Bill to Strengthen STB Regulatory Powers.

west point wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:03 pm CSX, BNSF, UP, BNSF - SEA

I'm surprised CSX has, given it's history with MARC.

newpylong wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:46 amWhy shouldn't the business that owns and has the sole responsibility of paying for and maintaining the infrastructure have a monopoly?

Perhaps then Congress should do what it did in another highly regulated monopoly transportation industry in 1996 that transports hundreds of billions of dollars of products annually in the USA, and mandate open access. Track owning railroads would change to business model of construction/expansion when needed, and owning, maintaining and operating trackage for use by any company to transport freight or passengers. That track owning company would be highly regulated for adequacy and reliability and allowed to charge just and reasonable rates for that open access to the users of the track.

Perhaps then Congress should do what it did in another highly regulated monopoly transportation industry in 1996 that transports hundreds of billions of dollars of products annually in the USA, and mandate open access. Track owning railroads would change to business model of construction/expansion when needed, and owning, maintaining and operating trackage for use by any company to transport freight or passengers. That track owning company would be highly regulated for adequacy and reliability and allowed to charge just and reasonable rates for that open access to the users of the track.

So basically railroads shouldn't be able to benefit from the billions they've reinvested in their physical plant, eh?

Why stop there and simply nationalize and price fix everything from groceries to rent to salaries?.... oh, snap. That's Marxism.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I would love to operate a private DMU on the national rail network, paying low fees to the railroads. Might even offer package delivery service. So called equal access has not worked out for the electric utility industry, and hasn't worked out well for railroads in England.

That's basically what Britain did when they privatized British Rail. People DIED because the infrastructure company prioritized shareholder dividends over the maintenance it was supposed to be doing. After re-nationalization of the infrastructure, it took years for Network Rail to clear out the maintenance backlog it inherited.

MBTA3247 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:18 pm That's basically what Britain did when they privatized British Rail. People DIED because the infrastructure company prioritized shareholder dividends over the maintenance it was supposed to be doing. After re-nationalization of the infrastructure, it took years for Network Rail to clear out the maintenance backlog it inherited.

That is what is happening to a lesser extent now o the class 1s. Can you list all the improvements that class 1s have done to meet the very long trains now? I certainly cannot mention many. Only BNSF is coming close to allow for these super freights to pass each other without major delays,

Uh, UP double tracked about 80% of the El Paso - Los Angeles mainline on their own dime, and almost all of the mainline thru Arizona is grade separated thru the major population centers.

Alameda Corridor is another example.

Replacing the Kate Shelly bridge yet another.

Just because it's not advertised doesn't mean it's not happening.



Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Thank you, Mr. Olesen!!

I'd like to think that my company is not making all of these improvements, many along the broken-down SP and C&NW properties, but nevertheless had valuable franchises - especially the SP's Sunset Route serving the most rapidly expanding area of the USA - simply to liquidate the property and making the working conditions so intolerable that valued employees will simply "pull the pin".

disclaimer (just in case you couldn't guess): author holds Long position UNP

Wasn't some public money involved in the Alameda Corridor? Certainly it was a big benefit to the driving public as well as to BNSF and UP. And BNSF must have contributed too -- it had more to gain than UP.

And didn't the railroads pay for all the major improvements in Kansas City?

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 4:23 pm Why stop there and simply nationalize and price fix everything from groceries to rent to salaries?.... oh, snap. That's Marxism.

ah yes marxism.

seemed to work fine for the telcos no? of course they got out of it as soon as they could and verizon loves petitioning agencies to rip out copper at the first possible opportunity.

[OT] A better place to discuss Verizon and telecom issues such as why the ILEC has to allow CLEC access to their copper infrastructure but not their fiber optic infrastructure is Telecom Digest http://telecom2022.csail.mit.edu/

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 10:23 pm Wasn't some public money involved in the Alameda Corridor? Certainly it was a big benefit to the driving public as well as to BNSF and UP. And BNSF must have contributed too -- it had more to gain than UP.

And didn't the railroads pay for all the major improvements in Kansas City?

The Alameda Corridor was built with the intent that the railroads would be charged on a per TEU basis with the money used to repay the Bonds. The income so far has not kept up with the interest payments let alone the principle portion.

That raises a couple of questions:

1. Who's on the hook for covering the shortfall in interest payments?

2. Is there any provision in the agreement for raising the charge per TEU?

Are interest rates higher than present rates and what are they? Are the interest rate instruments not recallable?

Are we talking about the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority? When will they run out of money? Will rising interest rates have an effect? (i.e. are they depending on refinancing debt to balance the books?) I'm thinking this is going off topic.