“By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world. Generally speaking, and in relative comparison to other modes, freight railroads perform their functions and maintain the freight rail infrastructure without the need for government funds. Freight rail infrastructure maintenance and capacity enhancements, however, can only occur with Federal legislation and policies that allow rail carriers to earn revenues that are sufficient to encourage their continued investment in the system. Their investment meets National needs by enhancing safety, reliability, and capacity. Before 1980, when railroads were partially deregulated, they focused on survival. In recent years, they have been thriving and privately funded freight railroads have focused on enhancing the reliability of their service and their intermodal capacity. The recent economic downturn has slowed but not eliminated targeted projects that will enhance freight railroads capacity and competitiveness, thereby positioning them to better handle traffic as the economy recovers.” (The font irregularities are due to the copy from PDF to the Tains forum.)
This B from the Federal Railroad Administration’s “Preliminary National Rail Plan.” Der Plan was released on Oct. 15th and may be viewed in it glorious entirety at:
Those are pretty strong words that basically say: “Don’t mess with success.” All the folks running around like goats in heat finding needs to reregulate and force electrif
“By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world. Generally speaking, and in relative comparison to other modes, freight railroads perform their functions and maintain the freight rail infrastructure without the need for government funds. Freight rail infrastructure maintenance and capacity enhancements, however, can only occur with Federal legislation and policies that allow rail carriers to earn revenues that are sufficient to encourage their continued investment in the system. Their investment meets National needs by enhancing safety, reliability, and capacity. Before 1980, when railroads were partially deregulated, they focused on survival. In recent years, they have been thriving and privately funded freight railroads have focused on enhancing the reliability of their service and their intermodal capacity. The recent economic downturn has slowed but not eliminated targeted projects that will enhance freight railroads capacity and competitiveness, thereby positioning them to better handle traffic as the economy recovers.” (The font irregularities are due to the copy from PDF to the Tains forum.)
This B from the Federal Railroad Administration’s “Preliminary National Rail Plan.” Der Plan was released on Oct. 15th and may be viewed in it glorious entirety at:
Those are pretty strong words that basically say: “Don’t mess with success.” All the folks running around like goats in heat finding needs to reregulate and force electrification should think a
But, but, but then how will we ever get the evil, nasty, greedy investor owned railroads to fulfill our vision of windmill-lined rights of way, with high speed passenger trains zipping to and fro, if we can’t impose our superior vision of the future on them?
If we can’t dictate what they do, they will just go on using diesel electric locomotives to haul dirty coal to powerplants that generate copius amounts of electricity and allow consumers, who don’t know what is good for them, to go on keeping their thermostats where they want! THIS MUST STOP!!!
This current messy system, with a bunch of independent companies each making individual decisions about how best to run their businesses, obviously needs to be replaced with more central planning. Look at how good Russia has it! They have electrified! We want to be like them!
Darn free market system anyway, always getting in the way of progress.
When I first saw this report, I read through the entire thing. It’s good to see that somebody (Szabo?) has a grasp of what good the railroads are, and can be. I’d recommend it to anyone, and especially to our elected representatives. This much of the system ain’t broke!
As for power generation and electrification of the railroads, dictation will not be necessary when the time comes.
When I read your post, I took the quote from the FRA paper a hopeful sign that the FRA is encouraging the private sector to keep up the good work in their handling of the railroad business. However, I get the opposite reaction when I read the whole FRA paper, with its theme of a “national plan.” In the overall context of the essay, the hopeful piece you quoted seems to be just Novocain for a painful operation.
I don’t know if I am reading more into this than what is there, but this paper sure sounds like a proposal for a Nationalized Transportation System, starting with the heading, “Objectives for rail as part of a National Transportation System.”
Apparently the central planners are up late these days, working overtime now that they know how easy it is pry a trillion dollars out of the fingers of the taxpayers.
The themes of the Trains article on electrification called WIRED UP, by Scott Lothes, the essay by Alan Drake in The Oil Drum blog, the article by Phillip Longman called, Back on the Tracks, and the position paper by RAIL SOLUTION called, *The Steel Interstate System—*all of these sound directly related to the theme of this FRA paper called, Preliminary National Rail Plan<
I am not sure how to address that choice. Government definitely has plans, and will execute as much of them as the public is willing to tolerate or pay for. Government could not be more competent when it comes to generating plans and wanting to execute them. But generally, government is less competent than the private sector when it does execute its plans. This is due to the fundamental reason that they spend other people’s money, and their investment decisions are always tinged with political motivation rather than the pure investment economics of the private sector.
