing with this is TOO easy. Just a few facts of the rail industry.

Under the access of only the owning railroad, I guess they're not using their assets to the fullest potential? That is the most ridiculous claim of the entire "open access" concept.

Railroad speed limits are based on the condition of the trackwork. "Forcing" a railroad to run at 50 MPH can't be done if the trackwork isn't up to that standard. Upgrading and maintaining trackwork to the 50 MPH standard costs a good bit more than trackwork at 25 MPH. Speed limit is less dependant on the length of the train than the quality of the rolling stock. Again, a higher expense. Simply splitting these expenses up between an operating company and a trackwork company would add another level of management, increasing costs, not decreasing them.

Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access?

Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains.

I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity.

OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Electric utilities are indeed regulated to varying degrees by the several states, but the last time I looked, they were a monopoly (not oligopoly or oligarchy) within their service areas. If I don't like the service provided by Commonwealth Edison, I can't go over to Wisconsin Electric or NIPSCO and ask them to provide electric service.

You've just hit the nail on the head.

Electric utilities ARE natural monopolies, in that they totally control the product delivery within their service areas. That's why they are regulated. If they were unregulated, they could jack up their prices twofold, threefold, etc. and there would be nothing the consumers could do about it other than complain to the designated federal agency, and who knows if the designated federal agency would even bother to take their complaint seriously.

Railroads are ALSO natural monopolies, in that they totally control the product delivery within their service areas. That's why they are regulated........oh wait, they're not regulated![}:)]


Hmmmmm, anyone else see a slight discrepancy here?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PBenham

Re-regulation would be about the worst thing that could happen to our country's railroads. However I believe that this [censored] won't make it past president Bush's desk! And when the socialists in congress,bought and paid for by labor unions and the kook left fail to garner 60 votes in the senate or290 in the house, they will be screaming like they always do when reality hits them upside the head! Now, if certain railroads continue to provide sub-standard service and Amtrak gets second class treatment on any of the big seven, then it might get hairy. The March issue of Railfan & Railroad had an article on the Sunset route that admitted that Amtrak's Sunset Limited gets less than priority treatment from UP dispatchers. UP had better wake up, the Socialists in congress could have enough ammo to shoot the railroad industry right into the graveyard if they don't watch out.

And that would put the government back into the railroad business.

After the Conrail experience????????

I don't think so.

[PBenham]

Re-regulation would be about the worst thing that could happen to our country's railroads. However I believe that this [censored] won't make it past president Bush's desk! And when the socialists in congress,bought and paid for by labor unions and the kook left fail to garner 60 votes in the senate or290 in the house, they will be screaming like they always do when reality hits them upside the head! Now, if certain railroads continue to provide sub-standard service and Amtrak gets second class treatment on any of the big seven, then it might get hairy. The March issue of Railfan & Railroad had an article on the Sunset route that admitted that Amtrak's Sunset Limited gets less than priority treatment from UP dispatchers. UP had better wake up, the Socialists in congress could have enough ammo to shoot the railroad industry right into the graveyard if they don't watch out.

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

I am in agreement with JOdom (are you John "Blue Moon Odom" the Oakland A's pitcher from the 70's?). Let the utilities invest in the construction of the DME line. That is a great idea.

No, I'm not that John Odom, although I did have a boss once that called me "Blue Moon" because he thought it would irritate me. I'm a bit younger than he was - I was 13 in 1970.

I believe 100% that if the utilities think the rail rates are too high, they should take a crack at running a railroad. They either need to put their money where their mouth is or shut up. Five years of coal trains pounding the track and bridges ought to convince them that rates are high for a reason. On the other hand, I also believe the railroads will charge every last penny they think they can get away with, which is why I support DM&E's efforts to build into PRB.

Competition is good - I'm old enough to remember the kind of junk the Big Three automakers were putting on the road before the Japanese kicked their butts on quality. As I believe Winston Churchill once said, "Imminent death concentrates the mind wonderfully" (or words to that effect).

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access?

