Could We Develop Multiple Rail "Systems"?

All through the years I was growng up, years of decline for the rail industry as a whole, its advocates always emphasized its flexibility and adaptability .... the willingness of the roughly 100 Class I's which were still around in those days to accept just about any shipment, to provide siding-to-siding delivery, and to operate under a uniform set of standards.

And those of us familiar with the history of the industry over the succesive forty years know that an awful lot of what what made it so fascinating -- branch lines, LCL and express shipments, ferries and carfloats, most refrigerator and all stock cars --- disappeared as a mass-market economy focused on movements of goods in greater volume and smaller frequency.

Now I am quite certain that most of this stuff is gone for good, but economic trends in recent years, spurred in part by fuel concerns, have argued in part for a revival of the separable car technology. And the spin-off of most branch and terminal operations to "short line" firms, many of them in multipe locations, clearly demonstrate that many of the obstacles are "artificial" ... the laws of supply and demand impeded by regulatory or contractual constraints.

The separation of passenger and freight traffic along the Northeast Corridor for safety reasons is only the most prominent symbol of that conflict. Amtrak faces similar problems on some of its California routes, and both the Chicago-Springfield-St. Louis and Chicago-Detroit service/speed upgrafdes are planned around main lines for which freight service is no longer a major player. The push for higher speeds will surely intensify this trend.

And finally, and most importantly, if you envision a region bound roughly by Buffalo, Atlanta, Mobile, El Paso, Denver and Billings (in short, the largely-flat ineterior of the United States) .... you have an area honeycombed with abandoned railroad rights-of-way, most of them in areas likley to be economically hurt by re-concentration of economic activity in the cities due to energy concerns, and not likely to raise much NIMBY opposition to tying a few of those shortlines together.

Furthermore,there are a number of key routes through the mountains --- Pipestone, Tennessee and Raton Passes --- lyng dormant or nearly so. The easiest ruling grade through the Alleghenies, between Driftwood and DuBois, Penna, on the Buffalo and Pittsburgh, requires no helpers, yet sees only a couple of locals and unit coal moves each week. And a second, separate grade once occupied that gap.

Fantasy? ..... Maybe. Surely not likley to get too far in the time I'm likley to have left on this side of the cemetery. But the trend away from one-size-fits-all rail systems, while moving slowly as all megatrends do, seems to be pointed in that direction. And the handful of remaining super-systems could participate under a subsidiary just at the communications giants took a stake in the Internet. When the need for innovation is driven by something as far-reaching as our current economic paralyis, just about anything needs to be examined.

To zero in on a part of your argument, I've always been fascinated by the Low Grade Secondary route through the Alleghenies. If the Erie-Lackawanna system had been retooled as an independent competitor to Conrail, that route (along with the Buffalo-Driftwood-Harrisburg-Baltimore line built by the Pennsylvania RR) ought to have been included as a much more direct and easily-graded line than the Erie.

As for your main argument, I think there's a market for regional carload service - it's been demonstrated by the success of Genesee & Western, RailAmerica and their ilk. The government could certainly do more to support renewal of rail service on abandoned rights-of-way, though the only way that those governments would get a return on investment would be to mandate a lower gross vehicle weight for roadways. I've long been critical of states which allow branch-line and terminal rail service to struggle, while allowing trucks that weigh far over the Federal 80,000 lb limit, and thereby give incentives to use the most damaging vehicles to that state's roadways. For instance, the nearly-bankrupt Michigan allows 164,000 lb. trucks (PDF), and has terrible roads besides. If that state signed legislation barring trucks of over 100,000 lbs. (to be grandfathered in over two decades), they'd be able to invest 1/10 of their savings in rail and waterborne service and still come out ahead in terms of a robust transportation system.

So it would appear that while the prospects for re-developing short- and intermediate distance carload service would be promising in a more open economy with easier entry and exit, the current scene is so complicated by political contraints that there are few scenarioes where anyone would be willing to assume the risks.

Reading, which had access to a fair number of bulk shippers in a heavily-industrialized portion of the nation, tried this back in the late Sixties, winning a few concessions from the unions on crew-district rules with what was touted as "Bee-Line Service", but things never panned out; one wonders why it wasn't attempted again in the wake of the mid-Eighties reforms, but with the number of major carriers now down to a handful, I suppose the marketing gurus had other plans (though some progress appears to have been made on damage-free low-value stuff like coal and aggregates)

With regard to the very large trucks --- it should be noted that this is mostly a local Michigan phenomenon ... I could show you articles touting the same trend, again in Michigan, in the trucking paper Transport Topics from forty years ago. And if you examine the rules for the 2-full-size (as opposed to 28-foot "pups") combinations allowed on a handful of major toll roads, these, and the "triples" allowed in some western states, but usually restricted to the Interstates, are about the only vehicles exceeding the 80,000-lb limit which became the standard (with the help of some federal pressure) in the late Seventies.

I do agree with the contention that vehicles of that size don't pay the full cost of the wear-and-tear they place on the higway system --- as to whether the toll roads recover that cost on what we used to refer to as "trains', I'll reserve judgement.

And I agree that reduction in truck weights and sizes are the only measures that might change the economics of freight transportation enough to render rail haulage competitive over shorter distances on a grand scale. Perhaps if the price of fuel continues to escalate and the size of the average vehicle continues to contract, the concerns over "smart cars" sharing the roads with 40-ton mastadons will increase, but that's still a long way off.

Instead of railroads trying to regain short-haul freight business, what if the federal government and the states bought railroad infrastructure from the Class 1's? As is the case with highways, each state would be responsible for maintaining and policing the rail infrastructure within its borders. Moreover, the FRA would become responsible for rail dispatching, just as air traffic control is the FAA's responsibility.

With both the road and the rail networks now owned and maintained by the states, there could be mergers between the Class 1 railroads and the trucking companies. The result would be logistics companies who provide both local and long-haul transportation services to shippers---rail for long-haul (where rail is most efficient), and trucking for local (where trucking is most efficient).

tarheelman wrote:With both the road and the rail networks now owned and maintained by the states, there could be mergers between the Class 1 railroads and the trucking companies.

Actually, if the infrastructure was owned and maintained by the govt or a 3rd party, the number of railroads could increase. More competition as a result of a lower entry cost. If the govt was responsible for maintaining the infrastructure, who would check up on their work (quality control)?

freightfan wrote:Actually, if the infrastructure was owned and maintained by the govt or a 3rd party, the number of railroads could increase. More competition as a result of a lower entry cost. If the govt was responsible for maintaining the infrastructure, who would check up on their work (quality control)?

Quality control would be done the same way it is with highways.

tarheelman wrote:Instead of railroads trying to regain short-haul freight business, what if the federal government and the states bought railroad infrastructure from the Class 1's? As is the case with highways, each state would be responsible for maintaining and policing the rail infrastructure within its borders. Moreover, the FRA would become responsible for rail dispatching, just as air traffic control is the FAA's responsibility.

With both the road and the rail networks now owned and maintained by the states, there could be mergers between the Class 1 railroads and the trucking companies. The result would be logistics companies who provide both local and long-haul transportation services to shippers---rail for long-haul (where rail is most efficient), and trucking for local (where trucking is most efficient).

It is very difficult to imagine either the Taxpayers or the Class 1 railroads going for such a scheme...The open access solution has had it's primary applications in countries where the railroad network was previously publicly owned. It makes some sense as a way to provide competition where you have a single combined system.
The US Railroad industry is doing a good job already in increasing it's marketshare of long distance freight. Many of the major railroads were in the trucking business (for instance , UP's ownership of Overnite Express) but chose to divest to focus on their "Core Competancy" i.e running trains..

I'm struggling to understand the premise(s) behind this thread: Expansion of the national rail network? Open access? Creation of regional loose carload network?

Thanks for showing up, Mr. Cowford. I was hoping you'ld catch this thread.

To summarize, with the "Big Five" in America clearly assigning their top priorities to intermodal and time-sensitive traffic, with the current operating practice of seldom more than two main tracks operating near capacity on many main lines, with a handful of carriers such as Wheeling and Lake Erie making respectable, if unspectacular profits, handling carload and unit, rather than intermodal freight, I'm wondering why the operators on the periphery of the industry aren't making more of a play for traffic involving shorter hauls, and possibly emphasizing lower cost by knitting a few successful regionals together.

Upon further research, I believe that part of the answer can be found in a paralell discussion on the major reight roads' challenge to the FRA standards for passenger operation, and its implications for the HSR movement which, I think many of us would suggest, has been increasingly linked to one side of the nation's ideological polarization. (Link Below)

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 37&t=73703

My central point remains: The one-size-fits-all "ubiquitous" rail network which many of us remember is no longer appropriate, and while the major freight lines have restored themselves to prosperity, thanks mostly due to long-overdue reform on both the labor and regulatory fronts, much of the industry still views itself as a political target.

Where this leads, nobody knows. But from what we've seen so far, it would appear unlikely, for example, that if an HSR through California's Central Valley between Stockton and Bakersfield could be developed relatively quickly, Union Pacific is going to show the slightest interest in breaking the Tehachapi bottleneck in return for access to a new tunnel during off-peak hours.

