Would we ever have just one Class 1 railroad?

Considering all the mergers and consolidations that have occurred in the past 30-40 years, I was wondering if we would ever get down to just one Class 1 railroad spanning the entire country?

No, becuase it would be a monopoly. You would never want only one of something. With no competition, customers get screwed.

There has been talk of one of the two western roads buying one of the two eastern roads creating essentially two east-west railroads. But it's just talk for now.

Highly unlikely, IMHO, that we'd ever get to one N American system, 2 at the least, primarily given the very big political issues of allowing a one-system railroad monopoly. The other 2 obstacles, though more easily overcome, would be the complexity of finally attaining an east/west transcontinental system and the hesitancy of regulators to allow further megamergers after the merger meltdowns of the '90's.

Ya i think it could happen with whats going on, it wouldnt be a private railroad. I'm sure the left would just love to control the railroads. I'm doom and gloom tho, but when you see a liberal tell the oil executives that they would love to nationalize there companies. I'm sure they look at us the same way, big business out to turn a profit. If they keep clamping down on us it just might happen.

I agree with UPRR Engineer. Before you see one privately-owned mega-railroad, you will see the railroad system of this country nationalized.

Both possible. Both HIGHLY unlikely.

When ya step back and have a look at everything that the railroads are up against, the thought of throwing the cards down isnt that crazy of an idea. It wouldnt be a take over as much as it would be written legislation that leaves the railroad bankrupt. It's pretty easy say it couldnt ever happen when you dont pay that much attention to what some people on the hill are thinking and what comes out of there mouth. I cant even count how many times ive saw liberals speak of the european model. Besides that i think the USA is still "in collapse mode" anyways. Things get as bad as i think they will, what ends up of the railroads wont matter much anyways. Theres more negative then good out there, see how things play out i guess.

NV290 wrote:No, becuase it would be a monopoly. You would never want only one of something. With no competition, customers get screwed.

There has been talk of one of the two western roads buying one of the two eastern roads creating essentially two east-west railroads. But it's just talk for now.

Most shippers already view the system as a monopoly given their location is served by only a single road.

My personal take on this is that while, in theory, an enterprise has the right to conduct its business in any form it chooses, including further mega-mergers, to do so would be an invitation to some very unwelcome governmental interference, given the current political climate.

Deregulation, as applied in theory to any field of enterprise, is supposed to bring about greater price competiion as new players enter the market. But the railroads' complete ownership of a right-of-way which is (1) fixed, (2) extremely expensive, and (3, and most important) seldom offers possibility for improvement due to the over-riding importance of ruling grades, implies that competition based on either price or quality of service would be far from uniform due to the inherent advantages or disadvantages of the limited (and declining, due to techological factors) number of suitable routes. (This would not be the case, however, in the large portion of the interior U S which is generally flat, provided the NIMBY syndrome were not allowed to block the revival of some abandonded rights-of-way.)

If some measure of increased competitiveness on a nation-wide basis is ever fostered within the rail industry, it could probably come about only if a model along the lines of practices within the electric utility industry, with service providers sharing facilities, were to come to pass. Unlike the case with electric power, which is a force that might best be likened to steam pressure, the individual units (vehicles) are differentiable, but the current major players would likely surrender their individual propeties only on threat of outright confiscation/extinction.

And unfortnately, I view any number of irrational scenarioes as possible if the general economic and political climate contines to deteriorate.

UPRR engineer wrote:Ya i think it could happen with whats going on, it wouldnt be a private railroad. I'm sure the left would just love to control the railroads. I'm doom and gloom tho, but when you see a liberal tell the oil executives that they would love to nationalize there companies. I'm sure they look at us the same way, big business out to turn a profit. If they keep clamping down on us it just might happen.

History would suggest that the left has no real interest in controlling (nationalizing) the railroads. After the fallure of railroad nationalization during the WWI administration of liberal Woodrow Wilson, liberals did not nationalize the industry during the dark days of the Great Depression (FDR) or when things were going to hell in a handbasket during the '60's (Kennedy and Johnson) and '70's (Carter). As a matter of fact, it was a liberal, Carter, who ushered in the era of railroad and transportation deregulation which in turn lead to the free-enterprise railroad renaissance we've all enjoyed during the last couple of decades.

