This is one issue I’ve been anticipating since it was advertised in last month’s issue. “The China Factor” is some great reading, even though I was hoping for some updated profit margin info (R/VC) for the ISO double stack consists. But the point was well made regarding the loss of domestic manufacturing putting the railroads out on a risky limb.
Tom Murray has done it again!
David Lustig’s news item on RailPower’s gensets is a must read, and Jim Giblin’s article on the supposed ethanol boom and the concerns with lacking unloading facilities and car supply problems is another.
But, until the rest of you get your issues, this topic will have to be put on hold for a few days.
I should also give a backhanded compliment to Don Phillips, not for the usual content of his columns (e.g. subsidized passenger trains be good), but for pointing out that the European Open Access system (although Don omits the OA part![}:)]) is “vastly superior when it comes to building new routes.” If not for the nationalistic idiosyncrasy that prevents cross border operational fluidity, the European rail share of intercity freight would probably be growing at twice the share of the US rail freight sector.
Well, Don is seemingly too obsessed with passenger rail to have taken the time to compare/contrast the EU OA system with the US CA system regarding new rail construction for freight operations. I would hope that someone who spent a few years in the land of cheap wine and skanky snails would have taken some time to make those observations, rather than focussing everything on passenger rail. This column is a good example of how freight only gets mentioned if it “interferes” with passenger rail.
The “complications” he mentions are to me a reflection of political disparity among the EU nations, which have held back the ability of the private rail transporter companies to operate at max efficieny and thus take full advantage of the OA system. Such companies have been restricted to intrastate operations, which relagates them to short hauls, which limits their abilty to max the long haul efficiencies.
There is a Harvard study available online that gives a more in-depth analysis of the border issues restricting EU OA optimization:
FM tends to see “open access” as a cure-all which will drive railroad business through the roof and eliminate trucking as a competitor. Unfortunately, he tends to ignore other economic, business and political factors which also have an effect on how business operates and will not go away just because he says they should.
I also enjoyed the article on the Ohio Central system but would have liked to have learned more about their motive power practices, rosters, etc. For example, what’s with the Amtrak F40 in the photo that accompanied the article, is she still on the property, were there more, etc., etc.
Not so sure Trains isn’t going as deep into subjects as the railroads in question are no longer willing to divuldge some specific information.
As for the Amtrak F40, they are all over, many short lines picked them up on the cheap.
Did like the statement by OC President Straw, that Class1s are the wholesalers, and that the OC(and other short line/regionals) are the retailers, as it follows my own observations that Class 1s are looking for the long haul, and want to leave the short haul and local switching to the Class2 and 3 railroads…cheaper all the way around for almost everyone.
Other factors include NIMBYism, labor contracts, competition from long-haul trucking (it is real!), the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution, cheap overseas labor, environmental laws, droughts and crop failures, etc. I’m sure that other members of this forum could add to the list. The point that I’m trying to make is that railroading does not exist in isolation from the rest of the world but both affects and is affected by it.
Don’t have my copy yet, can’t wait. Maybe it is waiting for me tonight.
As for European open access, have to find some statistics about the total transportation sector but I think rail freight is way up here in the Netherlands compared to 10-15 years ago.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
None of which affects OA vs CA one way or the other. Oh, and you forget to mention the potential client list embodied in the long haul trucking companies (it is real!).
The Fifth Amendment has a real effect on “open access”: No person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This would mean that “open access” cannot be foisted on existing railroads by government fiat, the railroads are entitled to their day in court.
OA in no way would deprive the railroads of life, liberty, or property. OA is simply a regulatory change that would provide accountability and transparency to a system currently operating under cloak and dagger. No one is losing any property, rather the ROW owners are now free to solicit business from more than one carrier, which would raise their stock value. The transporters are now free to bid for business nationwide, which also raises their net worth.
Under existing law, the owners of the right-of-way are also the operators of the trains on said property. Under the concept of “open access” as posited by FM, the owners would lose their right to operate trains on their own property and would be required to allow other operators on their property, whether they wished to do so or not. Since FM, in other posts, has indicated that the rental rates to use the right-of-way would be regulated, I don’t see how this sort of operation would be beneficial to the stockholders since the rate of return would be limited, as was formerly the case with telephone and electricity providers.