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.
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.
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”]
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you go back to the earliest days, hauling the mail was the primary factor, which explains the federal involvment, and passengers (6-8 at a time) were a sideline.
In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
[quote user=“BaltACD”]
Dixie Flyer
In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[quote user=“charlie hebdo”]
BaltACD
Dixie Flyer
In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as:
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.
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.
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.
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
Those are examples of health and safety regulation. Dispatching a railroad would be operating the business over their own infrastructure.
[quote user=“BaltACD”]
charlie hebdo
BaltACD
Dixie Flyer
In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
[quote user=“charlie hebdo”]
BaltACD
charlie hebdo
BaltACD
Dixie Flyer
In the bigger picture I was thinking about cases such as:
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.
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.
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.
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 gover