Open access. LMAO One of those "sounds good in theory, but nobody could figure out the logistics of actually making it work." Try it on an already clogged mainline and the whole thing is guaranteed to fall apart.

[MP173]

Ameren owns a railroad.

I am in agreement with JOdom (are you John "Blue Moon Odom" the Oakland A's pitcher from the 70's?). Let the utilities invest in the construction of the DME line. That is a great idea.

There is nothing like ownership in controlling, or at least ATTEMPTING to control your destiny.

If they can lower their delivered coal costs, thus reducing the demand for natural gas, which will then reduce my heating bills, I am all for it.

Plus, if they are really good at running a railroad, they can make $$$ which will just make things all good.

My local utility, NIPSCO, somehow purchased a lot of stuff, one of which Lake Erie Land Company was an enormous waste of $$$ and ended up being a political mess with locals in prison.

If utilities are allowed to waste $$$ on land deals, why not invest in rails?

ed

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

QUOTE: Originally posted by fuzzybroken

... and my sympathies go out to you... [}:)][}:)]

I'm trying to turn over a new leaf. Guys get all butt hurt when I proceed to light somebody up, like you Fuzzy. I want this duely noted that I was fired upon and declined to flame......Being the nice guy blows!

[(-D] Thanks ironken. That did make me laugh right out loud.[tup]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

Detroit Edison did run its own trains, albeit on others tracks...

Detroit Edison's operation was different in that they also owned the motive power along with the cars. Penn Central crews still operated the trains.

[tree68]

Detroit Edison did run its own trains, albeit on others tracks...

[route_rock]

thing is regulation is different from open access. You want the industry regulated, go for it. Can we say remeber the 70's? When railroads couldnt raise rates cause those who ran the regulating bodies were not allowing it?Can we say lobbyists? "Mr Regulator those railroads are evil they dont need ot raise our rates" So then watch all those lines go to hell and we are back at square one!
CSS brings a valid point. We deal with monopolies when we deal with the power company. Heres a trick as well. You complain about the lack of coal. Well my friend they have to order the trains to get the product! Ever notice coal drops off slightly in the late summer early fall? Oh we dont have enough stockpiles so up go your rates!What are you going to do? Use candles?
We dont just run a train to run a train. If these power plants cant order enough to keep up not my problem.Trains are late. Yeah so? Called we have a lot of buisness. Takes time to relay all that track we got rid of ( stupid move on the railroads part IMO but needed to stay alive at the time I guess) Now BNSF is double tracking the Creston Lincoln line to get more velocity so they can run more trains ( of all types )through here faster.
You want reregulation? Fine but dont come here crying when railroads are dropping like flies in bankruptcy court, cause thy cant raise rates and are being told what traffic to haul and what they have to charge for it. Maybe then you can stop that evil China trade by not allowing railroads to haul them containers! You want China to stop flooding us? Put a tariff on their products or start your own buisness that can compete with them

[Anonymous]

OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Electric utilities are indeed regulated to varying degrees by the several states, but the last time I looked, they were a monopoly (not oligopoly or oligarchy) within their service areas. If I don't like the service provided by Commonwealth Edison, I can't go over to Wisconsin Electric or NIPSCO and ask them to provide electric service.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom

If the utilities think they are being ripped off so badly, let them buy DM&E and pay to extend and rebuild the railroad so it can haul PRB coal. They might find out railroad rates aren't so high after all. When the big auto companies and other large Detroit businesses got tired enough of being ripped off by Northworst Airlines for flights out of Detroit, the businesses got together and started their own airline, to fly where their people needed to go, at prices that weren't highway robbery. It worked very nicely. I'd like to see the utilities try something similar.

However, here's the reaction you would get if you proposed this idea to the utilities: What? Invest large quantities of REAL MONEY? No, no, much easier and cheaper to get the gov't to strongarm the railroads into lowering their rates to a level the we (the utilities) deem proper.

