Ohio Turnpike Commission and... railways?

Anything pertaining to railfanning in Ohio.
User avatar
amtrakjackson
Deactivated
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:43 am
Location: outside Jackson, MI
Contact:

Ohio Turnpike Commission and... railways?

Unread post by amtrakjackson »


User avatar
esprrfan
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:11 pm
Location: Toledo
Contact:

Unread post by esprrfan »

I'm not stopping to pay a toll at state line

User avatar
amtrakjackson
Deactivated
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:43 am
Location: outside Jackson, MI
Contact:

Unread post by amtrakjackson »

LOL... and then Indiana can follow suit and have a toll gate at 508... :)

MSchwiebert
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1611
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:43 pm
Location: Perrysburg Ohio

Unread post by MSchwiebert »

I'm suspecting that more than anything, it gives whatever passenger rail operations that may arise in the state of Ohio an existing control body (the Turnpike commision) to oversee the operations as opposed to having to create another agency to do so.

User avatar
Multimodalways
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:01 am
Contact:

Unread post by Multimodalways »

I welcome serious debate and discussion on this proposal. Reply or contact me at your convenience.

CAT345C
RedNeck Train Chaser
Posts: 4141
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Buffalo Location
Contact:

Unread post by CAT345C »

So turn the rails into a turn pike, good idea except for roads are owned by the state, and the railroads are private property. Thats like saying they are going to charge us 25 cents to my lawnmower in my yard because I buy gas and oil for it to run.
Making the railroad all Catywompus since 2008

https://www.flickr.com/gp/66353741@N07/02EZ1e

CSX_CO
Over and Out
Posts: 3434
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Unread post by CSX_CO »

Mike Tabone wrote:So turn the rails into a turn pike, good idea except for roads are owned by the state, and the railroads are private property. Thats like saying they are going to charge us 25 cents to my lawnmower in my yard because I buy gas and oil for it to run.
ACtually, the Indiana Turnpike was sold to a group of overseas investors. I believe the Chicago Skyway was also sold off. State doesn't own those roads anymore.

Practice Safe CSX

User avatar
Multimodalways
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:01 am
Contact:

Unread post by Multimodalways »

The proposal suggests the Ohio Turnpike Commission engage in "public railway turnpike" provision in addition to its existing public highway turnpike, with the term "turnpike" not necessarily reserved for just tolled highway infrastructures. OTC, an independent non-profit agency of the State of Ohio, currently owns and administers right of way, infrastructure, and certain facilities, yet does not engage in competitive carriage service against for-hire and private carriers. So if it likewise provided and administered rail, there would be open access for all qualified users (including shippers, receivers, trucking companies additionally providing rail service, etc.); universal service to all points; consist-neutral carriage except maybe for special, high/wide, or hazmat loads that might require special attention; zero real and personal public utility property taxes; less if any market regulation as the competitive rail marketplace eliminates the need for common carriers; and shared liability among OTC and all users so that affordable passenger service could be restored. Ton-mile tolls (metered by weigh-in-motion scales and AEI tag readers) and access fees would account for adequate MOW and administrative costs respectively. With its world class investment grade debt ratings OTC could issue public revenue bonds for the $Ms necessary to restore abandoned main line routes to help address the capacity, congestion, redundancy, energy, and other crises. So no, no one will have to stop at a state line to pay a toll; no service provider will control the ROW, infrastructure, or facilities; no railway gets converted into a highway; no private railroad would be bought out unless they willingly wanted to sell OTC their line(s) and would always have the right thereafter to use them, and as long as Gov. Ted Strickland and the Ohio General Assembly say so it would not be privatized (as in long term leases to foreign interests like the Chicago Skyway and Indiana Toll Road unfortunately were). Please see the website http://www.multimodalways.org for further information.

User avatar
amtrakjackson
Deactivated
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:43 am
Location: outside Jackson, MI
Contact:

Unread post by amtrakjackson »

A concept which I'm sure the carriers loathe- yet would be in the best interest for the public. After the Conrail takeover debacle, I'm surprised the idea wasn't brought to the fore.

