Western Railroad Discussion > Toll Roads for Trains - letter campaign

I have mentioned the concept a lot here. I have been working on an open access concept for the US that I think could be accomplished. Some folks call for nationalization. I don't see that as being achievable.

I have turned the plan into a pdf booklet https://www.vtd.net/VTDPUB/TRT/TRT%20Files/Toll-Roads-for-Trains.html

and I have started a letter writing campaign - Congress and STB: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/toll-roads-for-trains?source=direct_link&

If you agree that this is the change US railroading needs, please click the link above and send a letter to your Representative, Senators, and STB.

TAW



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/23 20:07 by TAW.

Like the government can run anything.  Just look at Amtrak....Congress can't pour human waste water out of a boot.

Sven

SvenMolson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like the government can run anything.  Just look
> at Amtrak....Congress can't pour human waste water
> out of a boot..........with directions on the heel!
>
> Sven

“Like the government can run anything.”

Wait a minute.  Who runs the Air Traffic Control system in this country?  Who sets the specs for, and determines if, an airplane is airworthy?   Unless I am missing something:  some government agency has the lead in these roles.  If the government can’t run anything, how come travel by air is as safe as it is? 

How come we don’t have boiler (or other pressure vessel) explosions in this country?  Because the Engineering societies developed codes for the design and operation of those things, and government (or the insurance company) was smart enough to require conformance.  If the government can’t run anything, how come this is safe?

I know, I don’t trust “the government” either.  But the above examples tell me it is possible for government to have a successful role in managing technology. 

So yes, this sounds like a proposal to be seriously considered.

I think the climate change people will eventually wake up to the fact that rail transport can have much less climate impact than other transportation options. When that happens, there will be great pressure applied to quickly make it so.  The RRs need to proactively address this, otherwise the “climate emergency” will shove it down their throats, and that could very well go sideways.
 

I like the idea.  I look at railroads as public utilities and when they fail to fulfill that obligation a solution needs to come along.  
 

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

engineerinvirginia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SvenMolson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Like the government can run anything.  Just
> look
> > at Amtrak....Congress can't pour human waste
> water
> > out of a boot..........with directions on the
> heel!
> >
> > Sven

Your right, Sven did write that!!

A lot to consider, and I will be thinking about this for a while.
Here are three initial responses:
First, I like the focus on the education and enhancement of the work force but that needs one addition: to be sure that these employees are provided with and given the opportunity to develop leadership and communication skills.
Second, the railroad infrastructure has to include highway crossings with the highest priority toward closures.  Any sane national policy of transportation needs to bring a halt to the collisons and delays that our "for profit" thinking ignores.
Third: Mayybe a baby step would be to open every route to at least one provider of local switching.  Class 1s could continue to shed their "unprofitable" less than trainload movements while companies with the shortline mentality of "all our customers are big" keeps cars flowing to/from carload customers.  Try a once a day window for a train in each direction that clears the main line at least once every 2 (?) hours for 30 (?) minutes to let traffic by..

I think it is good to have these types of discussions.  However, after my 35 years in the industry, there are no quick fixes, and dramatic solutions have a significant amount of collateral impacts, which must be addressed. 

Railroads are not public utilities.  Trucking has 4-5 times the market share of rail (depending on your which share metric, you use). That hardly makes rail a monopoly. 

The TRT assertion that "the levels of service and safety of the railroad industry are unacceptable."  Railroads are the safest mode of ground transport and a far safer mode of transportation than OTR truck. In addition, rail Safety numbers have been improving for years.  In addition, there is $100 bil of freight customers that choose to ship rail everyday.  

Is PSR the model for growth and improved customer satisfaction--no.  However, Look at the financial incentive to adopt PSR.  

If PSR results in a 10 pt improvement in OR, with $20 bil in rev equates to $2.0 bil in added margin
At an 80 OR, it would take an added $10 bil in new revenue to generate $2.0 bil in added margin--So, the choice is either, a 50% increase in the amount of revenue, or reduce expenses significantly.
So, would you rather be a $20 bil company with $8.0 bil in margin or a $30 bil company with $ 6.0 bil in margin?  At the end of the day, it is all about how many dollars you drive to the bottom line. 

But regardless, PSR does not make the case for nationalization, or appropriation of railroads proprietary right of way.

Please look at the case study for this separation between operator and infrastructure provider in the United Kingdom.  The infrastructure provider in the U.K. requires almost $5.0 Bil in government subsidies eac year.  The U.K. railroads are only 10% of the US railroads. So, it would suggest that we would need to provide $50 bil in annual subsidies to the infrastructure provider.  That is a scary big number.  