Utilities are regulated. They cannot just "buy" any railroad. Indeed, they are not in the business of running railroads, but I am sure if given the chance they could do a much better job of getting coal from mine to power plant in an expedient fashion than the current Class I oligarchy. How? Easy answer - the utilities would do a better job of getting coal delivered because their income is derived from producing and selling power. The railroads are not in the business of producing and selling power, so naturally they are not as judiscious about such matters. As long as those Chinese imports keep coming in, they are sated for the most part, even if it is a false sense of satedness.

Oh, and BTW, the rate debate is only part of the picture. The bigger worry is the inability of the railroads to deliver the coal orders in a timely fashion. That situation is going to get worse, much worse in 2006 and beyond.

And here all this time the AAR was telling us JIT is modus operadi for the railroads. What a joke!

[SALfan]

If the utilities think they are being ripped off so badly, let them buy DM&E and pay to extend and rebuild the railroad so it can haul PRB coal. They might find out railroad rates aren't so high after all. When the big auto companies and other large Detroit businesses got tired enough of being ripped off by Northworst Airlines for flights out of Detroit, the businesses got together and started their own airline, to fly where their people needed to go, at prices that weren't highway robbery. It worked very nicely. I'd like to see the utilities try something similar.

However, here's the reaction you would get if you proposed this idea to the utilities: What? Invest large quantities of REAL MONEY? No, no, much easier and cheaper to get the gov't to strongarm the railroads into lowering their rates to a level the we (the utilities) deem proper.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fuzzybroken

... and my sympathies go out to you... [}:)][}:)]

I'm trying to turn over a new leaf. Guys get all butt hurt when I proceed to light somebody up, like you Fuzzy. I want this duely noted that I was fired upon and declined to flame......Being the nice guy blows!

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Gabe,

Is it the job of regulated utilities to be risking their investor's and ratepayer's money in railroads? They can barely keep up with AMR installation. They are in many states faced with a minimum "renewables" requirement, further eroding the needed investment in future baseline power production. They can't just be throwing money at a capital intensive project that may become superfluous if King Coal again becomes the bad guy in political circles.

If you are saying that energy companies should just run their own railroads, why do we even have BNSF and UP? Isn't it the job of railroad companies to invest in this concept called "railroading"?

It's not confusing at all.

AMR is the fault of utilities; they are throwing all of their money into drivebuy AMRs which already have been superceeded by a better product and will likely be superceeded by a far superior product in a few years from now.

As for railroads, I am not saying energy companies should run railroads. I am saying that railroads are in the business of making money just like utilities and if they don't invest more in coal, then their judgment on the return of their investment should not be second guessed by an industry that is not willing to put up the investment itself.

Gabe

[ericmanke]

Easy Gents. Take these rants to the Daily Kos or Michelle Malkin. This forum is about trains, not politics.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFrailfan

The problem is.....There arn't enough Coal Trains. Coal is what's called a low priorty Freight. It can and will sit in the yard for hours for many reasons. I do agree. It is the Railroads falt for not delivering enough Coal. And if and when those **** called the Democrats do take over the Government,you will the end of Coal as we know it.

Easy there buddy. There are a few Dems here, namely me!

Well if you D*mn Democrates want control....then "DO" somwthing about it. Why the hell are you Democrates letting Bush just walk right over you. If you want change,then do something about it. Don't complain about it,just do it.

[fuzzybroken]

... and my sympathies go out to you... [}:)][}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFrailfan

The problem is.....There arn't enough Coal Trains. Coal is what's called a low priorty Freight. It can and will sit in the yard for hours for many reasons. I do agree. It is the Railroads falt for not delivering enough Coal. And if and when those P*GS called the Democrats do take over the Government,you will the end of Coal as we know it.

Easy there buddy. There are a few Dems here, namely me!

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jimrice4449

Am I to understand from the above that a power plant that is specifically designed to burn coal (frequently a particular grade of coal) needs only to turn on the gas spigot to begin using gas? I don't think so.

Ah, but power utilities now have the ability to buy power from other power utilities! So if the coal-fired plant doesn't have the coal to burn, they buy it from that gas-fired plant across the way...