MSchwiebert
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1611
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:43 pm
Location: Perrysburg Ohio

Unread post by MSchwiebert »

I looked around the webpage for a bit and my focus went to the Northwest Ohio section as that is what I'm most familliar with. That said, I have the following comments.

1. I have no idea why there would be any thought given to restoring the former Cincinnati Northern, the stubs that are left are plenty sufficient to serve the customers that are present. Nor can I think of any potential business that would need to have a Jackson MI to Van Wert routing put into place.

2. The former PRR main & Maumee & Western, do need to be preserved/retained in some sort for the proposed Midwest High Speed passenger service would this be a viable vehicle to do so? While there has been a rampant increase in truck traffic in the Detroit-Toledo-Ft. Wayne corridor (hence the building of the 4 lane "port to fort" US24 between Toledo & Ft. Wayne), that traffic continues on to Indianapolis and points southwest (think NAFTA). There's no viable Fort Wayne to Indy rail routing so the likelyhood of capturing that business is very small.

3. Would it not make more sense for the State of Ohio to work coperatively with existing carriers to improve capacities on existing corridors through clearance improvements (like the recently announced CSX "National Gateway" initiative), technology improvements (PTS and or improved signaling systems) or additional track - before attempting to restore long abandoned routes? (is there a compelling need for a second Columbus-Indy route when the current (CSX) one is not running at capacity now?)

4. As for the communications aspect - last I read there was still a glut of fiber optic capacity (IE many cables are 'dark' and in place unused). If that is still the case - what would compel the state to lay down more fiber if the market can't use what's there? Nor would I want the state owning/controlling methods of communication/providing internet transmission - I'm not comfortable with that at all!

From what I read, there seemed to be this sentiment to restore the Ohio rail map to say what it was in 1950 - why? There is still capacity to give in the key corridors, for example the Chicago-East routings across northern Ohio, if the current prime routes (NS former Conrail & CSX former B&O) reached capacity under current rules/technolgies (again PTS could up the ceiling on those routes without laying track) CSX & NS are going to first add additional capacity to bottlenecks, then add capacity to their secondary routes (NKP and PRR) before even considering ideas like putting the old EL back down.

Yes there are parts of the state (Southeast Ohio in particular) that do not have the best rail access, but realistically speaking, the lack of the B&O Ohio division between Chillicothe & Parkersburg is not what's preventing Athens (for example) from landing heavy industry. There was no industry there when the line was in place why would one think that bringing it back would cause things to change?

User avatar
Multimodalways
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:01 am
Contact:

Unread post by Multimodalways »

amtrakjackson: The carriers probably will loathe the proposal and may claim it unfairly competes with their private networks, unless it provides additional routes for their rail networks/operating regions, helps relieve their congestion, attracts new customers, or provides redundancy in case of contingencies. Now what the Class I carriers' investors think of it is what really matters - Will it reduce carriers' expenses? Will their revenues and profits increase resulting in better dividends and market values? Will it reduce their "pricing power" that some investors with select agendas are counting upon? And will others profit as much from future carrier M&As since they wouldn't own and be able to sell those particular ROW, infrastructure, and certain facilities?

The Conrail>CSX & NS conveyance is interesting because of the Conrail Shared Assets areas they formed as a compromise to conveyances to only one carrier or the other. This terminal railroad company business model seems to be situated between regular trackage rights and the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority's model (http://www.acta.org) that has some functions remaining with the carriers. As some of the problems still linger from the CR conveyance (and even stem from the Penn Central, PRR, and NYC days) it would be interesting if certain divvied-up lines (Pittsburgh-Chicago "Ft. Wayne Line") and vicinities (Columbus, Cleveland, etc.) wouldn't benefit more from equal joint access if they were under administration by CSA, ACTA, or even the proposed Ohio Turnpike. Eventually I hope to model certain problem corridors and regions in GIS and conduct a cost analysis to study if this type of restructuring would help, and present the findings to the Surface Transportation Board and Government Accountability Office for their consideration, validation, recommendation, and possible implementation.

