Three class 1 have crashes. Is this end of freight by rail?

With three big class 1 companies having an accident or a crash. Does this mean a decline in freight shipped by rail till it all goes to trucking? All these accidents haven't made a good impression on freight transport by rail so companies might go to trucking or do both.

Short answer.....No. Rail is growing everywhere but coal.

Ok, I just figured with all this happening companies would switch to trucks instead of rail.

Railroads have been having accidents/crash's since the very beginning. They clean up the mess, get the trains running ASAP and pay for any damaged material and then back to business. Besides, trucks also have crash's (along with planes and barges).

The end? HELL NO. Why would it be? Those were not the first tragic crashes and unfortunately wont be the last. The railroads are not going to pull up the rails and give it all to the truckers, no chance in hell. The rail industry will grow in time, maybe when the economy is in better shape.

No, why would it be? Freight trains could crash every week and they'd still probably have lower accident rates than trucks.

With no disrespect intended toward the original poster, this sort of limited understanding on the part of the general public toward both how the railroads actually operate, and the ability of the economy to shift frteight traffic, is an indication of why both our infrastucure other than rail which, thankfully, remains mostly in private hands and our economy in general are in such poor shape.

Those of us here in middle age and later can remember a time in the late 1960's and all through the 70's whe three such accidents wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. At that time, over a third of our rail mileage, some of it outside the admitted "basket case" in the politiclly-hostile Northeast was in bankruptcy, or flirting with it.

But even under those circumstances, there were any number of commodities -- not only coal, but other bulk minerals, grain, chemicals, low-valued things like scrap metal and certain paper and wood products -- that could not have moved any other way. The extra burden on the highway system would have been too great.

Looking ahead. I can see a challenge emerging for the railroads when the completion of PANAMX diverts, or at least shortens the haul on (we don't yet know how much of) that very-profitable merchandise traffic. But the upside of this is that there will be excess capacity to sell on a network which has been rebuilt and well-maintained. From that point, it should be nothing more than some adjustments in pricing.

An an increasingly female-oriented and over-sensitized media needs some education to move us back toward a time when at least the male hallf of the population posessed some basic understanding of how the nation's transporation system actually works.

Rail has crashes, trucks have crashes. I guess I missed the point here.....

It was nice of some of you to actually take the question seriously and give answers..
but really..this thread is so ridiculous it should have just been locked from the start.

Hey, I heard a truck crashed on the interstate last week..do you think that means all trucking will be outlawed soon?

Scot

scottychaos wrote:It was nice of some of you to actually take the question seriously and give answers..
but really..this thread is so ridiculous it should have just been locked from the start.

Hey, I heard a truck crashed on the interstate last week..do you think that means all trucking will be outlawed soon?

Scot

And with the savings realized by shipping by rail, it is a no-brainer as to which mode is the most efficient! If anything, gasoline costing what it does, rail will become more and more attractive in the future, not less! A few wrecks? Pshaw! I admit I took a second look, thinking this was a troll post!!!!

GF

Two Words - Fuel Money

While the originator did not specify which incidents he was addressing, allow me to note of the three immediately coming to mind that resulted in fatalities, Red Oak and Goodwell would likely been avoided had Positive Train Control been active. A third, Midland, would have occurred PTC notwithstanding.

Very briefly, Red Oak involved a BNSF train "rear-ending" another, Goodwell involved the head on collision of two UP trains, and Midland involved a UP grade X-ing incident with a parade that apparently clearance from the UP had not been obtained.

With the increase in traffic volume, relatively inexperienced train crews, and capacity being "stressed", PTC, as mandated under RSIA 08, appears inevitable. The estimated cost to install nationwide is estimated at $15B; how that burden will be allocated amongst the stakeholders remains to be seen.

It's all economics. The railroads are infamous for making money in spite of themselves. While nobody wants to admit or think (at least publicly) that accidents are part of the cost of doing business, the facts are that accidents will happen. That's why there's an insurance "industry". Operating ratios for the class 1's are at all time lows. The trucking idustry has their place in transportation, the railroad has theirs.

Not at all. Trucks crash all the time.

As for panamax, I think it's going to be interesting. The freight still has to move, and much of America is landlocked. The challenge is going to be east coast railroads, which may not have the capacity to move these goods.

2nd trick op wrote:With no disrespect intended toward the original poster, this sort of limited understanding on the part of the general public toward both how the railroads actually operate, and the ability of the economy to shift frteight traffic, is an indication of why both our infrastucure other than rail which, thankfully, remains mostly in private hands and our economy in general are in such poor shape.

That's quite true. And why the government invests huge amounts of money in highways and airports, and not much in rail. It does bring up an interesting discussion about the shift of traffic from rail to trucks, and now back again, although in a totally different way. The economy and flows of freight are totally different than they were even a couple of decades ago.

Thunder wrote:Rail has crashes, trucks have crashes. I guess I missed the point here.....

I would go on to say that rail is FAR safer than the highway on a per mile-ton basis.