The toll roads for trains idea propposes to take 100's of billions of dollars in assets from publicly traded, private rail corporations.  Even if you overcome the legal hurdles of this proposal, separating the operator from the infrastructure is fraught with problems.
             How do you allocate capacity amongst various competing operators?  Why do you expect multiple operators to more efficiently and effectively use the limited mainline capacity, than the existing model of integrated single operator and rail line operator?  One of the toughest internal discussions inside class 1's is how to allocate existing capacity and add additional capacity.  
              And, your solution for adding more capacity is let the government pay for it?  Are there financial hurdles for adding capacity?  Are there long term commitments for volume (daily, as annual volume commitments do not translate well to actual utilization--seasonal and day of week fluctuations are real and significant). This is all glossed over in the TRT brochure

Climate activists are not paying freight bills and are not significant shippers.   Shippers utilize rail, because the rate/service offering allows them to move product from origin to consumption. If there is a significant upturn in demand from any source for rail transportation, there are constraints to explosive growth--Equipment supply, OT-5, trained crew, line capacity, terminal capacity, etc.  What are the lead times for adding these types of assets?  it is difficult to "shove it down their throats". 

And, there is no appetite by senior management, or Wall St to spend capital expansion dollars on the promise of potential climate activists driven growth.  

We have seen the impact of government regulation of the railroads in the time pre-staggers.  The industry was in shambles.  This toll roads for trains proposition, would return our national rail network to insolvency.  

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot to consider, and I will be thinking about
> this for a while.
> Here are three initial responses:
> First, I like the focus on the education and
> enhancement of the work force but that needs one
> addition: to be sure that these employees are
> provided with and given the opportunity to develop
> leadership and communication skills.


That is encapsulated in the education part. I don't like the term training for railroad occupations. Training is about being prepared to do a task. That isn't railroading. Education is provision of the knowledge needed to fully understand, improvise based on knowledge (South Africa had a dispatcher SOP for runaway equipment, covered in training. I told them that is useless inan actual runaway equipment situation. You don't have time to look up an SOP which might not apply to the instant situation anyway.) Among the slogans I devised and use - Railroading must be second nature. (That is not possible for an Instant Expert)


> Second, the railroad infrastructure has to include
> highway crossings with the highest priority toward
> closures.  Any sane national policy of
> transportation needs to bring a halt to the
> collisons and delays that our "for profit"
> thinking ignores.


Also rolled in. The 18 page booklet is a digest of probably 50 pages of manuscript. When I wrote The Climate Emergency - Trains: an Effective Response, I boiled it down as far as I could to 80 pages, hoping that was small enough to get people to read it.Nope. this time I'm trying 18 pages.


> Third: Mayybe a baby step would be to open every
> route to at least one provider of local
> switching.  Class 1s could continue to shed their
> "unprofitable" less than trainload movements while
> companies with the shortline mentality of "all our
> customers are big" keeps cars flowing to/from
> carload customers.  Try a once a day window for a
> train in each direction that clears the main line
> at least once every 2 (?) hours for 30 (?) minutes
> to let traffic by..

Somebody is going to do just that, given the oportunity. A new produce terminal was built in Quincy WA. The Port of Quincy had big plans. BNSF told them they weren't about to stop a train for them. It was a modern repeat of Pisser Bill telling the just down the road Wenatchee shippers that we don't want to give you service; we want you to go away. I suggested to BN and to BNSF long ago basically what you are suggesting. The answer was repeatedly NO. We're not letting them on OUR railroad. Washington state is spending 14 megabucks on interchange tracks at Connell because BN(and SF) won't let Columbia Basin deliver and pick up in Pasco. Elevators along the GN line between Quincy and Fairchild ship by truck. A shortline operator could deliver to Yardley. The company that invented a paper, non-union railroad with trackage rights in order to bust unions wanted nothing to do with a real railroad with trackage rights. Toll Roads for Trains eliminates all of that.

TAW

Grizz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it is good to have these types of
> discussions.  However, after my 35 years in the
> industry, there are no quick fixes, and dramatic
> solutions have a significant amount of collateral
> impacts, which must be addressed. 


56 years and...yeah.


>
> Railroads are not public utilities.


But should be: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility

> Trucking has
> 4-5 times the market share of rail (depending on
> your which share metric, you use). That hardly
> makes rail a monopoly. 


That is the excuse they use to skirt Common Carrier obligations.

Granted, the 93 year old war of the government against the railroad industry, and its 100 years old history of competing with the railroad industry created the situation. However, that doesn't make it right.


>
> The TRT assertion that "the levels of service and
> safety of the railroad industry are unacceptable."


They are.

>  Railroads are the safest mode of ground
> transport and a far safer mode of transportation
> than OTR truck.

