Story on the AP wires today with a less than usual amount of cluelessness. Most of it falls into the “duh” category to anybody following the issues (which includes a lot of forum members). Probably the biggest example of not very bright statements included the following:
“Kenneth Kremar, another Global Insight analyst, said talk of a looming crisis serves industry interests as rail companies jockey for more money from Congress. He said investment in larger, high-tech train cars and computer systems that better pace trains should help avert logjams.”
Of course, the “analyst” didn’t mention the investment in track and bridge upgrades that might be required by “larger, high-tech train cars” or what, even, “high-tech” things could be added to cars that would increase capacity. Gas…just gas.
I am glad you took the time to bring this article to the forum’s attention, because from my perspective inside the industry it is a cogent and intelligent article that clearly marks the key issues in freight railroading and the impact they will have on the U.S. economy for an intelligent non-railfan, non-railroader reader. (And, thankfully, avoided cute and stupid “choo-choo train” anecdotes and metaphors.)
Global Insights employs some very smart people and provides a great deal of the economic projections and data relied upon by transportation, manufacturing, environmental, engineering, and finance fields, including myself. What the analyst was referring to is Communications-Based Train-Control systems and Electropneumatic Braking. He’s also referrin
It’s also interest to note the article mentioned re-activating lines that were abandoned in the 20th century.
I know that here in WI the lines that got dumped served no major purpose. But the main lines that were single tracked - now that’s where there is the potential for expansion.
I think that unless the gov backs off on the EIS requirements the whole process is going to grind to a halt.
I think it is a good piece for general public consumption. I didn’t see any factual errors. The quotes and information to support the point came from railroads and rail users and I think it reflects the consensus of transportation people-at least those who are not bound to ideological or political positions.
The story has legs. A Google of the title shows it spread all over the place.
I imagine that CSX would like the “S” line from Raleigh to Richmond and maybe Parkersburg to Cincinnatti. NS the Atlanta bypass around Atlenta through Newnan, Griffin, to Macon. Maybe the old PRR route through Ft. Wayne (original broadway route)
It’s not written for “anybody following the issues” if it ran on the AP wire. If you began to read a story on a subject with which you were not familiar you’d appreciate the author ticking off some of the basics and some background information to help you understand the topic more easily. A general news reporter for shotgun media (like The Associated Press) tones his story for relatively uninformed masses. A transportation writer wouldn’t write to the same level for an industry magazine – which is what a lot of the better informed forum members come to Trains to read.
And don’t blame the writer for the “not-too-bright” statement. It’s a dadgum quote.
Interesting article, and fairly well written, I think, with a couple of decent photos as well. I think it was pretty well informed as well, and spelled out the issue clearly enough that the average person reading that with their morning coffee would understand it. Certainly, when he wrote the phrase "…and in many areas there is only a single track, forcing trains to pull over onto side tracks and wait while trains coming in the other direction pass." Some of the folks in this forum cringed at the use of “non-railroad” terminology, but, when dealing with people who don’t understand something, you have to use terms and concepts they will be able to grasp. I learned that when I was working as a computer techinician. If I started talking “Techie-geekSpeak” to a customer, I was sure to lose them. So, out of respect for their intelligence, I would use a concept they were familiar with, that I could draw an analogy to…
Anyway, I am drifting. I wonder how many old lines, if any would be reacitivated, and how much money it would cost to bring them up to standard. Just simply listening to the scanner, and watching the activity on ATSC monitor kind of paints the whole “congestion” picture. Other than the EJ&E, what other lines could be used as a bypass? Obviously, reducing the congestion is the goal, but would it be possible that the congestion could be reduced so much, that Chicago begins to lose it’s prominence as a rail hub? That’s not saying Chicago would be abandoned, I don’t think that’s possible, but, could enough capacity wind up in places like Elwood, Rochelle, similar places, that the railroads decide that the open land to west of our fair city offers a more attractive option? Obviously building a whole new facility is going to cost money, but is it possible that a new facility, say 50 miles from the city, with the connections to other routes w
I read the article and started thinking about the area that I live in seeing increased rail traffic and I just don’t see how it would work unless you built bridges or overpasses at most of the crossings thru the city which in it self would be a boat load of money to do. I live near the Kenosha sub in Racine which when I was a kid was double track later removed to single track in the 1980’s. When the coal trains come thru town it really backs up traffic in the city and this is just Racine were not even a real city, and the crossings are so close together its not like you can drive down to the next street and be past the train. Here is an idea, what about sending more thru Milwaukee, sooner or later we are just going to be swallowed up by Chicago, and Milwaukee will change to Chicagukee[B)] there is pleny of room for expansion there???