Whatever happened to using tra***o fuel power plants? We have a nice big (and growing!) mountain in the northwest corner of Milwaukee County, I'm sure that would go a long way towards fueling a good power plant...

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Gabe,

Is it the job of regulated utilities to be risking their investor's and ratepayer's money in railroads? They can barely keep up with AMR installation. They are in many states faced with a minimum "renewables" requirement, further eroding the needed investment in future baseline power production. They can't just be throwing money at a capital intensive project that may become superfluous if King Coal again becomes the bad guy in political circles.

If you are saying that energy companies should just run their own railroads, why do we even have BNSF and UP? Isn't it the job of railroad companies to invest in this concept called "railroading"?

It's not confusing at all.

Indeed, both BNSF and Union Pacific are Investing an amount of money that can reasonably be justified by the likelyhood of earning a satisfactory return. They are not a charity anymore than the utilities are. If the DM&E were to get its money to build into the PRB or it were to look like the government would do something to reduce the usage of coal for power generation both companies would cease their expansion plans immediately and review their return assumptions. They might even scale back capacity.

[Anonymous]

Gabe,

Is it the job of regulated utilities to be risking their investor's and ratepayer's money in railroads? They can barely keep up with AMR installation. They are in many states faced with a minimum "renewables" requirement, further eroding the needed investment in future baseline power production. They can't just be throwing money at a capital intensive project that may become superfluous if King Coal again becomes the bad guy in political circles.

If you are saying that energy companies should just run their own railroads, why do we even have BNSF and UP? Isn't it the job of railroad companies to invest in this concept called "railroading"?

It's not confusing at all.

[route_rock]

Ok lets reregulate it all. Rails go so do barges and planes and trucks. Lets see who can survive with high fuel prices. THis should be a riot! Only reason trucking and railroads are doing well is deregulation. You price what the market will bear.But I am all for it lets reregulate everything. Be fun to watch when everything collapse's .

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Re-regulation in any field is more of a political than economic issue. Consequently, I don't see it happening any time soon based on the current political climate at the Federal level.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

These are the same people who have the opportunity to fund the DM&E and are hanging back?!?

PLEASE...typical rail customers seeking to justify their own rate hikes by blaming it on the RRs...

Situation normal...

LC

How about this point FM? I am glad LC nailed this one, as I remember reading about the funding of the DM&E, and thinking where in the heck are all of the energy utilities in all of this? That answered a lot of questions for me as to the complaining that the utilities have been doing.

The only thing LC has nailed is his brain to the ballast. We discussed this before, that any ambitious rail project, especially one whose ultimate fate rests with PRB coal, will need federal backing. Yes, PRB coal is hot right now, but what happens if the Democrats take back the White House and Congress? Coal may again revert back to the ranks of "unclean" status. We may get the dreaded "carbon tax" (ostensibly to mitigate the perceived "cause" of alleged global warming/abrupt climate change), and if so coal is dead. Nuclear power may get a big boost.

In other words, there are a lot of uncertain variables lurking that could kill any potential returns on such a capital intensive investment. The real question is why any private investors would even consider such an investment without some guarantees. Well, DM&E now has the guarantees in the form of the federal loan guarantee, which means the private capital will now be available.

And by every measure, the current coal shortage is most definitely the fault of the railroads, specifically BNSF and UP. They are only delivering at 85% of normal. So the railroad types turn around and blame the utilities, claiming "they should have stockpiled more". How? How can they have been expected to stockpile more when the railroads can barely keep up with past demand? Who is supposed to deliver this extra coal, trucks? Paaaalease.

"Situation normal"?!? Are you kidding me?

Meanwhile, the ghost of Chairman Mao sits back and revels in the returns his minions are receiving from the US railroads.

So if the utilities industry is not willing to invest more to improve capacity and service because of the uncertainty of PBR coal, why should the railroads have to make such an investment?