I’ve worked for big government, small government, big private sector, and small private sector, and have yet to discover any significant difference among them in intelligence, competence, perniciousness, morality, ethics, or value delivered for dollar of input. People are pretty much alike everywhere, and organizations are unfortunately (or fortunately!) more ineffective at managing the words and deeds of their people than many realize.
I know what you mean about the people, and have seen that to be the case. I draw the distinction at the measure of the overall organizational performance and motive. It is interesting that I am surprised by the reach of the FRA’s “new scope,” while the link you posted seems to be from people who don’t think that the FRA is reaching enough. I have not read the entire link yet, but intend to. Thanks for posting it.
Not to ‘pile on’ too much here, but here’s a link to an interesting article that I just ran across in the course of looking for something else, with a less enthusiastic slant that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on October 2, 2009 - 3 weeks ago, before the FRA plan was issued, I believe:
US Freight Railroads Wary Of High-Speed Passenger Push
There are other possibilities. Even incompetent institutions have plans. I have seen no evidence that any national government is competent at executing their economic central planning.
Unfortunately, your links to the Wall Street Journal don’t get us cheapskates who aren’t subscribers the full story. However, I think the story is this. Much of the thinking about “high speed” is actually more of what I consider “higher speed” or 110MPH maximum. As has been noted here and on other sources, mixing trains at those speeds with with freight trains operating at maximum speeds between something like 55MPH to 70MPH presents a dispatching nightmare. Further, if the lines in question are operating at something approaching capacity, it is probably close to impossible to get anything moving with reasonable dispatch.
The other problem is the fact that FRA Regs require Class 6 track standards for 110MPH passenger speeds. If I understand correctly, the cost for maintaining track at that level is substantially higher than for Class 5 which allows 80MPH for freight and 90MPH for passenger. For all practical purposes, 80MPH is all a freight railroad needs. Even if government money paid for Class 6, any deal might require the freight railroad hosting the passenger trains to cover the maintenance cost for the track. That’s basicly the deal Amtrak now has, but the railroad gets to decide what Class they will maintain for any given stretch of track.
If I was a freight railroad CEO, I would also be concerned that I might be required to maintain track at a level beyond what I needed for my business.
When I first noticed your dateline (MN), I was reluctant to reply. I got suspended from this forum for saying ‘nasty’ things about MN-WI-SD. I’ll try to keep this civil. Yar! Windmills, at 50x the cost of hydro- and nuclear-power are the “wave of the future”, as long as “Sam” makes up the difference. That looks like “a given”. We have 260 windmills, on-line, here in north central Montana, with 200 more a-building. All the power is sold to San Diego (CA) Electric and Gas, at exorbitant rates. The windmills are owned by a Spanish company and trucked into town! We get a lot of tax benefits, in Toole and Glacier counties. Matt Rose, Chairman & CEO of BNSF, said something like “bring 'em on. Build them on our right-of-way and we’ll electrify”. Might work, the “bird killers” will distract from the ugly catenary! Of, course, they’ll only work if the wind blows. Lots of “dog-catch crews” coming up.
Then I read your comment about Russia. Yeah, they got it right! We don’t need no stinkin’ capatilism, just another five-year plan! There is hope for “MN”! Thanks.
If I were a railroad executive I would be concerned with my personal back pocket before using federal money for any improvements.
How much of a stretch is it for the federal government to consider it has the “right” to control the executive compensation of a corporation receiving federal subsidies for improvements to private property?
Everything boils down to the lowest common denominator, taxpayer dollars. Be it for improvement subsidies for private property or bailouts of the financial institutions. Both are on the public dole. The government has the “duty” to protect the stakeholder’s investment(tax dollar).
Someone would be hard pressed to say with a straight face it could never happen considering the developements of the past 12 months.
Just a thought. But I wonder how many in the cat-bird seat privately think the same.
A lot depends on how and for what the respective institutions reward/punish the people working in the respective institutions. A government serving a well informed and engaged electorate will likely do a better job than a private company whose management primary concern is the near-term stock price. On the other hand, a private company with well informed and engaged investors will almost certainly do a better job than a government serving a disinterested and ill-informed electorate (especially if the electorate tolerates or expects corruption).
One significant difference between governments and corporations is that a corporation that messes up too badly and for too long is likely to go bankrupt or get bought out (unless, alas, it is “Too Big To Fail”).