Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="oltmannd"] [quote user="Sam1"] I suggested as a possibility that a third party, i.e. the federal government or an independent third party, take ownership of the rails as a way to unlock the benefits of greater competition.  If more than one carrier could run on rails owned by a non-carrier entity, many of the markets that are served by only one service provider could see more carriers, which could result in better service and lower prices.      The third party could be a government agency, an independent owner with no interest in an operating company (carrier), or even a consortium of operators, i.e. similar to the concept that was used to build some of the nation's union stations. Robust standards for regulating the track system, i.e. tariffs, maintenance, rights of access, etc. would have to be developed, implemented, and maintained.  It would have to be financed adequately, i.e. sufficient rents would have to be charged to the carriers to ensure the system is operated and maintained property.     Amtrak's ownership of parts of the NEC is not a good example.  It has a vested stake (operational and financial) in its system.  It has a built in bias to favor its trains at the expense of other operators or to maintain the system for its needs without necessarily considering the needs of others.  This works the other way when Amtrak is operating over a hoist railroad.   Absolute separation of the ownership of the track from any carrier is the key.  The owner of the track would have no ownership or control interest in any carrier.   [/quote] I would disagree. Amtrak's employee and mgt stake in the operation and company finances on any ongoing basis are nill.  Their only stake is the company's survival, which is almost politically bullet-proof, it seems.  Amtrak is not actively soliciting the Conrail or Norfolk Southern to operate additional freight over their railroad at any price.  Why?  Why should they?  Not a sole at Amtrak benefits in any way from doing this.  I have no doubt that thrid party ownership of track could be made workable.  It's inovation that can get sqaushed.  The latest inovation is top of rail lubrication.  It's primary benefit is fuel savings.  Rail wear and reduced maintenance alone won't justify it's cost.  It's hard enough to push these kinds of improvements through when costs and benefits are unequally shared by departments within the RR (been there, done that, got the T-shirt), but sharing between companies makes it even more unlikely. [/quote] All of us have T shirts.  They tell others, amongst other things, that we are captives of our experiences.  That's good for doing things the way they have been done.  But its one the biggest barriers to change.  Most of us, after having spent decades working in a field, have difficulty imagining a better way to do things.  Mercifully, younger people with little baggage come along.  They don't know that doing things better, faster, cheap won't work. They give it a go. Innovation!  The landscape is littered with the remains of business organizations that failed to change.  It was their way or the highway.  Their managers knew absolutely that the alternatives were unrealistic and would not work.  It is one of the reasons that less than 10 per cent of the 1900 Fortune 500 is doing business today.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag