QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 QUOTE: Originally posted by SECA CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it. yes, just who DOES own it...hmmmm?
QUOTE: Originally posted by SECA CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition Sounds like these things need to be addressed BEFORE anybody can give the order to "run the trains at the spped limit of the track." Simple orders won't overcome very many of these.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition
QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You've made so many statements that leave nothing but questions Well, you can see that it walks like a duck, etc, yet in your mind you have no idea what it could possibly be, because unless the duck actually walked up to you, grabbed you by the collar, looked you square in the eye, and yelled right into your face "I AM A DUCK!" you still couldn't fathom that the duck was actually a duck. And even after all that, there would be this nagging little voice in your head saying "Was that really a duck, or was the 'duck' lying to me about what it really is?" Trying to explain things to Tom is like............... Problem is, if the duck came up to you with a question, you'd just ignore it. Especially if you have no answer. Getting back to the original question that you have no answer for: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? The only thing you could come up with is "require them to run at the speed limit." It sounds like the Gestapo in an bad WW2 movie: "You vill run the trains at the speed limit, der Furor has ordered it." Until you manage to move past step one of the problem (define the problem) you're just making so much hot air or bytes of computer data. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:27 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now. ANOTHER place you seem to know more about railroad operations than the railroad itself. You're starting to sound like a Consultant. LOTS of ideas and theories, but no experience actually putting them into action. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:23 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And there are no "cuts" in your social welfare programs as you state, rather a reduction in the trending rate of increases. Obviously, you're really out of touch with reality on this one. I guess they don't publish newspapers or have TV news programs in the PNW. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:21 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: And I hate to try to bring you into the 21st century, but the big boom days of the railroads was over a long time ago. And here all this time we thought "today's railroads" were the hot item on Wall Street. So which is it, then or now? And exactly how many railroads are on the Fortune 500 list in this country? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:19 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom statements: QUOTE: First, if they bought a line to rebuild, they'd have to buy it from a railroad. Sure, if a railroad still owned an abandoned ROW, but most have also given up on the property as well as the line. What they would do is to do what the original railroad did, basically having the governmetn issue an eminent domain decree, then buy up the ROW from the "reverted" property owners, even if one of those "reverts" is the real estate arm of the original railroad company. If you're buying what used to be an old railroad right of way that has reverted to the adjoining property owners, it's been stripped of rails and ties, most likely bridges (liability issues), and owned by many property owners. Hardly would qualify as an existing right of way when you need to build it from scratch. Eminent domain provisions would be a really bad idea at this time, if you listen to the news at all. Most states are reviewing their provisions and have imposed a moritorium on new applications of it due to the city in New England that condemned property for a developer. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:04 AM farmer: I think you are probably correct regarding DePue eastward. AFter I posted, I went for a run and it dawned on me that route was a viable route back in the 60's for NYC - Rock trains. I think a bridge could be built considerably cheaper than a lot of the other stuff I have proposed. That's it, solution to all of Chicago's problems (not really). Now, if the line from Schneider, In eastward (actually Wheatfield) to South Bend hadnt been torn up, there would be a great bypass. What if...can be played all day, which is kinda fun, but doesnt really accomplish anything. Next time I go to Iowa, I will have to snoop around Bureau Jct and the area around Ottawa. ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:58 PM Tom statements: QUOTE: First, if they bought a line to rebuild, they'd have to buy it from a railroad. Sure, if a railroad still owned an abandoned ROW, but most have also given up on the property as well as the line. What they would do is to do what the original railroad did, basically having the governmetn issue an eminent domain decree, then buy up the ROW from the "reverted" property owners, even if one of those "reverts" is the real estate arm of the original railroad company. QUOTE: Lobbying and frivolous lawsuits cost money for the originator of the lawsuit or lobbying. There can't be a large public support for the new line, or the politicos being lobbyed will need some REAL payoff to bury the new line The Class I's have deeper pockets than most venture capitalists for such actions. Just show a display of legal resistance, and investors will drift elsewhere. QUOTE: And I hate to try to bring you into the 21st century, but the big boom days of the railroads was over a long time ago. And here all this time we thought "today's railroads" were the hot item on Wall Street. So which is it, then or now? QUOTE: And those "Sucker American Taxpayers" aren't going to put up with a big investment in a rail line where one already exists. Especially after