Your observations and questions are astute and on point. Who is going to pay, not just for the increase in railway capacity but the impacts on cities, the environment, and the public? No one has fully answered that question yet on a national scale. In some states, the answer is that the taxpayer through bond issues or selected use fees/localized tax improvement districts is “priming the pump” as it were with focused infrastructure improvements. For example, California’s $2 billion TCIF fund pays 50% of the construction cost of projects in trade corridors with proven public benefits such as reduced emissions, delay time at crossings, and job creation, including grade-separations, railroad double-tracking, port improvements, highway interchanges at ports, and tunnel clearance improvements. Oregon’s ConnectOregon program is similar, but only spends public money on railroads, ports, and airports.
RWM: I have been surprized that more hasn’t been written about the crossing situations. In my town only one cow path was crossed by the RR. In fact the city put a street on the two tracks. (later removed) Now there are 4 crossings that occurred after the RR came. I know that for a long time the RRs did not balk at car crossing their RR. Now it is different. But Don’t some states require crossings to be allowed? The RRs could have valid argument that all costs be borne by the various government entities.
Laws vary by state; however, in general terms, if a government agency wants to put a roadway across an existing railroad track, the government agency usually has the right to do so provided it pays 100% of the construction and engineering costs (including warning devices and signage) and agrees to maintain the roadway surface and its signage up to the end of the ties. If the crossing creates an undue hazard to either roadway or railway traffic, the state PUC (or other regulatory agency) will not permit the crossing, or if the crossing is in such a location where it would be frequently blocked by standing cars or switching activities, the railway is under no obligation to revise its operations to accommodate the free passage of motor vehicles on the roadway. There are recent cases, however, where the railway and the PUC both agreed a new crossing was hazardous, the municipality sued, and the courts overturned the PUC’s decision.
These guidelines from FHWA are readable and informative:
Historically, when trains were short, roadway traffic was low, and every business wanted to get as close as it could to the track to reduce its transportation costs and enhance its foot traffic, no one outside the railway minded too much that there was a crossing every block, and waiting for trains to clear was part of the quid pro quo
If I have read past posts correctly, there is no “calamity” per se. The railroads themselves prefer the current situation of maximized capacity and pricing power, and are in no hurry to spend money to expand capacity. They may prefer to turn down business rather than invest in new tracks.
If anything, the “calamity” exists as the societal loss of traffic that could move from highway to railroad not doing so due to the private monopolistic nature of North American railroads, which I guess is the gist of the GI analyst. That’s probably the reason they are laying this at the feet of the taxpayers: “If you people want more rail capacity, then you can pay for it - as long as we get to keep our pricing power.”
Mr. Saxon, it seems that you are not up to speed, especially in the west where UP and BNSF are spending huge sums of their profits to build more track; and through technology create fluidity in the existing infrastructure. TRAINS recently had a story about similar stratagies by CSX.
The Class 1 RR’s are indeed preparing to handle an increase in business, but at least in mediam to large cities there are problems which the RR’s themselves cannot overcome.
It appears that we need to address the bottlenecks on each of several routes. RWM can you cite some of the places where there are bottlenecks. I agree that yards are a real problem and the tax laws caused some to be abandoned (of course some were no longer needed), others not expanded even though additional traffic coming. ie: Is the sunset route fluid yet? Does Abo Canyon slow down the transcon? CSX Richmond to Florence, Other routes choke points? etc?
Interesting “calamity” – perhaps for society, but certainly not for the industry.
The annual average growth in ton-miles of the U.S. Rail industry the past seven years has been lower than the average annual growth over the past century. There shouldn’t have been a planning problem or any surprises. Over the past 11 decades, the growth rate of the past seven years would rank 6th – at an average annual 2.2% growth rate; indeed, 2007 represented one of few years historically that showed a decline.
If a person was out there doing some very long term planning, and thought in 1970 that railroads would continue to grow at the relatively anemic rate represented by the period 1960-1970, by 2007 the industry could have projected a ton-mileage of 1.7 trillion ton miles; pretty close to the actual number of 1.77 trillon ton miles.
I bet you ten to one that the Trans Con in the middle of Nebraska and other points is very heavy with traffic. They got what? 3 main tracks or more and cannot hardly get out of each other’s way. It’s time they laid new mainlines in sleepy south dakota, Iowa etc and start building railroads instead of trying to manage traffic problems which increase by the day.
“Sleepy South Dakota” isn’t really on the route between any important places.
I would bet, that the improvements don’t need to be made out in open country, as much as they need to be done in yards and cities, to speed up trains, and increase capacity.
I saw the same article myself this last Friday and I think it underscores precisely the crisis that looms ahead. For the time being at least, I’d like to see the industry take advantage of opportunities that are out there in front of them right now. For example, in western Iowa, the UP’s “Overland Route” mainline (ex-CNW) and the CN’s Iowa Division mainline (former IC/ICG/CC) parallel each other from Denison to Council Bluffs. WHY can’t these two roads get together and create a paired track arrangement where there would be obvious benefits to both sides. Frankly I’m surprised that the CNW and IC/ICG didn’t pursue this years ago.