Western Railroad Discussion > UP Coast Line as a good open access project

I could see how UP's Coast Line could be a good demonstration project for the benefits of open access and getting trucks off the highway between SoCal and the Bay Area.  UP isn't moving a lot of freight along the coast and could be given trackage rights for their current traffic.  I don't know how one would get UP to give up the Coast Line, because the railroads are so against open access.  A successful demonstration project could put the pressure on to adopt open access in more places.  Thoughts?

mapboy

Open access would be putting rail lines on a par with airlines and roads.  It would be great for rail shipping and travel in the long run, but the "BIG 4" dont want it cause it destroys their monopolies.  Imagine if  United Airlines owned LAX, and didnt have to let anyone else land there.  Would they go for open access.  Not on your life.    Suppose Amazon owned the I5?  You think theyd let anyone use it?  

Unfortunately, the govt isnt too smart.  The time to push for open access was when all the RR's were screaming that then needed to buy their competitors cause they were "all going bankrupt"  The govt could have at least bought some of the unwanted trunk lines and made them open access.   But govt was fascinated building bigger roads and bigger airports, so thats where money went.    My .02

We'll probably never see it, but it would be a good demonstration project. I-5 is pretty clogged with trucks in the daytime and, based on a trip I made down through Oregon about 25 years ago at night, I bet the California section is even worse after dark.

TJY

The old SP Truss over the San Antonio Creek near Vandenberg is currently in the process of getting replaced. They have some cranes and other machinery out there on the west side of the trestle. They plan on closing the subdivision for two weeks sometime within the next few months to replace the bridge.

Upwards of 37 Miles of track will be getting replaced near Guadalupe

Cuesta tunnels are supposed to be scraped to support trains that have heights upwards of double stack intermodals

SLORailfanning Wrote:

> Cuesta tunnels are supposed to be scraped to
> support trains that have heights upwards of double
> stack intermodals

How do you scrap tunnels for double stacks?

BobL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SLORailfanning Wrote:
>
> > Cuesta tunnels are supposed to be scraped to
> > support trains that have heights upwards of
> double
> > stack intermodals
>
> How do you scrap tunnels for double stacks? 

Just a wild ass guess on my part, but perhaps "Daylighting" said tunnels. Ben

BobL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SLORailfanning Wrote:
>
> > Cuesta tunnels are supposed to be scraped to
> > support trains that have heights upwards of
> double
> > stack intermodals
>
> How do you scrap tunnels for double stacks?

Scrape.

I'm guessing another term for notching?

I would think lowering the floor of the tunnels would be cheaper and faster.

There is NO way to daylight the tunnels on Cuesta.    Way too much overburden and the environmental impact would be huge.   Some years ago the tunnel floors were lowered to accomadate double "high" double stacks.    SP did it because they refused to spend the money on Tehatchipi and Santa Fe went ahead and paid for it over there but SP was NOT allowed to run the double high double stacks wihhout paying millions in fines.      And indeed the SP did run such stack trains here.   And UP even ran one or two trains with DPU's even thought the tunnels are NOT equipped with transmission antenae,  such a move was illegal but nobody cared.

ATSFSuperCap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is NO way to daylight the tunnels on
> Cuesta.    Way too much overburden and the
> environmental impact would be huge.   Some years
> ago the tunnel floors were lowered to accomadate
> double "high" double stacks.    SP did it
> because they refused to spend the money on
> Tehatchipi and Santa Fe went ahead and paid for it
> over there but SP was NOT allowed to run the
> double high double stacks wihhout paying millions
> in fines.      And indeed the SP did run such
> stack trains here.   And UP even ran one or two
> trains with DPU's even thought the tunnels are NOT
> equipped with transmission antenae,  such a move
> was illegal but nobody cared.

I dont thonk anyone here seriously suggested that they would daylight any tunnels over cuesta grade.  Please calm down.   The talk is about Scraping the tunnel rooves.  notching.   I'd estimate thed have to notch 6-8"  for domestic stacks.  IDK..just a giuess based on prior info.

Open access to who?  Both UP and BNSF already have access to Northern and Southern California.  If the plan is to send intermodal between Northern and Southern California the terminal expenses would be too high to compete with over the road trucking. Perhaps if Port Hueneme ever became a big port it could work for port traffic to give more competitive shipping options to the outside world. Hueneme is just too small of a port with its two daily ships that dock there.

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Open access to who?  Both UP and BNSF already
> have access to Northern and Southern California. 
> If the plan is to send intermodal between Northern
> and Southern California the terminal expenses
> would be too high to compete with over the road
> trucking. Perhaps if Port Hueneme ever became a
> big port it could work for port traffic to give
> more competitive shipping options to the outside
> world. Hueneme is just too small of a port with
> its two daily ships that dock there.

Open access to any train operating company, running on infrastructure owned by government, like in many countries in Europe.  Since our government has favored trucking that pays less than their share of road expenses, by supplying the rail infrastructure, the playing field would be more level.  An operator like Brightline or FEC might be able to make a go of it.  The Coast Line could be a good test of whether or not open access  is an improvement over the current duopoly of western Class 1 railroads with limited competition and service.  Just don't overdo it like the California HSR.

mapboy

"Open access to any train operating company, running on infrastructure owned by government, like in many countries in Europe.  Since our government has favored trucking that pays less than their share of road expenses..."

Oh, and the gov't would "promise" that operators would pay "their share" and not to manage the railroad infrastructure at a loss to taxpayers as you assert it does for trucks?  Unlikely; two wrongs don't make a right.