enduring the cuts in Medicare, Drug Programs, and Social Security, to name a few. And hearing "established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction" is the main thing keeping the railroads from expanding capacity any faster. The railroad profits are paying the bill for the upgrades. The American taxpayers don't have a direct say in expenditures, only an indirect say via their elected representatives. That's why organized lobbying beats one man one vote hands down. And there are no "cuts" in your social welfare programs as you state, rather a reduction in the trending rate of increases. And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now. QUOTE: Yes, we've noticed that you mentioned "incentives" before. Every time you've left out one important point: what supposed "incentives" could the government offer private investors to put up the money to finance this building or rebuilding? And how much more will it cost the railroads? Gee, didn't you read the DM&E press releases regarding the 2.5 billion loan guarantee? Ever heard of land grants? Maintenance tax credits? Transportation user fees? That last one would be apt, start taxing the fuel railroads use and create a trust fund for new open access railroads! QUOTE: You've made so many statements that leave nothing but questions Well, you can see that it walks like a duck, etc, yet in your mind you have no idea what it could possibly be, because unless the duck actually walked up to you, grabbed you by the collar, looked you square in the eye, and yelled right into your face "I AM A DUCK!" you still couldn't fathom that the duck was actually a duck. And even after all that, there would be this nagging little voice in your head saying "Was that really a duck, or was the 'duck' lying to me about what it really is?" Trying to explain things to Tom is like............... Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:56 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal I see Tom "I misquote 'em as I see 'em" Diehl is at it again........ QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I see "Conspiracy Theory Dave" is at it again. In a free enterprise system, if someone buys abandoned sections to rebuild, or builds new infrastructure for running trains, there ain't a thing the railroads can do about it. Yes, there is. They can (and most absolutely would) lobby against such intrusions into their respective territories. They would throw frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against the "new" guy. They would claim first rights against any cross-overs, underpasses, overpasses, and any interconnections. How do we know this? Read your railroad history books once in a while, as all of the statements above occured with regularity back in the boom days. So why would anyone who claims pertinent railroad knowledge state otherwise? QUOTE: The whole thing just goes back to the one simple fact: building or rebuilding railroads isn't cheap. Where are you going to find the rich sucker to pony up the money? Even though Barnum said there's one born every minute, there aren't very many rich ones. Actually, there's several born every second of every day, and there called American taxpayers. Most railroads received government aid back in the day, and some still are still. There's no reason to expect a new player to try to go it alone without government backing. In fact, to hear established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction is down right hypocritical. QUOTE: And Uncle Sam is so far in debt, our great grandchildren wouldn't be able to afford it. Debt is irrespective of economic investment. There is no real debt ceiling for the feds, most federal debt is due to wasteful spending which could be culled, and the feds will always have easy access to a tax base. And, as has been mentioned many times before, the feds could come up with incentives that do not take one penny from the Federal Treasury. Therefore, federal debt does not have to have any impact over federal incentives for new non-Class I mainline railroad construction. And I see Dave "juvenile name calling" futuremodal is also at it again. Even you couldn't find a misquote in this one. First, if they bought a line to rebuild, they'd have to buy it from a railroad. If the railroad didn't want it operated by someone else, why sell it at all? They wouldn't. Look at the former DL&W Lackawanna Cutoff through north Jersey. Conrail didn't want to have it reopened by another operator and compete with the old NYC Water Level Route for the Binghamton to New York City traffic, so they tore it out. No sale, no competition. They stopped it BEFORE another operator could buy and rebuilt it. Lobbying and frivolous lawsuits cost money for the originator of the lawsuit or lobbying. There can't be a large public support for the new line, or the politicos being lobbyed will need some REAL payoff to bury the new line. And I hate to try to bring you into the 21st century, but the big boom days of the railroads was over a long time ago. And those "Sucker American Taxpayers" aren't going to put up with a big investment in a rail line where one already exists. Especially after enduring the cuts in Medicare, Drug Programs, and Social Security, to name a few. And hearing "established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction" is the main thing keeping the railroads from expanding capacity any faster. The railroad profits are paying the bill for the upgrades. And with this administration, we've all noticed that they have no idea what a debt ceiling is. But some of them are starting to get the idea, and the cutbacks are coming. Some have already started. New programs that cost big bucks aren't even making it to the floor in DC. Yes, we've noticed that you mentioned "incentives" before. Every time you've left out one important point: what supposed "incentives" could the government offer private investors to put up the money to finance this building or rebuilding? And how much more will it cost the railroads? As MichaelSol pointed out in another thread, borrowing money costs more money due to the interest. Would this be an "incentive" to the investors? Why would the railroad go for it? You've made so many statements that leave nothing but questions. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:11 PM ohh...where to start. i'm not really sure why CSX (on some maps it's shown as B&O)owns the line to west to Bureau, but it seems to me they do some pretty good business on it. i believe the bulk of the traffic is in the form of silica sand from U.S. Silica in ottawa. there is a yard there with a handful of engines from GP15's to -9's usually and the last i remember there's a daily train (at night) to and fro chicago, loads up empties back. there are various other industries on the way east, a GE plastic plant in marseilles etc. i live east of Bureau a few miles and i usually hear the nightly IAIS train heading west, although lately i've been hearing more than one at night. i've heard from a couple people that the iowa interstate portion of the ex-RI is in much better shape with a sizable portion in continous rail. if i remember right they received millions of dollars via the feds to do work to the line last year. the Illinois Railnet line (ex-BNSF) from montgomery, IL to streator is fairly***ty from ottawa south. i'm going to guess the BIG red flag in that is the bridge over the IL river, a rickety old lift bridge which i read was possibly the reason BNSF sold the line. its old, narrow, low clearance for trains, on a slight bend in the river, coast guard wants it removed. ideally...to avoid metra (and chicago altogether) or the Illinois Railnet and still get east...IAIS to depue, IL and if the bridge over the river hadn't been rammed by a barge and burned years ago, i'd hang a right over the river and onto the NS in hennepin, IL and onto Indiana. but that would make for an awful busy crossing in streator, although another rochelle for those of us who like to watch. if i wanted a pretty neat railroad i'd do it that way. the traffic that could avoid chicago to points east i'd send across the river at Depue, IL and east on NS and have my racetrack on into chicago for the rest. at any rate, i will agree with you ed, the ex-RI today looks like a nice piece of under-utilized railway that might come in handy in the near future. Reply Edit MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:38 PM Dave: As always, you have interesting things to discuss. Your vision on this is more macro, while mine is micro. I am addressing the Chicago issue, which I believe will become pretty big, pretty soon. My problem with discussing your points is that I dont know or understand half of what you are advocating...such as HSR, 25 to 33 ton per axle, ECP, and Bi Modal. Cant even discuss those issues with you, as I dont know what they are. I am just a little under educated or under informed. Sorry. ed Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:25 PM farmer and Mac: Yeah, you guys win. Although...with CSX's current attitude of selling off lines, I wouldnt be surprized if someday the line from Joliet west to Bureau Jct is put up for sale. Farmer, what is the traffic level out there on that line? Is there chemical traffic, or is that on the EJE branch? I know there is some aggregate or stone traffic out there, but I am not really sure of what the traffic base is. When you look at the line, it just doesnt fit into the overall picture. My guess is the "For Sale" sign will be put in place someday. Regarding METRA...that is the real trump card. From Joliet eastward to Chicago, that is a pretty good piece of commuter railroad, other than at 47th Street. I cannot see Metra allowing any kind of volume being put on the line. That makes me go back to the trusty Illinois DOT map. How about this...IAIS to Ottawa, Il, then south on the IR to Streator to the NS line thru Kankakee and into Indiana? Yes, I know there is no direct transfer from IAIS to IR on the southwest quadrant, but Terra Server shows there once was...simply buy the land back and rehab the line to Streator. The NS is in great shape, other than lack of signals and would need sidings. No doubt there are issues with this routing also, but I am looking medium long term (Dave, I will respond to your comments regarding the long long term) and the real problems which will exist in Chicago within the next 10 years, if not sooner. ed Reply samfp1943 Member sinceJune 2003 From: South Central,Ks 7,170 posts Posted by samfp1943 on Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:17 PM Another thought, the BNSF "rationalized" their line across Southeast Kansas between Carthage, Mo and Wichita, Ks several years back [ the former Frisco right of way]. This woud have given them a good cut off to avoid the Kansas City traffic, and put the traffic back on the Transcon at Wichita, and shortening the East-West travel miles for freight out of the Southeast. I think the line rationalizations that have been done over the last twenty years will come back to haunt the railroads as their capacity runs short. Reply PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:59 PM MP I think Farmer 03 found the biggest stopper, METRA. The last thing they want is more freight trains and if they own the last mile IAIS has nothing to sell. If CSX has rights on METRA, and if CSX wants to fix up the Eastern End for its own reasons you still could have something. If it was easy it would have been done by now. Mac Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:13 AM ed, Let me throw this out at you: Is it necessarily the best move to simply rebuild an ex-railroad grade, or would it make more sense to utilize that old grade for a grander purpose? In my extremist right wing conspiracy view of things, I do not believe it is necessarily optimal to build a toll railroad concept as an adjunct of the 4'81/2" / 39 ton per axle / knuckle coupler / air brake / speed constrained railroad system we have now. If our nation was to embark on such a project with similarities to the Interstate Highway System, why not make it a (inclusive of but not limited to or dependent upon): 1. Wide gauge? 2. HSR? 3. 25 to 33 ton per axle? 4. ECP required? 5. Bi-modal based? 6. other???? If any or all of the above are included, do old railroad ROW's make the best ROW's for an Interstate Rail System? Your Middle American ex-RR ROW's might be straight as an arrow, but out West some parts of that Milwaukee ROW simply would not fit into a modernized vision of a toll railway. And if governments are the lead entities for constructing new toll railways, they might be better off using the ol' eminent domain high speed highway ROW's with wide sweeping curves and no cross traffic rather than curving ground level ex-RR grades. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:58 AM I see Tom "I misquote 'em as I see 'em" Diehl is at it again........ QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I see "Conspiracy Theory Dave" is at it again. In a free enterprise system, if someone buys abandoned sections to rebuild, or builds new infrastructure for running trains, there ain't a thing the railroads can do about it. Yes, there is. They can (and most absolutely would) lobby against such intrusions into their respective territories. They would throw frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against the "new" guy. They would claim first rights against any cross-overs, underpasses, overpasses, and any interconnections. How do we know this? Read your railroad history books once in a while, as all of the statements above occured with regularity back in the boom days. So why would anyone who claims pertinent railroad knowledge state otherwise? QUOTE: The whole thing just goes back to the one simple fact: building or rebuilding railroads isn't cheap. Where are you going to find the rich sucker to pony up the money? Even though Barnum said there's one born every minute, there aren't very many rich ones. Actually, there's several born every second of every day, and there called American taxpayers. Most railroads received government aid back in the day, and some still are still. There's no reason to expect a new player to try to go it alone without government backing. In fact, to hear established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction is down right hypocritical. QUOTE: And Uncle Sam is so far in debt, our great grandchildren wouldn't be able to afford it. Debt is irrespective of economic investment. There is no real debt ceiling for the feds, most federal debt is due to wasteful spending which could be culled, and the feds will always have easy access to a tax base. And, as has been mentioned many times before, the feds could come up with incentives that do not take one penny from the Federal Treasury. Therefore, federal debt does not have to have any impact over federal incentives for new non-Class I mainline railroad construction. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 10, 2006 10:13 PM i haven't seen mention of it here yet, but IAIS doesn't own the ENTIRE ex-Rock. it's IAIS from CB to Bureau Jct. in Illinois, CSX from there onto joliet and down to henry, IL and metra from joliet on in to chi-town with both CSX and IAIS having trackage rights over metra. i can't imagine a railroad turning down outside investment in it's line but what happens if say CSX isn't pleased with your plan and doesn't want anything like that? dumb question...done. lol Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
You've made so many statements that leave nothing but questions
Problem is, if the duck came up to you with a question, you'd just ignore it. Especially if you have no answer. Getting back to the original question that you have no answer for: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? The only thing you could come up with is "require them to run at the speed limit." It sounds like the Gestapo in an bad WW2 movie: "You vill run the trains at the speed limit, der Furor has ordered it." Until you manage to move past step one of the problem (define the problem) you're just making so much hot air or bytes of computer data. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:27 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now. ANOTHER place you seem to know more about railroad operations than the railroad itself. You're starting to sound like a Consultant. LOTS of ideas and theories, but no experience actually putting them into action. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:23 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And there are no "cuts" in your social welfare programs as you state, rather a reduction in the trending rate of increases. Obviously, you're really out of touch with reality on this one. I guess they don't publish newspapers or have TV news programs in the PNW. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:21 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: And I hate to try to bring you into the 21st century, but the big boom days of the railroads was over a long time ago. And here all this time we thought "today's railroads" were the hot item on Wall Street. So which is it, then or now? And exactly how many railroads are on the Fortune 500 list in this country? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:19 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom statements: QUOTE: First, if they bought a line to rebuild, they'd have to buy it from a railroad. Sure, if a railroad still owned an abandoned ROW, but most have also given up on the property as well as the line. What they would do is to do what the original railroad did, basically having the governmetn issue an eminent domain decree, then buy up the ROW from the "reverted" property owners, even if one of those "reverts" is the real estate arm of the original railroad company. If you're buying what used to be an old railroad right of way that has reverted to the adjoining property owners, it's been stripped of rails and ties, most likely bridges (liability issues), and owned by many property owners. Hardly would qualify as an existing right of way when you need to build it from scratch. Eminent domain provisions would be a really bad idea at this time, if you listen to the news at all. Most states are reviewing their provisions and have imposed a moritorium on new applications of it due to the city in New England that condemned property for a developer. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:04 AM farmer: I think you are probably correct regarding DePue eastward. AFter I posted, I went for a run and it dawned on me that route was a viable route back in the 60's for NYC - Rock trains. I think a bridge could be built considerably cheaper than a lot of the other stuff I have proposed. That's it, solution to all of Chicago's problems (not really). Now, if the line from Schneider, In eastward (actually Wheatfield) to South Bend hadnt been torn up, there would be a great bypass. What if...can be played all day, which is kinda fun, but doesnt really accomplish anything. Next time I go to Iowa, I will have to snoop around Bureau Jct and the area around Ottawa. ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:58 PM Tom statements: QUOTE: First, if they bought a line to rebuild, they'd have to buy it from a railroad. Sure, if a railroad still owned an abandoned ROW, but most have also given up on the property as well as the line. What they would do is to do what the original railroad did, basically having the governmetn issue an eminent domain decree, then buy up the ROW from the "reverted" property owners, even if one of those "reverts" is the real estate arm of the original railroad company. QUOTE: Lobbying and frivolous lawsuits cost money for the originator of the lawsuit or lobbying. There can't be a large public support for the new line, or the politicos being lobbyed will need some REAL payoff to bury the new line The Class I's have deeper pockets than most venture capitalists for such actions. Just show a display of legal resistance, and investors will drift elsewhere. QUOTE: And I hate to try to bring you into the 21st century, but the big boom days of the railroads was over a long time ago. And here all this time we thought "today's railroads" were the hot item on Wall Street. So which is it, then or now? QUOTE: And those "Sucker American Taxpayers" aren't going to put up with a big investment in a rail line where one already exists. Especially after enduring the cuts in Medicare, Drug Programs, and Social Security, to name a few. And hearing "established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction" is the main thing keeping the railroads from expanding capacity any faster. The railroad profits are paying the bill for the upgrades. The American taxpayers don't have a direct say in expenditures, only an indirect say via their elected representatives. That's why organized lobbying beats one man one vote hands down. And there are no "cuts" in your social welfare programs as you state, rather a reduction in the trending rate of increases. And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now. QUOTE: Yes, we've noticed that you mentioned "incentives" before. Every time you've left out one important point: what supposed "incentives" could the government offer private investors to put up the money to finance this building or rebuilding? And how much more will it cost the railroads? Gee, didn't you read the DM&E press releases regarding the 2.5 billion loan guarantee? Ever heard of land grants? Maintenance tax credits? Transportation user fees? That last one would be apt, start taxing the fuel railroads use and create a trust fund for new open access railroads! QUOTE: You've made so many statements that leave nothing but questions Well, you can see that it walks like a duck, etc, yet in your mind you have no idea what it could possibly be, because unless the duck actually walked up to you, grabbed you by the collar, looked you square in the eye, and yelled right into your face "I AM A DUCK!" you still couldn't fathom that the duck was actually a duck. And even after all that, there would be this nagging little voice in your head saying "Was that really a duck, or was the 'duck' lying to me about what it really is?" Trying to explain things to Tom is like............... Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:56 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal I see Tom "I misquote 'em as I see 'em" Diehl is at it again........ QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I see "Conspiracy Theory Dave" is at it again. In a free enterprise system, if someone buys abandoned sections to rebuild, or builds new infrastructure for running trains, there ain't a thing the railroads can do about it. Yes, there is. They can (and most absolutely would) lobby against such intrusions into their respective territories. They would throw frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against the "new" guy. They would claim first rights against any cross-overs, underpasses, overpasses, and any interconnections. How do we know this? Read your railroad history books once in a while, as all of the statements above occured with regularity back in the boom days. So why would anyone who claims pertinent railroad knowledge state otherwise? QUOTE: The whole thing just goes back to the one simple fact: building or rebuilding railroads isn't cheap. Where are you going to find the rich sucker to pony up the money? Even though Barnum said there's one born every minute, there aren't very many rich ones. Actually, there's several born every second of every day, and there called American taxpayers. Most railroads received government aid back in the day, and some still are still. There's no reason to expect a new player to try to go it alone without government backing. In fact, to hear established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction is down right hypocritical. QUOTE: And Uncle Sam is so far in debt, our great grandchildren wouldn't be able to afford it. Debt is irrespective of economic investment. There is no real debt ceiling for the feds, most federal debt is due to wasteful spending which could be culled, and the feds will always have easy access to a tax base. And, as has been mentioned many times before, the feds could come up with incentives that do not take one penny from the Federal Treasury. Therefore, federal debt does not have to have any impact over federal incentives for new non-Class I mainline railroad construction. And I see Dave "juvenile name calling" futuremodal is also at it again. Even you couldn't find a misquote in this one. First, if they bought a line to rebuild, they'd have to buy it from a railroad. If the railroad didn't want it operated by someone else, why sell it at all? They wouldn't. Look at the former DL&W Lackawanna Cutoff through north Jersey. Conrail didn't want to have it reopened by another operator and compete with the old NYC Water Level Route for the Binghamton to New York City traffic, so they tore it out. No sale, no competition. They stopped it BEFORE another operator could buy and rebuilt it. Lobbying and frivolous lawsuits cost money for the originator of the lawsuit or lobbying. There can't be a large public support for the new line, or the politicos being lobbyed will need some REAL payoff to bury the new line. And I hate to try to bring you into the 21st century, but the big boom days of the railroads was over a long time ago. And those "Sucker American Taxpayers" aren't going to put up with a big investment in a rail line where one already exists. Especially after enduring the cuts in Medicare, Drug Programs, and Social Security, to name a few. And hearing "established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction" is the main thing keeping the railroads from expanding capacity any faster. The railroad profits are paying the bill for the upgrades. And with this administration, we've all noticed that they have no idea what a debt ceiling is. But some of them are starting to get the idea, and the cutbacks are coming. Some have already started. New programs that cost big bucks aren't even making it to the floor in DC. Yes, we've noticed that you mentioned "incentives" before. Every time you've left out one important point: what supposed "incentives" could the government offer private investors to put up the money to finance this building or rebuilding? And how much more will it cost the railroads? As MichaelSol pointed out in another thread, borrowing money costs more money due to the interest. Would this be an "incentive" to the investors? Why would the railroad go for it? You've made so many statements that leave nothing but questions. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:11 PM ohh...where to start. i'm not really sure why CSX (on some maps it's shown as B&O)owns the line to west to Bureau, but it seems to me they do some pretty good business on it. i believe the bulk of the traffic is in the form of silica sand from U.S. Silica in ottawa. there is a yard there with a handful of engines from GP15's to -9's usually and the last i remember there's a daily train (at night) to and fro chicago, loads up empties back. there are various other industries on the way east, a GE plastic plant in marseilles etc. i live east of Bureau a few miles and i usually hear the nightly IAIS train heading west, although lately i've been hearing more than one at night. i've heard from a couple people that the iowa interstate portion of the ex-RI is in much better shape with a sizable portion in continous rail. if i remember right they received millions of dollars via the feds to do work to the line last year. the Illinois Railnet line (ex-BNSF) from montgomery, IL to streator is fairly***ty from ottawa south. i'm going to guess the BIG red flag in that is the bridge over the IL river, a rickety old lift bridge which i read was possibly the reason BNSF sold the line. its old, narrow, low clearance for trains, on a slight bend in the river, coast guard wants it removed. ideally...to avoid metra (and chicago altogether) or the Illinois Railnet and still get east...IAIS to depue, IL and if the bridge over the river hadn't been rammed by a barge and burned years ago, i'd hang a right over the river and onto the NS in hennepin, IL and onto Indiana. but that would make for an awful busy crossing in streator, although another rochelle for those of us who like to watch. if i wanted a pretty neat railroad i'd do it that way. the traffic that could avoid chicago to points east i'd send across the river at Depue, IL and east on NS and have my racetrack on into chicago for the rest. at any rate, i will agree with you ed, the ex-RI today looks like a nice piece of under-utilized railway that might come in handy in the near future. Reply Edit MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:38 PM Dave: As always, you have interesting things to discuss. Your vision on this is more macro, while mine is micro. I am addressing the Chicago issue, which I believe will become pretty big, pretty soon. My problem with discussing your points is that I dont know or understand half of what you are advocating...such as HSR, 25 to 33 ton per axle, ECP, and Bi Modal. Cant even discuss those issues with you, as I dont know what they are. I am just a little under educated or under informed. Sorry. ed Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:25 PM farmer and Mac: Yeah, you guys win. Although...with CSX's current attitude of selling off lines, I wouldnt be surprized if someday the line from Joliet west to Bureau Jct is put up for sale. Farmer, what is the traffic level out there on that line? Is there chemical traffic, or is that on the EJE branch? I know there is some aggregate or stone traffic out there, but I am not really sure of what the traffic base is. When you look at the line, it just doesnt fit into the overall picture. My guess is the "For Sale" sign will be put in place someday. Regarding METRA...that is the real trump card. From Joliet eastward to Chicago, that is a pretty good piece of commuter railroad, other than at 47th Street. I cannot see Metra allowing any kind of volume being put on the line. That makes me go back to the trusty Illinois DOT map. How about this...IAIS to Ottawa, Il, then south on the IR to