2006 - The Year of Re-Regulation of Railroads?

[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

[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!

[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 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!

[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]

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?

[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

[tree68]

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

[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.

[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]

[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

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[edblysard]

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

Ed

[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?

[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.

[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

[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?

[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

[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?

[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.

[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 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.