We have been used to the FAA directing airport traffic and our state and local police and traffic lights are used to try to keep our roads safe. Why doesn't the federal goverment oversee rail dispatching? Rail operations would be more fluid and the term "freight train interfearance" might be minimized.
In general, whoever owns a given section of track also controls the dispatching on it.
Individual airlines do not own the sky, flight paths, or most airports.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Dixie FlyerWe have been used to the FAA directing airport traffic and our state and local police and traffic lights are used to try to keep our roads safe. Why doesn't the federal goverment oversee rail dispatching? Rail operations would be more fluid and the term "freight train interfearance" might be minimized.
Railroads in the USA are privately-owned businesses and have done their own dispatching of their own properties since the need for Dispatching became evident. Except for the NEC and a line segment in Michigan (which Amtrak own) Amtrak is a tenant on the tracks of the Privately owned Class 1 carriers. I might add that Amtrak Dispatching on the NEC will 'stick it' to the tenant commuter carriers that operate on the NEC every opportunity that presents itself.
The Air Carriers have NEVER had the mechanics of Air Traffic Control within their purview as a private business. As private businesses the air carriers are barely profitable - if they had to fully pay for Air Traffic Control and and Airport terminals they use - profitability would fly away faster than any of their planes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD I might add that Amtrak Dispatching on the NEC will 'stick it' to the tenant commuter carriers that operate on the NEC every opportunity that presents itself.
As Metro-North does to Amtrak on the New Haven Line.
The bottom line is railroads are private rights of way for the most part, upon which handling of traffic is the perogative of individual carriers. There is no analogy with airlines or highwys in this regard. Furthermore, I doubt federal "oversight" (presumably you mean feds handling dispatching) would achieve any improvement, status quo. Granted there are issues with size of dispatching territories, computerized dispatching that is far from ideal and PSR-mania that impedes flexibilty and velocity. I don't see how fed control is going to alleviate this. Moreover, the matter is moreso passenger train interference when Amtrak drastically cut the business decades ago and frt. railroads downsized their plant in the aftermath. To suggest that operations would become more fluid with fed control seems rather naive. The result would likely be quite the opposite.
[quote user="Dixie Flyer"]
I dealt with quite a few Federal Agencies for over 25 years. I'd be absolutely shocked if it didn't get worse with the Feds trying to run it.
Dixie Flyer We have been used to the FAA directing airport traffic and our state and local police and traffic lights are used to try to keep our roads safe. Why doesn't the federal goverment oversee rail dispatching? Rail operations would be more fluid and the term "freight train interfearance" might be minimized.
To add to what was already stated above. Railroads and their tracks are privately owned. So it would be a cake walk for any lawyer to argue in court that the above is the confiscation of private property without due compensation. I also have doubts that immenient domain could be used since it would also impact commerce so directly.
BaltACDprofitability would fly away faster than any of their planes.
And most honest politicians on the transportation committees and sub-committees will tell you that airlines have never paid their true operating costs. Even in the infancy of the industry many of them got their initial planes from surplus DoD as well as many of the airfields.
CMStPnP BaltACD profitability would fly away faster than any of their planes. And most honest politicians on the transportation committees and sub-committees will tell you that airlines have never paid their true operating costs. Even in the infancy of the industry many of them got their initial planes from surplus DoD as well as many of the airfields.
BaltACD profitability would fly away faster than any of their planes.
In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as:
1) Where railroads intersect priority through agreements over 100 years old let the first built railroad control all dispatching when traffic levels are far less than the second built line of today.
2) When you look at a large area 10 or 20 square miles you may have multiple intersections or a much "bigger picture". What is best to do on "my" intersection may not be so good for the others. Air traffic controlers start guiding planes in miles out to get them in order so planes are landing ever minute or so. Better nationwide dispatching using GPS tools may eliminate having to build expensive flyover plans.
3) The federal government moves into a number of areas in the interest of the public good. Ownership of property seems to have little to do with it. I am thinking of meat inspecters, maintainance standards, port inspections, tank car safety requirements etc.
4) The federal government may have the depth of pocket to provide the tools make better use of GPS etc that a railroad may not be able to justifiy the expense. It seems when a train pulls out the crew should know if they need to average 27 miles an hour or 52 miles an hour to reach their next "meet".
