Passenger vs. Freight Priority. Was: DOJ sues Norfolk Southern for making Crescent late

Tadman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 4:35 pm This has been inspired by my recent reading "The rise and fall of British Rail Goods & Freight". It should be required reading for all buffs to contrast how BR ran freight, versus our private Class 1 system.

Mr. Dunville, you and I have both been "over there" regularly in recent years. I think you will concur with me that European freight service is some kind of joke that runs at the sufferance of passenger service.

Or at least I hold such; anytime I have observed "the action" (in Salzburg, there is a bar fifteen stories up that offers an unobstructed view of such), I can't help but laugh when a twenty car train handling twenty Containers passes by.

But out of respect when I once met a gal with the Ugandan transport ministry, I simply showed her some photos of BNSF and UP "action". Leave it to her to decide how far her country has to go in order to be on a par.

The freight railroad companies are able to run very massive and usually very profitable freight business because they are able to raise capital (money) various ways, using the property they own as collateral for loans, bonds, etc. If the government was to nationalize the infrastructure, including the land, they would have little of that property left to continue financing their operations. So the government would eventually have to nationalize freight operations as well.

The proper capitalistic way for the government to own a railroad is to purchase the railroad's shares, like any take-over bid. Just how Union Pacific bought out and merged with many other railroad companies. Just like Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern recently merged. To do so nationally for every railroad would probably cost far more than several trillion dollars. You think inflation is bad now, wait until Congress prints several trillion dollars .

A much better solution vs buying out the railroads entirely is to buy out the railroad corridors you wish to run passenger trains over. Several commuter rail operators and even Amtrak own some railroad corridors they operate on, either whole or in part. Take UTA Frontliner, they bought half of a UP rail corridor and operate their trains on that half. Take North Carolina as another example, since the beginning of the NCRR inception the state owned 75% of the private railroad company stock. Eventually they own 100% of the stock. The state has recently bought another rail corridor from a private railroad and plans to refurbish and rebuild it for 110 mph max speed passenger trains.

My point is, there are ways that exist today to improve passenger rail across the USA short of the drastic deed of nationalizing. Ways far cheaper on taxpayers' wallets.

If eminent domain is OK for building roads and airports, then just seize the property and stop worrying about the "value" of the real estate.

(that's sarcasm, for those who haven't figured it out already)

When you own the property, you're more likely to take better care of it since you have a vested interest in making money.

Operating on someone else's property, you only care about it when you use it.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 7:55 am If eminent domain is OK for building roads and airports, then just seize the property and stop worrying about the "value" of the real estate.

You obviously do not know how eminent domain works. The property is never seized without payment that is considered fair market value. That's why it is usually far better to arrive at the fair market value through negotiations rather than paying lawyers for years on end with a lawsuit that usually ends up being the same price. You only use eminent domain on property holders who refuse to sell at any reasonable price.
Railroad companies in the past have shown the willingness to sell lightly used rail corridors that they are probably losing money on maintaining and paying property taxes on. But very, reluctant to sell access, yes just access, to rail corridors they earn huge profits on. They only do so because Amtrak's enabling legislation. Never-the-less, they expect someone else to fund whatever infrastructure is required to safely run passenger trains on their corridors. If that means additional passing sidings, higher track classifications, additional signaling, etc. they are not required to fund it. And that is where all the legal conflicts arise, how much will it cost us the taxpayers?

The railroad companies once agreed to get out of the passenger business because there's no money in it.

They've since struggled to compete with trucking companies, which run over publicly owned and publicly maintained infrastructure, while railroads have to maintain their own infrastructure at their expense. That's a losing proposition, and while railroads still transport a sizable amount of freight, most freight in the United States is now transported by truck not rail. Here in New England, the figure is over 90%, if I'm not mistaken.

So, it might make sense for the railroads to transfer their infrastructure to a common organization that will maintain it at public expense, including making any improvements that may be necessary to run it more efficiently. This would also mean railroads would no longer be liable for derailments due to inadequately maintained infrastructure. They could focus exclusively on running trains, much as trucking companies focus on moving trucks.

Why is it not possible for all concerned parties to come together and reach such an agreement?

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 9:22 pm I think when PRIIA first came about in 2013 they did entertain bidding out the long distance routes. There weren’t any serious proposals and I believe the effort was aborted fairly quickly. I think most everyone that’s an advocate of passenger rail would be open to a different way of doing things if it would work and would be an improvement over the Amtrak model.

Don't forget the debacle that was the Hoosier State under Iowa Pacific. Amtrak did everything they could to sabotage that one. They all saw that as a threat to Amtrak and took action.

I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'm going to mention the Presidential race (NO!).

If Trump wins, he's going to appoint, I think he called it, a Government Efficiency Task Force. Musk will likely be the Chairman.

Amtrak would make a high-profile target.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 9:55 am I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'm going to mention the Presidential race (NO!).

If Trump wins, he's going to appoint, I think he called it, a Government Efficiency Task Force. Musk will likely be the Chairman.