Much to our railfan chagrin sometimes, railroads in the US are beacons of the competitive landscape, considering all of their disadvantages.

TractiveEffort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Open access to any train operating company,
> running on infrastructure owned by government,
> like in many countries in Europe.  Since our
> government has favored trucking that pays less
> than their share of road expenses..."
>
> Oh, and the gov't would "promise" that operators
> would pay "their share" and not to manage the
> railroad infrastructure at a loss to taxpayers as
> you assert it does for trucks?  Unlikely; two
> wrongs don't make a right.

Your misunderstanding precedes you. It is not two wrongs. Railroad is the only infrastructure that is privately owned. The railroad infrastructure should indeed be publicly owned by the government. 

> Much to our railfan chagrin sometimes, railroads
> in the US are beacons of the competitive
> landscape, considering all of their disadvantages.

HA, the railroads are beacons of the competitive landscape to who? Trucks? Only in intermodel between city pairs that work. Only in bulk commodities.

mapboy Wrote:
-
>
> Open access to any train operating company,
> running on infrastructure owned by government,
> like in many countries in Europe. ......  An operator like Brightline or
> FEC might be able to make a go of it.  The Coast
> Line could be a good test of whether or not open
> access  is an improvement over the current
> duopoly of western Class 1 railroads with limited
> competition and service.

There are many differences between the Coast Line and a European model that make it an invalid comparison; as examples

1.  The trackage was already owned by the government, including the intranational competing lines of road.
2.  A preexisting  MofW organization just had to be carved out of the vertical integration, not created.
3.  Since the national [ and most cases its adjoining international ] network is now open access, private trains can go, more or less, anywhere, not just a limited stretch of track between A and B.
     This is one of the biggest problems your proposal has:  where does the Coast Line end ?   Where are the end points for these new trains -- they have to be where the traffic is originating / terminating.  New terminals cost money -- banks will loan money on movable assets, less so on concrete.
4.  Once you divide RoW from train operation, conflict is created;  scheduling is one area*, capital improvements another.  The latter can be especially expensive when, say, capacity improvements which the new operator needs aren't there as scheduled.
    There is also the question of compensation** when RoW problems, or another operator, delay or cancel your service;  UP can fall back on the Valley, and BNSF on the Coast Line.  Would the Big Two be so cooperative with the new guys -- I don't think so....
    *When a French RofW man was asked why passenger trains got priority at the expense of the freight side during extensive MofW windows, his reply was a classic: "Containers don't vote"
   ** One group that has really benefited from the horizontal breakup in Europe is, as might be expected, lawyers.
5.  Many of the private operators, especially the shorter distance ones equivalent to your Coast Line example, are controlled or owe their existence to a single company whose supply chain as a whole can benefit from dedicated service.  Can you identify any who would realistically consider owning or contracting trains on the Coast Line to benefit their organization ?   Remember that most of the short distance intermodal [ swap body, accompanied tractor + trailer ] service through the Alps are not only government subsidized as to operating costs, but exist because of government regulations on trucks transiting their countries.  Perhaps making some of CA's interstates toll roads for trucks would be a better solution ?

Note that your FEC / Brightline example is hardly open access;  both are successful -- well, OK, the jury is still out on B'line, and won't be back in court for another 8 or so years -- ONLY because both they and the line of road are ONE organization.

Open access to most players in the US means more of a long distance reciprocal switching arrangement than true open access.   I think the 'European model' but perhaps with private capital might work in some locations in the US -- the W&LE or similar come to mind -- but I don't think the Coast Line is it.

SZ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/20 08:39 by Steinzeit2.

Good to see the different points of view on open access here.  I don't expect it to happen, but a thread for armchair rail barons.  At one time there was interest in running intermodal rail shuttles from LA/Long Beach to the Inland Empire (San Bernardino-Riverside) as a way to get trucks off the congested freeways and reduce pollution.  It would only work if there was a fee for using the freeways to truck between those points.  The government would try to do similar between SoCal and the Bay Area.

mapboy

"The railroad infrastructure should indeed be publicly owned by the government."

Why?

How would this "handover" to "the public" be consumated?

Who would be the winners and losers of this approach?  Be sure to include taxpayers as well as "greedy" RR and Wall St execs.

TractiveEffort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The railroad infrastructure should indeed be
> publicly owned by the government."
>
> Why?
>
> How would this "handover" to "the public" be
> consumated?
>
> Who would be the winners and losers of this
> approach?  Be sure to include taxpayers as well
> as "greedy" RR and Wall St execs.


It was owned by the government from 1918 to 1920. And the results were so bad there's never been a serious thought to ever do it again.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TractiveEffort Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "The railroad infrastructure should indeed be
> > publicly owned by the government."
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > How would this "handover" to "the public" be
> > consumated?
> >
> > Who would be the winners and losers of this
> > approach?  Be sure to include taxpayers as
> well
> > as "greedy" RR and Wall St execs.
>
>
> It was owned by the government from 1918 to 1920.
> And the results were so bad there's never been a
> serious thought to ever do it again.


"Owned" is incorrect, the Federal government took over control of the raioroads during WW I, ownership never changed hands to the government.

AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/20 16:02 by agentatascadero.

It would be interesting to hear what potential beneficiaries of open access like Amazon, JBHunt, UPS, think of this.

Two of those three own / rent their air services. Maybe they could do a better job than some US rail firms.

Posted from Android