Dixie FlyerIn the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as: 1) Where railroads intersect priority through agreements over 100 years old let the first built railroad control all dispatching when traffic levels are far less than the second built line of today. 2) When you look at a large area 10 or 20 square miles you may have multiple intersections or a much "bigger picture". What is best to do on "my" intersection may not be so good for the others. Air traffic controlers start guiding planes in miles out to get them in order so planes are landing ever minute or so. Better nationwide dispatching using GPS tools may eliminate having to build expensive flyover plans. 3) The federal government moves into a number of areas in the interest of the public good. Ownership of property seems to have little to do with it. I am thinking of meat inspecters, maintainance standards, port inspections, tank car safety requirements etc. 4) The federal government may have the depth of pocket to provide the tools make better use of GPS etc that a railroad may not be able to justifiy the expense. It seems when a train pulls out the crew should know if they need to average 27 miles an hour or 52 miles an hour to reach their next "meet".
So - should the federal government come into your domicile and set up regulations on when you can use your bathroom and for what purposes your bathroom can be used at any particular time?
That is effectively what you are requesting the federal government do to the privately owned, operated and controlled railroads.
BaltACD Dixie Flyer In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as: 1) Where railroads intersect priority through agreements over 100 years old let the first built railroad control all dispatching when traffic levels are far less than the second built line of today. 2) When you look at a large area 10 or 20 square miles you may have multiple intersections or a much "bigger picture". What is best to do on "my" intersection may not be so good for the others. Air traffic controlers start guiding planes in miles out to get them in order so planes are landing ever minute or so. Better nationwide dispatching using GPS tools may eliminate having to build expensive flyover plans. 3) The federal government moves into a number of areas in the interest of the public good. Ownership of property seems to have little to do with it. I am thinking of meat inspecters, maintainance standards, port inspections, tank car safety requirements etc. 4) The federal government may have the depth of pocket to provide the tools make better use of GPS etc that a railroad may not be able to justifiy the expense. It seems when a train pulls out the crew should know if they need to average 27 miles an hour or 52 miles an hour to reach their next "meet". So - should the federal government come into your domicile and set up regulations on when you can use your bathroom and for what purposes your bathroom can be used at any particular time? That is effectively what you are requesting the federal government do to the privately owned, operated and controlled railroads.
Dixie Flyer In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as: 1) Where railroads intersect priority through agreements over 100 years old let the first built railroad control all dispatching when traffic levels are far less than the second built line of today. 2) When you look at a large area 10 or 20 square miles you may have multiple intersections or a much "bigger picture". What is best to do on "my" intersection may not be so good for the others. Air traffic controlers start guiding planes in miles out to get them in order so planes are landing ever minute or so. Better nationwide dispatching using GPS tools may eliminate having to build expensive flyover plans. 3) The federal government moves into a number of areas in the interest of the public good. Ownership of property seems to have little to do with it. I am thinking of meat inspecters, maintainance standards, port inspections, tank car safety requirements etc. 4) The federal government may have the depth of pocket to provide the tools make better use of GPS etc that a railroad may not be able to justifiy the expense. It seems when a train pulls out the crew should know if they need to average 27 miles an hour or 52 miles an hour to reach their next "meet".
An absurd attempt at equivalency. Unlike your toilet or house, the railroads are interstate commerce. The Founding Fathers put the regulation of commerce by the federal government in the Constitution.
CMStPnP Dixie Flyer We have been used to the FAA directing airport traffic and our state and local police and traffic lights are used to try to keep our roads safe. Why doesn't the federal goverment oversee rail dispatching? Rail operations would be more fluid and the term "freight train interfearance" might be minimized. To add to what was already stated above. Railroads and their tracks are privately owned. So it would be a cake walk for any lawyer to argue in court that the above is the confiscation of private property without due compensation. I also have doubts that immenient domain could be used since it would also impact commerce so directly.
Nonsense. Try reading the US Constitution, specifically the Commerce clause, Article One, Section 8, Clause 3.
charlie hebdoNonsense. Try reading the US Constitution, specifically the Commerce clause, Article One, Section 8, Clause 3.
That is "regulating" not "taking over and operating". Slight nuance there. Regulation means passage of laws "governing" not passage of laws "obtaining possession of". Hey if you still think that interpretation is off then go to a legal website online and get a free legal opinion and link to this thread. I am real confident I am correct since I had Real Estate Law courses.
What a government we would have if it could on a whim sieze private property and do with it as it wished without any due process via the legal system.