MSchwiebert: A reply to your last message is forthcoming.

User avatar
Multimodalways
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:01 am
Contact:

Unread post by Multimodalways »

MSchwiebert:

To better formulate my responses I have re-arranged your questions and observations somewhat, and hope I retained your intended meanings after doing so.


>I looked around the webpage for a bit and my focus went to the Northwest Ohio section as that is what I'm most familliar with. That said, I have the following comments.

>Yes there are parts of the state (Southeast Ohio in particular) that do not have the best rail access, but realistically speaking, the lack of the B&O Ohio division between Chillicothe & Parkersburg is not what's preventing Athens (for example) from landing heavy industry.

Communities losing or having no local rail access kills any of their heavy industrial, commercial, and support services economic development efforts, and risk losing what they do have to other locales having access. Yes transloading and intermodalism can help bridge some distance gaps but as we know gas prices are killing truckers so direct access to the dock or factory floor if possible is ultimately the most beneficial for producers' supply chains.


>There was no industry there when the line was in place why would one think that bringing it back would cause things to change?

As in the case of the Pittsburgh-Columbus segment of the Panhandle Line, the initial railroad was marginal if not insolvent until the line was seamlessly completed between those cities for intercity through traffic since the local traffic alone apparently was unable to support the separate line segments under that business model. Remember too passengers were there, and using your example Athens and Ohio U. had service to Columbus, Cincinnati, DC, etc. to compliment freight service.

That being said, through lines and redundant routes are more beneficial to the overall rail network in terms of network operations and contingencies than dead end branch lines, also going by the need for having at least two of everything theory in the telecomm world. Access to through routes, alternative routes, and multiple carriers will definitely attract development to any area providing those.


>1. I have no idea why there would be any thought given to restoring the former Cincinnati Northern, the stubs that are left are plenty sufficient to serve the customers that are present. Nor can I think of any potential business that would need to have a Jackson MI to Van Wert routing put into place.

In this case gradual restoration of this particular line would provide redundancy for CSX's Toledo-Cincinnati main line and competition to US-127. It would also bypass Detroit and Toledo to help ease congestion in the corridor. I assume agriculture is present in that corridor and could possibly benefit from rail access.


>2. The former PRR main & Maumee & Western, do need to be preserved/retained in some sort for the proposed Midwest High Speed passenger service would this be a viable vehicle to do so?

If not mistaken the MHSR project apparently proposes to enhance private railroads' main lines and construct additional adjacent tracks for high speed intercity passenger service. I am not certain about their specific governance model (although one article said CREATE was not a formal government agency or organization) and their financing will probably include applying for federal funds matched by state funds. Perhaps the proposal could administer and finance segments of the MHSR project or adjacent lines, but note again it advocates the Ohio Turnpike Commission owning and administering ROWs, infrastructures, and certain facilities for equal access and use by all qualified parties, and it would not subsidize private railroads or other users. So there would be various business and governance model conflicts with OTC vs. the private railroads (including the unfairness of a public railway operating adjacent to and potentially competing against a private rail line) unless the carriers could use those lines for any overflow traffic or conveyed their private lines to OTC in exchange for equal access and metered ton-mile use on any of those OTC lines.


>While there has been a rampant increase in truck traffic in the Detroit-Toledo-Ft. Wayne corridor (hence the building of the 4 lane "port to fort" US24 between Toledo & Ft. Wayne), that traffic continues on to Indianapolis and points southwest (think NAFTA). There's no viable Fort Wayne to Indy rail routing so the likelyhood of capturing that business is very small.

>3. Would it not make more sense for the State of Ohio to work coperatively with existing carriers to improve capacities on existing corridors through clearance improvements (like the recently announced CSX "National Gateway" initiative), technology improvements (PTS and or improved signaling systems) or additional track - before attempting to restore long abandoned routes? (is there a compelling need for a second Columbus-Indy route when the current (CSX) one is not running at capacity now?)

>From what I read, there seemed to be this sentiment to restore the Ohio rail map to say what it was in 1950 - why? There is still capacity to give in the key corridors, for example the Chicago-East routings across northern Ohio, if the current prime routes (NS former Conrail & CSX former B&O) reached capacity under current rules/technolgies (again PTS could up the ceiling on those routes without laying track) CSX & NS are going to first add additional capacity to bottlenecks, then add capacity to their secondary routes (NKP and PRR) before even considering ideas like putting the old EL back down.

I haven't compared former Detroit-Ft. Wayne, Detroit-Toledo-Ft. Wayne, and Ft. Wayne-Indianapolis lines to what exists today, particularly how they might compete vs. US 24, as my concentration has been more in restoring the main east-west lines and shifting traffic away from Chicago to St. Louis. But with the price of gas and trucks driving slower to save fuel (hurting JIT) I must believe planners have to be re-considering those rail routes as alternatives to US-24. Else we risk even more plant shutdowns.

Pennsylvania once helped finance Conrail's double stack clearance project, and now Ohio and other states are helping to subsidize NS's Heartland Corridor improvements. CSX is now requesting help too, but in my testimony to the Ohio House Finance and Appropriations Committee, if Gov. Strickland helps CSX, and if he required OTC to shift $200M of its revenues to the State to be used for infrastructure and/or other projects, then OTC would have been hit twice - once by potentially subsidizing private rail from public turnpike users' tolls, and second by eventually sacrificing OTC freight traffic and revenues to CSX's improved intermodal service in the same corridor. Thus I requested the OTC subsidization be removed from the bill, and in future potential legislation OTC should be permitted to engage in public railway provision to avoid revenue losses from freight shifting from roads to rails. Now we learn a foreign hedge fund is trying to gain "beneficial ownership" of CSX, which could possibly abandon more lines and routes to increase their pricing powers. If they do that should Ohio subsidize a foreign corporation vs. say a US or Ohio-based firm? Recall Canadian government "Crown corporation" CN subsidiary GTW abandoned and downgraded portions of the DT&I.

PTS and additional tracks do increase line capacities, but as previously mentioned redundant routes are also necessary to maintain a fluid network in case of contingencies. Quite often train wrecks are severe enough to take out all of the main line tracks on a route, so PTS and additional tracks for capacity improvements are not quite helpful for re-routing needs.

The current Columbus-Indianapolis route requires an indirect, "out of route" move to Ridgway. If their line is not at capacity now, it would be if some of I-70's intermodal traffic were dumped upon it. Conrail tried consolidating as much traffic on as few lines as possible, but now we need those other lines and routes back for as mentioned additional capacity, redundancy, and now energy savings with more direct routing. Plus freed-up capacity would help open slots for passenger service.

I pose we wouldn't have the capacity, congestion, and energy crises we have today if the lines were not abandoned or downsized from their 1950's or even from their previous maximum extents. Railroads could have conveyed them to government agencies back then and just concentrated on running their trains. But now we're in a mess so we have to analyze more efficient models.


>4. As for the communications aspect - last I read there was still a glut of fiber optic capacity (IE many cables are 'dark' and in place unused). If that is still the case - what would compel the state to lay down more fiber if the market can't use what's there? Nor would I want the state owning/controlling methods of communication/providing internet transmission - I'm not comfortable with that at all!

Regarding the fiber glut, there is and there isn't, depending upon who you talk to. Not to stray off far off topic of this website but telecomm and rail are interesting cousins of each other. Fiber in the lab is capable of transmitting 100 Terabits/second, but the bottleneck is the carriers' slow networking equipment connecting those lines and their refusals to upgrade it so we can fully use our 1 Gigabit cards and fast computers, and in the future connect the CPUs directly together optically.

The telecomm carriers messed up somewhat by building $B networks then primarily went after the big customers vs. building out to more of the rest of us. As the carriers have since merged and acquired each other, they've taken network equipment off of "redundant" lines to reduce their capacities and maintain whatever pricing power they had left. Now along comes digital video, big screens, high megapixel cameras, etc., that require as much bandwidth as possible, and Wall St. sees that by carriers artificially constricting bandwidth and capacity to us they earn better returns on investments.

However telecomm suffers from the same problem as railroads have which is a lack of redundancy and that's all I'll say about that for obvious reasons. Safe to say we need more fiber routes to address contingencies too.

Right now OTC leases adjacent ROW to a number of telecomm carriers. In theory OTC could also own and make available to any users telecomm infrastructure including conduits, cables, fibers, frequencies, and phases, just like they do with the highway turnpike, based upon a lease or use rate. But that would be the extent of their involvement because unlike the railroads the highway turnpike administration is consist neutral, except for maybe hazmats and oversize/overweights. Thus there is no need for them to inspect data, just to provide the infrastructure to carriers and users for them to transport their data it upon. Obviously other government agencies could wiretap it it they wanted.

Sorry for the delay in my reply.

CSX_CO
Over and Out
Posts: 3434
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Unread post by CSX_CO »

I had a nice lengthy reply made up, and I musta forgot to hit 'post'.
Communities losing or having no local rail access kills any of their heavy industrial, commercial, and support services economic development efforts, and risk losing what they do have to other locales having access. Yes transloading and intermodalism can help bridge some distance gaps but as we know gas prices are killing truckers so direct access to the dock or factory floor if possible is ultimately the most beneficial for producers' supply chains.
Most communities don't WANT heavy industry. Sure they want the jobs and the tax base, just not the 'bad' things that go with it. Besides there is plenty of abandoned industrial space along current raillines that the factories shuttered and were bulldozed. The 'chance' of laying rail and 'maybe' attracting customers isn't going to get a line built.

As in the case of the Pittsburgh-Columbus segment of the Panhandle Line, the initial railroad was marginal if not insolvent until the line was seamlessly completed between those cities for intercity through traffic since the local traffic alone apparently was unable to support the separate line segments under that business model. Remember too passengers were there, and using your example Athens and Ohio U. had service to Columbus, Cincinnati, DC, etc. to compliment freight service.

That being said, through lines and redundant routes are more beneficial to the overall rail network in terms of network operations and contingencies than dead end branch lines, also going by the need for having at least two of everything theory in the telecomm world. Access to through routes, alternative routes, and multiple carriers will definitely attract development to any area providing those.
First of all, no company has EVER made money off moving people. Basing a decision to lay rail to move people has to acknowledge that fact. You will be providing a money losing service. Look at AMTRAK, the airlines, and Greyhound. The only way they get close to breaking even is moving freight on their respective methods of transport.

Secondly, there already exists parallel routes between Pittsburg and Columbus. CSX maintains routes, as does the NS. Heck, CSX has three options to move traffic that way. First, up the former C&O to Fostoria and across to Pittsburg on the B&O. The second, up the Bert Line to Galion and then Greenwich for access to the B&O. The third up the Scottslawn to Ridgeway and then to Greenwich and beyond. The former PRR is parallel to the B&O, and thus traffic could head east via the NS at Crestline if required. That is a 'direct' route for either the traffic via Ridgeway or the Bert Line.

Railroads don't want parallel routes that go to the same place. Its too much of a drain on the coffers to keep parallel routes. Look at the consoldiations of the 70's. Conrail kept the NYC, axed the EL, and severely downgraded the PRR. The Wabash was wholely abandoned for most of the way between Montpelier and Chicago.
In this case gradual restoration of this particular line would provide redundancy for CSX's Toledo-Cincinnati main line and competition to US-127. It would also bypass Detroit and Toledo to help ease congestion in the corridor. I assume agriculture is present in that corridor and could possibly benefit from rail access.
CSX HAS redundancy. Run trains to Columbus and then up to Toledo. Or, even further out of the way, Cincy to Indy and back to Toledo. In a pinch have the NS take the train to Muncie, hand it back off, and take it to Toledo via the former Conrail.

