Eastern 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

Idiotic idea.  Class one  Railroads are, by and large, are large corporations that are worth billions and billions of dollars.  They have invested unknown sums of money on their operation.

The only way for this to work would be for we taxpayers to fund another worthless government run, screwed up mess.

Nope, this is just stupid. 

Let's be very careful here.  TAW has put forth a well-reasoned argument -- far more well-reasoned than your response.  I happen to fundamentally disagree with his position which I doubt will surprise him in the least, but that doesn't make his idea "stupid" or "idiotic". 

Gordon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/23 03:44 by gbmott.

Most likely the responce was called stupid because it ( like many other ideas these days) nationalism leads to socialism ( communism ) and as they say, " that ain't good ".  Therefore there is no competition and that leads to poor quality everything such as . . . . . . . . Amtrak for example.

Well I read that report and like a lot of things it looks good on paper.  What's not addressed is how to implement this plan with the same number of employees and equipment used today.  Not to mention how much additional trackage is needed to maintain schedules.  Not going to happen in this land of lawyers and hedge funds.
john

Let's put the Government in charge of controlling and maintaining major rail networks.

Look at the great job they've done with the Interstate System and Social Security!

Conrail worked.  Just saying.

Eng.Shadetree

I get the concept, but I just don't think it is feasible in the current climate. This MAY would have been possible at the same time as the beginning of the Interstate Highway system and there was a lot more trackage around. We live in a different world now. 

For one, Congress isn't into big thinking. So even getting a bilateral agreement for something this monumental I would say is pretty much impossible. Second, I don't really think that the plan is going to introduce as much competition as the proponents believe. In today's world, who wants to come up with the capital to start a railroad company? Especially since the return isn't as great as people would like to think. 

gbmott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's be very careful here.  TAW has put forth a
> well-reasoned argument -- far more well-reasoned
> than your response.  I happen to fundamentally
> disagree with his position which I doubt will
> surprise him in the least, but that doesn't make
> his idea "stupid" or "idiotic". 
>
> Gordon

I totally agree with Gordon. TAW has indeed produced a well-reasoned, thoughtful, articulately expressed proposal. Its ideas have merit and are a good basis for further discussion and debate. They should not be rejected out of hand without further consideration. Especially with harsh comments about them being "stupid" or "idiotic"

And TAW has some very good company in these ideas. Europe has moved to this model, and operates well after a period when, yes, there were difficulties, particularly in the UK. On this side of the Pond, there have been financial and operations analysts with good reputations who have at least called for such ideas to be considered, if not adopted. One of them was financial analyst Isabel Benham, who was a very influential bond analyst into the 1990s. I arranged her papers when they were donated to the Barriger Railroad Library, and i discussed these ideas with her several times. She looked at the issue primarily from a financial and regulatory perspective, but felt quite strongly about it. She probably didn't have much support among the railroad executives with whom she regularly talked, and whom she knew well. But she still felt strongly about the matter.

All that said, like Gordon I also have concerns. And I do not support the proposal. But I admit that it is not without merit, and I am willing to be convinced. As with so many other things, openness to consider new ideas, and to honestly and openly debate them is critically important.

Thanks, TAW, for your work on this, and for sharing it with us.

MC

Excellent food for thought.  I don't know yet if I agree but my little grey cells thank you.

Bob Wilcox
Charlottesville, VA
My Flickr Shots

TAW
At a glance this was certainly a lot of work on your part, thank you.
I will need to spend more time absorbing the details and will do so. 
I have read many articles over the years both supporting and condemning the way the Europeans have moved their rails from corporate to government and to the now existing separation of infrastructure owner from operator model, but have not formed a strong opinion one way or the other. I am however of the opinion it should not be "Nationalized".
Gonut

SeaboardMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I read that report and like a lot of things
> it looks good on paper.  What's not addressed is
> how to implement this plan with the same number of
> employees and equipment used today.  Not to
> mention how much additional trackage is needed to
> maintain schedules.  Not going to happen in this
> land of lawyers and hedge funds.
> john

This is about as sound as the Trains mag article written by someone who wrote into it. It was about semi truck roll on roll off like done in some places overseas. Our railroads in the USA are totally different in all but the fact trains run on them. The layout of track does not lend itself to doing what is proposed. Already there is movement problems on every one of those systems due to PSR for one its calmed or just poor dispatching or whatever happens to be.  Another really far out idea in Trains was put forth having  cars tha are self powered running to business sidings.  
As for what to make our systems run better seems to be up for grabs many on here hate PSR railroads seem to like it. I dont know what can be done but I will say what was put forth in the first post is not workable at all.  Just my thoughts on it and the other two items I mentioned. But hey promote studies that go no where wasting millions and lining some peoples pocket books with money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/23 08:16 by BAB.

One question that I thought of right away.  If the infrastructure owner sets the rates for movement on their track from point A to point B, once one rail service company has agreed to those rates, why and how would any other company compete in that specific corridor?

No, i don’t agree.

Posted from iPhone

splitreduction Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, i don’t agree.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Well, I dunno...to the extent trains from many sources need access to certain hubs...IE Chicago....well....doesn't this always go on? Track rights and haulage rights aren't just rights...you gotta pay for them no? Isn't that enough toll? I could be further educated I suppose, but at present I am not sure how this works, who it benefits, or what it accomplishes. 

Conrail worked ONLY after it went public and the government got out of it. The best thing the the Government did at the time was the 4R act. 

Mouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's put the Government in charge of controlling
> and maintaining major rail networks.
>
> Look at the great job they've done with the
> Interstate System and Social Security!

As far as the interstates, I thought America was in love with them?

BTW: The Armed Forces(Ex: WWII), NASA, NOAA/NWS, RRB, VA, just to name a few. Just saying…

Regards

Posted from iPhone

cjvrr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One question that I thought of right away.  If
> the infrastructure owner sets the rates for
> movement on their track from point A to point B,
> once one rail service company has agreed to those
> rates, why and how would any other company compete
> in that specific corridor?

I'm certainly not an expert, but I would hazard a guess that the difference would be the charge to the customer and the desired profit to be made from it.

How long do trackage right awards last in the EU or Great Britain?

Bob Wilcox
Charlottesville, VA
My Flickr Shots

bobwilcox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How long do trackage right awards last in the EU
> or Great Britain?

The Great Britain implementation was not as much open access but franchising of specific services. That arrangement has/had contract expirations as well as dismal failures. Great Britain is the 'that European stuff doesn't work' go to.

The EU regulation was patterned after the German model that was patterned after the Swedish model. I have attended three open access conferences in Europe in the past six years and have not heard of another country that uses the GB model.

In the EU model, there is no 'trackage rights' agreement, because the system is open to any qualified rail operator. Operation is scheduled, basically a reservation for track and time. Want to be in rail transportation? Form and license a rail company, get power and crews, line up customers, then reserve a schedule with the infrastructure company. Reserve a schedule and don't run the train? You pay for the schedule. Don't have customers yet? If you don't buy a schedule, there is no charge.