Streator to the NS line thru Kankakee and into Indiana? Yes, I know there is no direct transfer from IAIS to IR on the southwest quadrant, but Terra Server shows there once was...simply buy the land back and rehab the line to Streator. The NS is in great shape, other than lack of signals and would need sidings. No doubt there are issues with this routing also, but I am looking medium long term (Dave, I will respond to your comments regarding the long long term) and the real problems which will exist in Chicago within the next 10 years, if not sooner. ed Reply samfp1943 Member sinceJune 2003 From: South Central,Ks 7,170 posts Posted by samfp1943 on Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:17 PM Another thought, the BNSF "rationalized" their line across Southeast Kansas between Carthage, Mo and Wichita, Ks several years back [ the former Frisco right of way]. This woud have given them a good cut off to avoid the Kansas City traffic, and put the traffic back on the Transcon at Wichita, and shortening the East-West travel miles for freight out of the Southeast. I think the line rationalizations that have been done over the last twenty years will come back to haunt the railroads as their capacity runs short. Reply PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:59 PM MP I think Farmer 03 found the biggest stopper, METRA. The last thing they want is more freight trains and if they own the last mile IAIS has nothing to sell. If CSX has rights on METRA, and if CSX wants to fix up the Eastern End for its own reasons you still could have something. If it was easy it would have been done by now. Mac Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:13 AM ed, Let me throw this out at you: Is it necessarily the best move to simply rebuild an ex-railroad grade, or would it make more sense to utilize that old grade for a grander purpose? In my extremist right wing conspiracy view of things, I do not believe it is necessarily optimal to build a toll railroad concept as an adjunct of the 4'81/2" / 39 ton per axle / knuckle coupler / air brake / speed constrained railroad system we have now. If our nation was to embark on such a project with similarities to the Interstate Highway System, why not make it a (inclusive of but not limited to or dependent upon): 1. Wide gauge? 2. HSR? 3. 25 to 33 ton per axle? 4. ECP required? 5. Bi-modal based? 6. other???? If any or all of the above are included, do old railroad ROW's make the best ROW's for an Interstate Rail System? Your Middle American ex-RR ROW's might be straight as an arrow, but out West some parts of that Milwaukee ROW simply would not fit into a modernized vision of a toll railway. And if governments are the lead entities for constructing new toll railways, they might be better off using the ol' eminent domain high speed highway ROW's with wide sweeping curves and no cross traffic rather than curving ground level ex-RR grades. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:58 AM I see Tom "I misquote 'em as I see 'em" Diehl is at it again........ QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I see "Conspiracy Theory Dave" is at it again. In a free enterprise system, if someone buys abandoned sections to rebuild, or builds new infrastructure for running trains, there ain't a thing the railroads can do about it. Yes, there is. They can (and most absolutely would) lobby against such intrusions into their respective territories. They would throw frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against the "new" guy. They would claim first rights against any cross-overs, underpasses, overpasses, and any interconnections. How do we know this? Read your railroad history books once in a while, as all of the statements above occured with regularity back in the boom days. So why would anyone who claims pertinent railroad knowledge state otherwise? QUOTE: The whole thing just goes back to the one simple fact: building or rebuilding railroads isn't cheap. Where are you going to find the rich sucker to pony up the money? Even though Barnum said there's one born every minute, there aren't very many rich ones. Actually, there's several born every second of every day, and there called American taxpayers. Most railroads received government aid back in the day, and some still are still. There's no reason to expect a new player to try to go it alone without government backing. In fact, to hear established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction is down right hypocritical. QUOTE: And Uncle Sam is so far in debt, our great grandchildren wouldn't be able to afford it. Debt is irrespective of economic investment. There is no real debt ceiling for the feds, most federal debt is due to wasteful spending which could be culled, and the feds will always have easy access to a tax base. And, as has been mentioned many times before, the feds could come up with incentives that do not take one penny from the Federal Treasury. Therefore, federal debt does not have to have any impact over federal incentives for new non-Class I mainline railroad construction. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 10, 2006 10:13 PM i haven't seen mention of it here yet, but IAIS doesn't own the ENTIRE ex-Rock. it's IAIS from CB to Bureau Jct. in Illinois, CSX from there onto joliet and down to henry, IL and metra from joliet on in to chi-town with both CSX and IAIS having trackage rights over metra. i can't imagine a railroad turning down outside investment in it's line but what happens if say CSX isn't pleased with your plan and doesn't want anything like that? dumb question...done. lol Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And there are no "cuts" in your social welfare programs as you state, rather a reduction in the trending rate of increases.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: And I hate to try to bring you into the 21st century, but the big boom days of the railroads was over a long time ago. And here all this time we thought "today's railroads" were the hot item on Wall Street. So which is it, then or now?