Amtrak would make a high-profile target.

As mentioned above, Amtrak's budget is a rounding error in the general scheme of things. There is also the fact that this has been suggested before with the realization that shutting down is almost as expensive as running the system.

I think they are going to have bigger fish to fry.

It also depends on what the scope of a "government efficiency commission" is. Is it designed to come up with ways to create efficiencies and reduce waste within government agencies and recommend policies to the president to implement, or is its purpose to recommend actual programs to eliminate or cut - which essentially would be advice to Congress. For the former it would only be binding for federal agencies that fall under the executive branch and are led by appointees that serve at the pleasure of the president which is basically agencies that fall under the cabinet departments and independent executive agencies that serve at the president's pleasure. Government sponsored enterprises like Amtrak are like independent regulatory agencies and do not serve at the president's pleasure. Like independent regulatory agencies the president has appointment power over the Amtrak board for filling vacancies and replacing outgoing board members but the board members do not serve at his pleasure. He has no power over them or ability to remove them once they are confirmed and seated except for specific just cause reasons defined by law - not for a failure to align to a president's policy directives. So the president has basically no power over how Amtrak operates internally except to the degree that he can influence the FRA's regulatory authority over the company, or his ability to influence Congress.

For the latter - recommending programs to be eliminated or cut anything out of this committee would essentially equate to and be the same effect as the President's Annual budget. Basically a political policy statement request to Congress on what the administration's priorities are and they think Congress should and shouldn't fund. Ultimately what departments get what money is totally up to Congress. Basically the president can't eliminate the Department of Education even if he or she wants to. Congress has to do it. Also on the latter I really don’t understand how Elon is uniquely qualified to determine what programs the government should fund and not. Giving a single business leader that much power creates a potential conflict of interest if he forms his recommendations around what is best for his personal business interests.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 7:55 am
When you own the property, you're more likely to take better care of it since you have a vested interest in making money.

Please explain to me the multitude of catenary systems on the NEC and their/their substations state of repair.

Hard to take care of something you're never allocated money to repair.

Still waiting for the speedway to be completed from Trenton to New Brunswick.

John_Perkowski wrote:

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 7:55 am
When you own the property, you're more likely to take better care of it since you have a vested interest in making money.

Please explain to me the multitude of catenary systems on the NEC and their/their substations state of repair.

Well, that's the norm for a profit driven business. Obviously Amtrak doesn't care about profits.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:15 pm Please explain to me the multitude of catenary systems on the NEC and their/their substations state of repair.

Three different train companies built the overhead catenaries.
New Haven RR between NYC and New Haven hung 11kV 25 Hz power and was later re-hung 12.5 kV 60 Hz power.
Pennsylvania RR between NYC and DC hung 12kV 25 Hz power.
Amtrak between New Haven and Boston hung 25kV 60 Hz power.
So why was 25 Hz power used by the PRR? New Haven RR did first. Why did New Haven RR hang 25 Hz power?
During the beginning of the 20th century, 25 Hz power was much more readily available from commercial electrical utilities. The vast majority of urban subway systems used 25 Hz power to supply their lineside rotary converters used to generate the DC voltage supplied to the trains. Since rotary converters work more efficiently with lower-frequency supplies, 25 Hz was a common supply frequency for these machines. Rotary converters have been steadily replaced over the past 70 years with, at first, mercury arc rectifiers and, more recently, solid-state rectifiers. Thus, the need for special frequency power for urban traction has disappeared, along with the financial motivation for utilities to operate generators at these frequencies.
Principal advantages of motor generators include very high fault current ratings and clean output current. Solid state electronics can be damaged very quickly, so the microprocessor control systems react very quickly to over-correct conditions to place the converter in a safe, idle mode or to trip the output circuit breaker. Motor generators, being of 1930s design, are heavily overbuilt. These rugged machines can absorb large load transients and demanding fault conditions while continuing to remain online. Their output waveform is also perfectly sinusoidal without noise or higher harmonic output. They can actually absorb harmonic noise produced by solid-state devices, effectively serving as a filter. These attributes, combined with their high fault-current capability, make them desirable in a stabilizing role within the power system. Amtrak has retained two of the original converter plants and plans to overhaul them and continue their operation indefinitely.
So 25 Hz is likely to remain on the NEC between DC and NYC for a long time.

jonnhrr wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 10:16 am

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 9:55 am I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'm going to mention the Presidential race (NO!).

If Trump wins, he's going to appoint, I think he called it, a Government Efficiency Task Force. Musk will likely be the Chairman.

Amtrak would make a high-profile target.

As mentioned above, Amtrak's budget is a rounding error in the general scheme of things. There is also the fact that this has been suggested before with the realization that shutting down is almost as expensive as running the system.

I think they are going to have bigger fish to fry.

It’s an easy target, because of its symbolism. The symbolism of taking a service which “should by run by private business” out of the government portfolio is worth the political capital, in the MAGA opinion.