This is just one of many facets of the "open/negotiable access" issue on which the surface has been barely scratched. Many of the most vocal potential players have little grasp of the "nuts and bots" which put together a serve-all-comers rail system no longer viewed as completely adaptable as was once the case. The end result of the "Faustian pact" which created Amtrak -- A minimal network of LD trains interfering with freight operation, yet sustainable only through politics -- has been cited many times as the reason the freight roads would view any approach from within the Beltway with deep suspicion.

2nd Trick Op., I think the railroads, large and smaller, are assigning their priority to those things that'll bring them the biggest returns whether new business or by squeezing productivity out of existing business. So much of what drives the industry is the large capital costs inherent in railroading both for equipment and infrastructure, which informs modern railroad industry management that being all things to all people is not prudent whether you're rationalizing during the 80's and 90's, or now considering growth opportunities. Many of the regionals are secondary networks structured to protect the market position of those who divested these assets and that don't earn their cost of capital and rely upon public monies for infrastructure investment, probably have managements that understand that they must use (up) their infrastructure and equipment prudently for the long run, and rely upon conventional carload technology which has its limitations within the marketplace. Instead of developing short-haul carload networks which may not provide the necessary volume, revenue and returns while requiring capital for infrastructure and (new) equipment, these regionals are better off conserving their assets to chase that which gives them their highest economic returns which is oftentimes providing "retail" and/or competitive access to the big boys. And, on these secondary networks there are other basic capital priorities such as simply bringing the infrastructure up to 286k capacity before there's the consideration of competing capital demands. Of course, that's today's paradym and the future probably holds both new opportunities and economics while at the same time the possibility that new technologies or economic situations, etc. will keep the railroads in their existing niches.

Yeah, what QB said...

Not much more I could add, other than:

Regarding short lines... with a couple exceptions, the Class 1s have been pretty good at ensuring their spinoffs can't be stitched back together to form competing through routes. That said, short line opportunities to provide loose carload service in lucrative lanes is pretty limited.

Regarding open access... even if (God forbid!) regulatory changes prompt this activity, it's doubtful that a scenario would emerge that would permit "all comers" to a particular shipper or corridor. I'd envision dual access as the norm.

Thanks for the replies, gentlemen; I want to hypothesize on a few more admittedly very-long-term prospects.

As I said in an earlier post, It's always disappointed me that the Reading's "Bee Line" service (direct siding-to-siding dispatch of short trains of bulk materials, with a little give-and-take from the Brotherhoods on crew districts) never caught on. The reforms on crew sizes in the ealy 1980's should have made this even more of a "natural".

But as a counter-point, the Reading had large amounts of excess capacity in 1967. That's not as much the case today. What little I can find on operating practice on the heavily-trafficked 2-main-track lines leads me to believe that congestion sometimes holds speeds to the slowest move in the fleet, and that one incident, such as an overheated lournal or broken knuckle or drawbar, can throw a large monkey wrench into the works.

So it would seem to me that if any regional or short-line entrepreneurs made a play for carload traffic involving shorter hauls, they couldn't count on the major players for much suppport. Yet the downsizing of the rail network which intensified after 1965 should have freed up a lot of former trackage for the creation of alternate routes for lower-rated traffic.

And finally, I don't think this could come about unless the conflict between very large trucks and increasingly-smaller personal autos intensifies. But I do believe that the depth to which the personal vehicle is woven into the fabic of daily life, coupled with the distrust of large centralized planning which is central to the character of a large segment of our population, could make this the "default option" to which our polarized, and highly individualistic society might slide.

I'm not suggesting that the "If you've got it, a truck brought it." distribution system is going to disappear. But the eventual mandate of smaller highway freight vehicles might, in turn, move more distributuion centers closer to the major markets, and allow a reshaped rail system to capture a larger portion of sometimes-shorter line hauls.

tarheelman wrote:

freightfan wrote:Actually, if the infrastructure was owned and maintained by the govt or a 3rd party, the number of railroads could increase. More competition as a result of a lower entry cost. If the govt was responsible for maintaining the infrastructure, who would check up on their work (quality control)?

Quality control would be done the same way it is with highways.

I currently build state and federal highways, some of their standards are surprisingly low. Going out to the lowest bidder is not always a great idea. Rails would require signifigantly more maintinace than highways. If you get a pothole in a road a truck can steer around it, a train would either have to stop and wait on a small problem, or derail. And besides, who wants to put those goof balls in DC in charge of much more? Just an old hillbillys 2 cents worth.