QUOTE: And I hate to try to bring you into the 21st century, but the big boom days of the railroads was over a long time ago.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom statements: QUOTE: First, if they bought a line to rebuild, they'd have to buy it from a railroad. Sure, if a railroad still owned an abandoned ROW, but most have also given up on the property as well as the line. What they would do is to do what the original railroad did, basically having the governmetn issue an eminent domain decree, then buy up the ROW from the "reverted" property owners, even if one of those "reverts" is the real estate arm of the original railroad company.
QUOTE: First, if they bought a line to rebuild, they'd have to buy it from a railroad.
QUOTE: Lobbying and frivolous lawsuits cost money for the originator of the lawsuit or lobbying. There can't be a large public support for the new line, or the politicos being lobbyed will need some REAL payoff to bury the new line
QUOTE: And those "Sucker American Taxpayers" aren't going to put up with a big investment in a rail line where one already exists. Especially after enduring the cuts in Medicare, Drug Programs, and Social Security, to name a few. And hearing "established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction" is the main thing keeping the railroads from expanding capacity any faster. The railroad profits are paying the bill for the upgrades.
QUOTE: Yes, we've noticed that you mentioned "incentives" before. Every time you've left out one important point: what supposed "incentives" could the government offer private investors to put up the money to finance this building or rebuilding? And how much more will it cost the railroads?
QUOTE: You've made so many statements that leave nothing but questions
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal I see Tom "I misquote 'em as I see 'em" Diehl is at it again........ QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I see "Conspiracy Theory Dave" is at it again. In a free enterprise system, if someone buys abandoned sections to rebuild, or builds new infrastructure for running trains, there ain't a thing the railroads can do about it. Yes, there is. They can (and most absolutely would) lobby against such intrusions into their respective territories. They would throw frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against the "new" guy. They would claim first rights against any cross-overs, underpasses, overpasses, and any interconnections. How do we know this? Read your railroad history books once in a while, as all of the statements above occured with regularity back in the boom days. So why would anyone who claims pertinent railroad knowledge state otherwise? QUOTE: The whole thing just goes back to the one simple fact: building or rebuilding railroads isn't cheap. Where are you going to find the rich sucker to pony up the money? Even though Barnum said there's one born every minute, there aren't very many rich ones. Actually, there's several born every second of every day, and there called American taxpayers. Most railroads received government aid back in the day, and some still are still. There's no reason to expect a new player to try to go it alone without government backing. In fact, to hear established railroad spokespeople speak in terms of an expectation of private investment paying for new railroad construction is down right hypocritical. QUOTE: And Uncle Sam is so far in debt, our great grandchildren wouldn't be able to afford it. Debt is irrespective of economic investment. There is no real debt ceiling for the feds, most federal debt is due to wasteful spending which could be culled, and the feds will always have easy access to a tax base. And, as has been mentioned many times before, the feds could come up with incentives that do not take one penny from the Federal Treasury. Therefore, federal debt does not have to have any impact over federal incentives for new non-Class I mainline railroad construction.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I see "Conspiracy Theory Dave" is at it again. In a free enterprise system, if someone buys abandoned sections to rebuild, or builds new infrastructure for running trains, there ain't a thing the railroads can do about it.
QUOTE: The whole thing just goes back to the one simple fact: building or rebuilding railroads isn't cheap. Where are you going to find the rich sucker to pony up the money? Even though Barnum said there's one born every minute, there aren't very many rich ones.
QUOTE: And Uncle Sam is so far in debt, our great grandchildren wouldn't be able to afford it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.