BTW, USRA Nationalization was under a "National Emergency" if not "Declaration of War", it was specifically authorized by an act of congress and later reaffirmed by an act of Congress. It was always intended to be temporary not permanent.
charlie hebdo BaltACD Dixie Flyer In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as: 1) Where railroads intersect priority through agreements over 100 years old let the first built railroad control all dispatching when traffic levels are far less than the second built line of today. 2) When you look at a large area 10 or 20 square miles you may have multiple intersections or a much "bigger picture". What is best to do on "my" intersection may not be so good for the others. Air traffic controlers start guiding planes in miles out to get them in order so planes are landing ever minute or so. Better nationwide dispatching using GPS tools may eliminate having to build expensive flyover plans. 3) The federal government moves into a number of areas in the interest of the public good. Ownership of property seems to have little to do with it. I am thinking of meat inspecters, maintainance standards, port inspections, tank car safety requirements etc. 4) The federal government may have the depth of pocket to provide the tools make better use of GPS etc that a railroad may not be able to justifiy the expense. It seems when a train pulls out the crew should know if they need to average 27 miles an hour or 52 miles an hour to reach their next "meet". So - should the federal government come into your domicile and set up regulations on when you can use your bathroom and for what purposes your bathroom can be used at any particular time? That is effectively what you are requesting the federal government do to the privately owned, operated and controlled railroads. An absurd attempt at equivalency. Unlike your toilet or house, the railroads are interstate commerce. The Founding Fathers put the regulation of commerce by the federal government in the Constitution.
Railroads are PRIVATE PROPERTY. The government can REGULATE railroads, it cannot conficate the railroads - at least not without yet to be written legislation and/or the suspension of the Constitutional system of laws that apply in the USA to all governments National, State or local.
Dixie Flyer3) The federal government moves into a number of areas in the interest of the public good. Ownership of property seems to have little to do with it. I am thinking of meat inspecters, maintainance standards, port inspections, tank car safety requirements etc.
Those are examples of health and safety regulation. Dispatching a railroad would be operating the business over their own infrastructure.
BaltACD charlie hebdo BaltACD Dixie Flyer In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as: 1) Where railroads intersect priority through agreements over 100 years old let the first built railroad control all dispatching when traffic levels are far less than the second built line of today. 2) When you look at a large area 10 or 20 square miles you may have multiple intersections or a much "bigger picture". What is best to do on "my" intersection may not be so good for the others. Air traffic controlers start guiding planes in miles out to get them in order so planes are landing ever minute or so. Better nationwide dispatching using GPS tools may eliminate having to build expensive flyover plans. 3) The federal government moves into a number of areas in the interest of the public good. Ownership of property seems to have little to do with it. I am thinking of meat inspecters, maintainance standards, port inspections, tank car safety requirements etc. 4) The federal government may have the depth of pocket to provide the tools make better use of GPS etc that a railroad may not be able to justifiy the expense. It seems when a train pulls out the crew should know if they need to average 27 miles an hour or 52 miles an hour to reach their next "meet". So - should the federal government come into your domicile and set up regulations on when you can use your bathroom and for what purposes your bathroom can be used at any particular time? That is effectively what you are requesting the federal government do to the privately owned, operated and controlled railroads. An absurd attempt at equivalency. Unlike your toilet or house, the railroads are interstate commerce. The Founding Fathers put the regulation of commerce by the federal government in the Constitution. Railroads are PRIVATE PROPERTY. The government can REGULATE railroads, it cannot conficate the railroads - at least not without yet to be written legislation and/or the suspension of the Constitutional system of laws that apply in the USA to all governments National, State or local.
Shouting (in all Caps, very rude) does nothing to enhance your feeble argument. No one said confiscate or nationalize the rails. Just get them to run with a more efficient method by centralized control (dispatching is another antiquated term).
In my experience the current dispatchers usually do a pretty good job at moving traffic as efficiently as possible.
The real problem is that there are too many trains and not enough track or yard capacity on a lot of routes right now. Changing the dispatching authority won't fix that.
Before a regulation is written it must ask: 1. is it legal? 2. is there a compelling public interest?
Dispatching causing Amtrak delays is going thru the adminstrative legal process of being addressed. Freight customers can and do bring their scheduling complaints to the STB. Existing remedies need to be exausted first. I would imagine that railroads consider their dispatching to be monetarily efficent.
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo BaltACD Dixie Flyer In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as: 1) Where railroads intersect priority through agreements over 100 years old let the first built railroad control all dispatching when traffic levels are far less than the second built line of today. 2) When you look at a large area 10 or 20 square miles you may have multiple intersections or a much "bigger picture". What is best to do on "my" intersection may not be so good for the others. Air traffic controlers start guiding planes in miles out to get them in order so planes are landing ever minute or so. Better nationwide dispatching using GPS tools may eliminate having to build expensive flyover plans. 3) The federal government moves into a number of areas in the interest of the public good. Ownership of property seems to have little to do with it. I am thinking of meat inspecters, maintainance standards, port inspections, tank car safety requirements etc. 4) The federal government may have the depth of pocket to provide the tools make better use of GPS etc that a railroad may not be able to justifiy the expense. It seems when a train pulls out the crew should know if they need to average 27 miles an hour or 52 miles an hour to reach their next "meet". So - should the federal government come into your domicile and set up regulations on when you can use your bathroom and for what purposes your bathroom can be used at any particular time? That is effectively what you are requesting the federal government do to the privately owned, operated and controlled railroads. An absurd attempt at equivalency. Unlike your toilet or house, the railroads are interstate commerce. The Founding Fathers put the regulation of commerce by the federal government in the Constitution. Railroads are PRIVATE PROPERTY. The government can REGULATE railroads, it cannot conficate the railroads - at least not without yet to be written legislation and/or the suspension of the Constitutional system of laws that apply in the USA to all governments National, State or local. Shouting (in all Caps, very rude) does nothing to enhance your feeble argument. No one said confiscate or nationalize the rails. Just get them to run with a more efficient method by centralized control (dispatching is another antiquated term).