True. That doesn't make them as safe as they should be. There is plenty that isn't. Let's start with the way they deal with Hours Of Service. Go on to car knockers complaining about not enough time to do the job. How about rookies in charge of trains?


> In addition, rail Safety numbers
> have been improving for years.  In addition,
> there is $100 bil of freight customers that choose
> to ship rail everyday.  

Sure. It would take 77 million max loaded semis to haul what the US railroads do every year. Boy, that sounds good... until you see that it's nine percent of the freight. US railroads love the ton mile measurement. When you have the most number of rail miles in the world and manipulate to get only heavy tonnage going long distances, it's easy.



>
> Is PSR the model for growth and improved customer
> satisfaction--no.  However, Look at the financial
> incentive to adopt PSR.  


Look at the financial damage to the US, but yeah, the corporations are doing just fine.

>
> If PSR results in a 10 pt improvement in OR, with
> $20 bil in rev equates to $2.0 bil in added
> margin
> At an 80 OR, it would take an added $10 bil in new
> revenue to generate $2.0 bil in added margin--So,
> the choice is either, a 50% increase in the amount
> of revenue, or reduce expenses significantly.
> So, would you rather be a $20 bil company with
> $8.0 bil in margin or a $30 bil company with $
> 6.0 bil in margin?  At the end of the day, it is
> all about how many dollars you drive to the bottom
> line. 


Maybe it's not. At the end of the day, highway congestion costs 85 Gigabucks annually, trucking causes 99 percent of the damage to roadways and pays 35 percent of the cost, every year, the same number of folks are killed in traffic accidents as wer killed in the attacks of September 2001. Every year, highway accident injuries are about equal to all the US war wounded since 1940. Then there is the greenhouse gas problem. Highways are responsible for 23 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, 82 percent of transportation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chagne is a UN organization of 195 countries. That the consequences of a radical shift in what we are doing is published in a report that 195 countries had to agree to is hardly some sort of left wing thing. How often do the countries in the UN agree on anything?


>
> But regardless, PSR does not make the case for
> nationalization, or appropriation of railroads
> proprietary right of way.


You have obviously not read a word of what it is. It's only 18 pages. There is nothing about nationalization or appropriation of railroads in it except that it is a bad idea, don't do it. The only reason to discuss it is that there is a large and growing number of people and organizations calling for nationalization.

>
> Please look at the case study for this separation
> between operator and infrastructure provider in
> the United Kingdom.  The infrastructure provider
> in the U.K. requires almost $5.0 Bil in government
> subsidies eac year.  The U.K. railroads are only
> 10% of the US railroads. So, it would suggest that
> we would need to provide $50 bil in annual
> subsidies to the infrastructure provider.  That
> is a scary big number.  

First, everyone drags out the UK as THE example of European railroads. It is the prime example, all right, the prime example of what to NOT do, but everyone always uses it to prove that, as I havebeen told, literally, so often, 'That European stuff doesn't work.'

Nobody has a problem with user fees paying 50 percent of highway cost (in addition to that 85 gigabucks of congestion annually), but putting money in rail infrastructure is a Bad Thing. Let's finally end the government war on railroads and the American training that your life is your car.


>
> The toll roads for trains idea propposes to take
> 100's of billions of dollars in assets from
> publicly traded, private rail corporations.


Again, it doesn't say that. It's easy to make up stuff so you can win. (I probably shouldn't be quite so blunt, but it's that kind of day.)


> Even
> if you overcome the legal hurdles of this
> proposal, separating the operator from the
> infrastructure is fraught with problems.



Not doing so is also fraught with problems.


>              How do you allocate capacity
> amongst various competing operators?


Oh, probably the way that Germany manages capacity among 450 Train Operating Companies. Now, I know that European stuff doesn't work, got that memorized, but folks in Germany (and France, Netherlands) learned how to do it from US GI train dispatchers during WWII. I was taught railroading by some of those guys. Staggers ended those practices, but not without a battle from those who knew how.


> Why do you
> expect multiple operators to more efficiently and
> effectively use the limited mainline capacity,
> than the existing model of integrated single
> operator and rail line operator?

I started on B&OCT. It's a little railroad in Chicago that only had about 70 miles of track, no radio, no CTC, no computers. It was literally an open access railroad for 20 tenants (plus its own trains), about 200 trains a day including, when I worked there, eight passenger trains on B&OCT, 62 passenger trains crossing at five interlockings and beaucoup freight trains.

So the answer to why is - experience.


> One of the
> toughest internal discussions inside class 1's is
> how to allocate existing capacity and add
> additional capacity.  


Yup. I took part in that for five years.


>               And, your solution for adding
> more capacity is let the government pay for it?