I am confused.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

The problem is.....There arn't enough Coal Trains. Coal is what's called a low priorty Freight. It can and will sit in the yard for hours for many reasons. I do agree. It is the Railroads falt for not delivering enough Coal. And if and when those P*GS called the Democrats do take over the Government,you will the end of Coal as we know it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

These are the same people who have the opportunity to fund the DM&E and are hanging back?!?

PLEASE...typical rail customers seeking to justify their own rate hikes by blaming it on the RRs...

Situation normal...

LC

How about this point FM? I am glad LC nailed this one, as I remember reading about the funding of the DM&E, and thinking where in the heck are all of the energy utilities in all of this? That answered a lot of questions for me as to the complaining that the utilities have been doing.

The only thing LC has nailed is his brain to the ballast. We discussed this before, that any ambitious rail project, especially one whose ultimate fate rests with PRB coal, will need federal backing. Yes, PRB coal is hot right now, but what happens if the Democrats take back the White House and Congress? Coal may again revert back to the ranks of "unclean" status. We may get the dreaded "carbon tax" (ostensibly to mitigate the perceived "cause" of alleged global warming/abrupt climate change), and if so coal is dead. Nuclear power may get a big boost.

In other words, there are a lot of uncertain variables lurking that could kill any potential returns on such a capital intensive investment. The real question is why any private investors would even consider such an investment without some guarantees. Well, DM&E now has the guarantees in the form of the federal loan guarantee, which means the private capital will now be available.

And by every measure, the current coal shortage is most definitely the fault of the railroads, specifically BNSF and UP. They are only delivering at 85% of normal. So the railroad types turn around and blame the utilities, claiming "they should have stockpiled more". How? How can they have been expected to stockpile more when the railroads can barely keep up with past demand? Who is supposed to deliver this extra coal, trucks? Paaaalease.

"Situation normal"?!? Are you kidding me?

Meanwhile, the ghost of Chairman Mao sits back and revels in the returns his minions are receiving from the US railroads.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

These are the same people who have the opportunity to fund the DM&E and are hanging back?!?

PLEASE...typical rail customers seeking to justify their own rate hikes by blaming it on the RRs...

Situation normal...

LC

How about this point FM? I am glad LC nailed this one, as I remember reading about the funding of the DM&E, and thinking where in the heck are all of the energy utilities in all of this? That answered a lot of questions for me as to the complaining that the utilities have been doing.

[Anonymous]

When will this take affect?

[solzrules]

okay, it's really sad that you have that much time on your hands.....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

More blather from a bunch of lobbysts that have not been able to get any kind of bill out of committee in a decade.

Tell me Bob, are you immune to price hikes in your electric bill? You must have a place that is electrified by distributed power systems and warmed by an internal hot air system. No coal? No heating oil? No natural gas?

We have planned our finances to absorb any prices increases.

So you not only are okay with railroad-induced price increases in your energy bill, you actually seem to welcome it with open arms.



Time to whip up another batch of that koolaid.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

More blather from a bunch of lobbysts that have not been able to get any kind of bill out of committee in a decade.

Tell me Bob, are you immune to price hikes in your electric bill? You must have a place that is electrified by distributed power systems and warmed by an internal hot air system. No coal? No heating oil? No natural gas?

We have planned our finances to absorb any prices increases.

As anyone who is wise should do. Don't rely on the government to take care of it. You will pay eight times as much for a study to determine why you are paying eight times as much.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

More blather from a bunch of lobbysts that have not been able to get any kind of bill out of committee in a decade.

Tell me Bob, are you immune to price hikes in your electric bill? You must have a place that is electrified by distributed power systems and warmed by an internal hot air system. No coal? No heating oil? No natural gas?

We have planned our finances to absorb any prices increases.

[Anonymous]

These are the same people who have the opportunity to fund the DM&E and are hanging back?!?

PLEASE...typical rail customers seeking to justify their own rate hikes by blaming it on the RRs...

Situation normal...

LC

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
As opposed to the thinly veiled fascism of the current anti-trust exempt rail oligarcy which gouges domestic producers while simultaneously bending over backwards for the import intermodal trade? Pull your head out of the ballast for a while so you can see the reality of what's going on.

And for the record (and for the umteenth time), I am not in favor of reregulating rates. I am in favor of breaking up the oligarchy vertically for the sake of establishing market based rates and aggressive expansion via intramodal competition. If it takes the ironic twist of separating the infrastructure from the rest and putting it into public/private consortium oversight, then so be it.

Just for the sake of posterity, why has it taken two years and counting to rehab the Orin line?

The bottom line is this: The mindset of the Class I's that they are immune to the consequences of their actions (or inactions as the case may be) is finally coming around to confront them in the court of public opinion, and that's the figurative place where legislative action comes to the fore.

If you think that's fascism you should read 'Mein Kempf' and then the "Communist Manifesto". Fascism and socialism are nearly identical when it comes to the usefulness of large transportation systems like railroads. If they can benefit the country then they should be staffed with government agents and party operatives as a private company (fascism) or they should be owned by the government outright (communism). Either way genuine private ownership (publicly traded included) is not a word in either
-ism's lexicon. Separating the infastructure and placing it in the pubic domain is soicialism, pure and simple. The government is not a rail business, and I really doubt that the influences of government politics and policies will cause the problems to go away. We'll just be met with another rash of bankruptcies.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

More blather from a bunch of lobbysts that have not been able to get any kind of bill out of committee in a decade.

Tell me Bob, are you immune to price hikes in your electric bill? You must have a place that is electrified by distributed power systems and warmed by an internal hot air system. No coal? No heating oil? No natural gas?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

FM: Thinly veiled socialism. Get over it.

As opposed to the thinly veiled fascism of the current anti-trust exempt rail oligarcy which gouges domestic producers while simultaneously bending over backwards for the import intermodal trade? Pull your head out of the ballast for a while so you can see the reality of what's going on.

And for the record (and for the umteenth time), I am not in favor of reregulating rates. I am in favor of breaking up the oligarchy vertically for the sake of establishing market based rates and aggressive expansion via intramodal competition. If it takes the ironic twist of separating the infrastructure from the rest and putting it into public/private consortium oversight, then so be it.

Just for the sake of posterity, why has it taken two years and counting to rehab the Orin line?

The bottom line is this: The mindset of the Class I's that they are immune to the consequences of their actions (or inactions as the case may be) is finally coming around to confront them in the court of public opinion, and that's the figurative place where legislative action comes to the fore.

[Anonymous]

I highly doubt the RR Industry will be reregulated......

[wallyworld]

The real problem is infrastructure. Class 1's failed to anticipate trends in the markets and at the same time now they have to keep one eye on Wall Street and another on the high cost of putting down rails when afew years ago they were pulling them up.Some once coined an apt phrase when describing management as "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Another problem is their lack of public relations building with the electorate whose clout they need at the legislative level. Thet are below the publics radar unless you are stalled behind lowered gates at a crossing for a slow moving freight. The public is also their end customer. I once had a conversation with a UP management type who told me in so many words that they did not need to worry as they are still the cheapest means to move bulk freight over a long haul. Now with the deteriorating oil crisis which seems to be escalating what are they doing on planning to protect this advantage as their fuel costs soar?

[mudchicken]

FM: Thinly veiled socialism. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

it is a big problem and we as comsumers will be paying for it no matter what happens.

[germanium]

Come back USRA, all is forgiven ??

[bobwilcox]

More blather from a bunch of lobbysts that have not been able to get any kind of bill out of committee in a decade.

[jimrice4449]

Am I to understand from the above that a power plant that is specifically designed to burn coal (frequently a particular grade of coal) needs only to turn on the gas spigot to begin using gas? I don't think so.
As for reregulation, Micheal Baron has this election year's edition of the Almanac Of American Politics out. Try the reference desk at your local library and check out the party breakdown of the House and Senate and if your propensity to change wishes into predctions survives that brief contact w/ reality, try to imagine such a bill leaving the desk of the Oval Office w/ a presidential signature