The only way the government imposes their own dispatching is by confiscating the carriers property. Kommisar!
BaltACDKommisar!
Lol! Now why didn't I use that term earlier?
Say the two members who can only resort to name-calling when they can't use facts.
charlie hebdoSay the two members who can only resort to name-calling when they can't use facts.
If you want the government to seize your property and operate it for their benefit, not yours, have at it.
BaltACD charlie hebdo Say the two members who can only resort to name-calling when they can't use facts. If you want the government to seize your property and operate it for their benefit, not yours, have at it.
charlie hebdo Say the two members who can only resort to name-calling when they can't use facts.
You only can resort to distortions and exaggerations.
We shout be able to have reasoned discussions on here without your scare tactics.
The rational, more efficient rail system would use various routings, not just try to use one company's tracks. Some lines are underused while others are near capacity. A single mainline system, whether one private national one or with the tracks owned, maintained and controlled by feds while private rails are the train operators might be more profitable for each private operator while transportation of both freight and passengers becomes more efficient.
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo Say the two members who can only resort to name-calling when they can't use facts. If you want the government to seize your property and operate it for their benefit, not yours, have at it. You only can resort to distortions and exaggerations. We shout be able to have reasoned discussions on here without your scare tactics. The rational, more efficient rail system would use various routings, not just try to use one company's tracks. Some lines are underused while others are near capacity. A single mainline system, whether one private national one or with the tracks owned, maintained and controlled by feds while private rails are the train operators might be more profitable for each private operator while transportation of both freight and passengers becomes more efficient.
That only happens in your world of satire.
CMStPnP charlie hebdo Nonsense. Try reading the US Constitution, specifically the Commerce clause, Article One, Section 8, Clause 3. That is "regulating" not "taking over and operating". Slight nuance there. Regulation means passage of laws "governing" not passage of laws "obtaining possession of". Hey if you still think that interpretation is off then go to a legal website online and get a free legal opinion and link to this thread. I am real confident I am correct since I had Real Estate Law courses. What a government we would have if it could on a whim sieze private property and do with it as it wished without any due process via the legal system. BTW, USRA Nationalization was under a "National Emergency" if not "Declaration of War", it was specifically authorized by an act of congress and later reaffirmed by an act of Congress. It was always intended to be temporary not permanent.
charlie hebdo Nonsense. Try reading the US Constitution, specifically the Commerce clause, Article One, Section 8, Clause 3.
1. Nobody suggested confiscating private property except you and Balt. Possibly purchasing the track infrastructure is completely different.
2. So you took a real estate law class and that makes you an expert? More properly it would need to be constitutional law or history, preferably several.
charlie hebdo The rational, more efficient rail system would use various routings, not just try to use one company's tracks. Some lines are underused while others are near capacity. A single mainline system, whether one private national one or with the tracks owned, maintained and controlled by feds while private rails are the train operators might be more profitable for each private operator while transportation of both freight and passengers becomes more efficient.
Presumably the same as they did after mergers.
charlie hebdoPresumably the same as they did after mergers.
Which in reality was not a lot of cross company running. The FRA qualification standards don't permit qualifications to extend 'forever'. A employee starts working a regular position or gets a regular 'pool turn' and in a relatively short period of time they lose qualifications on the territories they were qualified on but haven't operated upon in the time period specified in the qualification regulations.
Becoming qualified on a territory is not just looking at it on the employee timetable. If a run operates over a 'foreign' railroad, those making the run must get rules qualified on that carriers book of rules.
BaltACDThe FRA qualification standards don't permit qualifications to extend 'forever'. A employee starts working a regular position or gets a regular 'pool turn' and in a relatively short period of time they lose qualifications on the territories they were qualified on but haven't operated upon in the time period specified in the qualification regulations.
But they do permit periodic review trips to maintain qualifications.
BaltACDBecoming qualified on a territory is not just looking at it on the employee timetable. If a run operates over a 'foreign' railroad, those making the run must get rules qualified on that carriers book of rules.
This goes without saying. Rules classes for 'foreign' railroads are readily available.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.