Thanks for the history lesson on the old democrats, im talking about the new tree hugging left, ultra libs. A look at the banks and the car companies is a prefect example of there determination to stay in control.

If a guy doesnt think things are gonna get any worse its hard to see the government stepping in. I think things are gonna get pretty bad so i can see what could happen. Some of the purposed legislation out there and some that has already passed isnt good for the railroads. Look at it for what it is.... or dont i guess.

UPRR Engineer wrote:

Thanks for the history lesson on the old democrats, im talking about the new tree hugging left, ultra libs. A look at the banks and the car companies is a prefect example of there determination to stay in control.

That difference of opinion is just one part of the great unanswered question unfolding along with our present econonic difficulties. The recognition of the limits of our former petroleum-driven economy is just the tip of the iceberg. As more of our manufacturing-based core economy heads overseas, we can't support the public sector overhead which has sustained many of the "soft" jobs sought by the new, predominately-suburban and predominately-female contingent which became a major component of the labor force post-1970. A large percentage of this group has a minimal understanding of the workings of the economy; they are going to go looking for somebody to blame, and we all know who the people in Lefty-land have in mind.

On one hand the base of "desirable" jobs is drying up; on the other, our "cooled off" economy isn't going to attract the often-illegal immigrants who did our really dirty jobs for us. The solution indicated by the "vacuum" in the workings of supply and demand is obvious, but the marginally-employables who represent the prime clientele of the new Administration aren't going to like it.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us" (Walt Kelly - 1971)

UPRR engineer wrote:Thanks for the history lesson on the old democrats, im talking about the new tree hugging left, ultra libs. A look at the banks and the car companies is a prefect example of there determination to stay in control.

You're welcome. Neither the "ultra libs" as you call them nor the "ultra cons" control the political landscape of our country. And, as I would see it the "ultra libs" agenda is a mixed and not completely negative bag for the railroads....less reliance on fossil fuels might hurt their coal business but shift other traffic from air or highway to rail. The Bush and Obama administrations' economic intervention with the fnancial and auto sectors had little to do with control, but instead to avert a very painful economic depression which would have hit the railroads even harder than what they've experienced during the past 1.5 years for both traffic and their appetite for capital. Despite political, economic and environmental challenges the rail industry's future is a hell of a lot brighter than its been since WWII --- just look at Warren Buffet's recent major investment in BNSF and tell me it aint so!

I don't think we'll see a single owned "national" railroad if you will. The cost to absorb and differentiate between the current roads to bring them into one standard operating railroad (rules, signals, dispatching, computer systems, ROW maintenance, fleet utilization, training, union contracts, etc.) would be astronomical. I can see a (private) west coast single railroad (BNSF absorbs the UP or vice-versa or NS absorbs CSX) (west coast legacy carriers as well as east coast legacy carriers have common ground insomuch as rules and signals and corporate mentality are concerned) and an east coast single railroad.

I don't think the left or the right will have anything to do with it. The govt. doesn't want Amtrak, why would they wish to oversee a "national" railroad?

QB 52.32 wrote: You're welcome. Neither the "ultra libs" as you call them nor the "ultra cons" control the political landscape of our country. And, as I would see it the "ultra libs" agenda is a mixed and not completely negative bag for the railroads....less reliance on fossil fuels might hurt their coal business but shift other traffic from air or highway to rail. The Bush and Obama administrations' economic intervention with the fnancial and auto sectors had little to do with control, but instead to avert a very painful economic depression which would have hit the railroads even harder than what they've experienced during the past 1.5 years for both traffic and their appetite for capital. Despite political, economic and environmental challenges the rail industry's future is a hell of a lot brighter than its been since WWII --- just look at Warren Buffet's recent major investment in BNSF and tell me it aint so!

You missed a few key points in what happened, might want to go back and study it again. Ya also might want to look into what made this country different then any other country in the world and pay special attention to the free market system and our constitution. I dont agree with one thing you had to say there bud. Sounds alot like life in Russia, which is just what the progressive/liberal/Obama movement is all about. Read up on some of that and let me know what you think there dude.