That is among the ways. It would also be possible out of revenue. It's in the booklet.

>  Are there financial hurdles for adding capacity?


Are there for highways? I have just spent weeks dealing with the Washington State budget bills. That doesn't seem to be a problem in that regard. I bet that can be applied to every state.

The plan involves making grant applicaitons for capital, just the way it works now and effectively the way it works internally in the industry.

>  Are there long term commitments for volume
> (daily, as annual volume commitments do not
> translate well to actual utilization--seasonal and
> day of week fluctuations are real and
> significant). This is all glossed over in the TRT
> brochure


You sound like a capitalism rah rah kind of person. Well... let capitalism do its thing. Long term commitments aren't needed for highway expansion. But rail? We need long term committments because it's easier (when I was doing  class 1 capacity and service design, I heard repeated so often 'it's too hard takes too much effort, etc. that I assumed it would be the answer).


>
> Climate activists are not paying freight bills and
> are not significant shippers.


So shipping cost is not included in the price of things climate activists buy? Such a deal. When you buy something, tell them you want the climate activist discount (don't worry, there's no membership card to show, so you don't have to believe it to get the discount).


>  Shippers utilize
> rail, because the rate/service offering allows
> them to move product from origin to consumption.


The ones that get that kind of deal for using rail. The folks in Quincy WA that built a produce terminal BNSFrefused to serve didn't get that kind of deal.

> If there is a significant upturn in demand from
> any source for rail transportation, there are
> constraints to explosive growth--Equipment supply,


Let's see. the industry is storing cars and locomotives and Greenbrier in Portland has closed down because nobody wants to buy more, and car supply is a problem?



> OT-5, trained crew, line capacity, terminal
> capacity, etc.

The things the industry has jettisoned in the past 40 years? That stuff? After someone manages to burn their house down, they don't have a house until they build a new one.


> What are the lead times for
> adding these types of assets?  it is difficult to
> "shove it down their throats". 


The US is 11th in the world in infrastructure utilization (train miles per track mile adjusted for monster US train length). There is some congested railroad (largely because it is mismanaged) and a lot of empty railroad in the US. So putting in a little work to use an underutilized asset is shoving it down their throat?




>
> And, there is no appetite by senior management, or
> Wall St to spend capital expansion dollars on the
> promise of potential climate activists driven
> growth.  


That is the problem.

Climate activists? Yeah. The governments of 495 countries agree that there is something between big trouble and disaster coming (depending upon where you live - for example, 2 million Americans were displaced by climate change related events last year). Climate activists are trying to tell people to call the fire department, the building is on fire.

>
> We have seen the impact of government regulation
> of the railroads in the time pre-staggers.  The
> industry was in shambles.

There is regulation and there is regulation. The ICC was THE model of opressive and even predatory regulation. That was intentional, as has been the government competing against the railroad industry for a century. That is not the proposed arrangement.

Of course, for the folks interested only huge instant profits regardless of consequences to anyone else, it sounds like doom. They are usually easy to identify. They celebrate when The Journal says the economoy is booming because stock prices are up, but there is a not insignificant number of us who use a different measurement and don't see it that way.

> This toll roads for
> trains proposition, would return our national rail
> network to insolvency.  


Actually, it appears to some of us that the current railroad industy practices will eventually do exactly that.

TAW

 

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Grizz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > This toll roads for
> > trains proposition, would return our national rail
> > network to insolvency.  
>
>
> Actually, it appears to some of us that the
> current railroad industy practices will eventually
> do exactly that.
>
> TAW

I think the collapse is going to happen very quickly. Besides bad industry practices, the current or coming recession looks to be very devastating. Imports will be way down as China and other countries become unwilling to take the "paper" dollar for their hard goods and consumer demand will crater as inflation accelerates.

I expect in the next few years, the door will be open to pick up some railroad lines as poor financial results force railroads to divest assets. If you ever wanted to start an open access railroad, this might be your time. Polish up your concept and get your investors together.

a recession is one thing.  no immediate recovery is another thing and that might not be beneficial to freight railroads.........

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a recession is one thing.  no immediate recovery
> is another thing and that might not be beneficial
> to freight railroads.........
>
> 66

Thanks for making that point. We are undergoing a fundamental change in our economy

The USA is no longer the apex economic predator of the world.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The USA is no longer the apex economic predator of
> the world.

Way too many people haven't figured that out.

TAW

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goneon66 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > a recession is one thing.  no immediate
> recovery
> > is another thing and that might not be
> beneficial
> > to freight railroads.........
> >
> > 66
>
> Thanks for making that point. We are undergoing a
> fundamental change in our economy
>
> The USA is no longer the apex economic predator of
> the world.

yea, you might say that..........

66