The Cincy Northern went from Cincy to no-where through no-where. Its end points were Cincy and Jackson, MI. Jackson is an NS town, so why would CSX want it? Any rebuilding would require new diamonds (which the railroads hate) or extensive 'grade seperations' wherever the line would cross another. Much of the line has been plowed under, and imagine the legal bill to get that property back. Fugetaboutit! Plus, if push came to shove, CSX could run trains via the NS and vice versa. When you consider the railroads together, your parallel routes exist.
I haven't compared former Detroit-Ft. Wayne, Detroit-Toledo-Ft. Wayne, and Ft. Wayne-Indianapolis lines to what exists today, particularly how they might compete vs. US 24, as my concentration has been more in restoring the main east-west lines and shifting traffic away from Chicago to St. Louis. But with the price of gas and trucks driving slower to save fuel (hurting JIT) I must believe planners have to be re-considering those rail routes as alternatives to US-24. Else we risk even more plant shutdowns.
I think this one quote here summarizes your entire post. The ONLY cooridor that MAY benefit from a direct rail route, and you haven't even considered it. You've come up with all sorts of far fetched and economically disasterous ideas, but couldn't see the need for Toledo to Indy via Fort Wayne and then the SW gateways direct access?

And actually, outside of Toledo to Indy, access is possible via the NS already. That's why much of the former Conrail Detroit to St Louis and KC auto traffic goes on the NS. CSX and its customers are happy with the Toledo Branch and Indy line routing for Toledo-Indy traffic. So really, outside of limited direct traffic, the need really doesn't exist. Plus, most of the Indy auto based traffic has dried up, and what does remain is handled by Q218 and Q219. Indy to Fort Wayne Traffic is handed off in Muncie nightly by the J767, and it never amounts to more than 15 cars. Much of it bound for Battle Creek and the Cereal Plants, outside of the Chevy Stamping cars for Truck and Bus. A semi can be in Fort Wayne in 3 hrs from Indy, railroads can't compete with that.

Another point, St. Louis isn't really designed to handle a HUGE shift in the interchange from Chicago. UP doesn't like taking what its supposed to now as is evident on a daily basis at CSX's Roselake Yard. Chicago is at least been built and rebuilt to handle the bulk of the east west interchange. St. Louis, especially the east side of the river, is a mess of interlockings and railroads criss-crossing each other.
PTS and additional tracks do increase line capacities, but as previously mentioned redundant routes are also necessary to maintain a fluid network in case of contingencies. Quite often train wrecks are severe enough to take out all of the main line tracks on a route, so PTS and additional tracks for capacity improvements are not quite helpful for re-routing needs.
Why spend millions of dollars for that 'once every few years' contingency? Derailments can be cleaned up in a matter of hours or at most days. Bulldoze the stuff to the ditch, bring up your panel track, tamp it, and you are in business albeit with a slow order. Heck, CSX had several stretches of railroad wash out, one section twice, in the last week on the St Louis line, and they are back to running trains in a matter of 2 days on one of the mains, the other which took the brunt of the damage took 3-4 days of work. Yes, they spent a lot on recrews and work trains, but thats still cheaper then maintaining a pair of parallel routes for that 'once every 20 years' kind of disaster.
The current Columbus-Indianapolis route requires an indirect, "out of route" move to Ridgway. If their line is not at capacity now, it would be if some of I-70's intermodal traffic were dumped upon it. Conrail tried consolidating as much traffic on as few lines as possible, but now we need those other lines and routes back for as mentioned additional capacity, redundancy, and now energy savings with more direct routing. Plus freed-up capacity would help open slots for passenger service.
Intermodal can't compete on the 'short' haul such as Columbus to Indy, but thats because of the 'just in time' philosophy that rules industry now. Shift from that, and short haul intermodal is more promising.

Also, widen your use of I-70 a bit more, and then the CSX is in direct competion with it. Go St. Louis to NYC or Baltimore and then it IS a more direct route. St. Louis to Indy is within a couple of miles of I-70 for the entire distance. Much of it less then a mile apart. I'd wager CSX's route from St. Louis to Cleveland and the NE is considerably shorter than the Interstates.
I pose we wouldn't have the capacity, congestion, and energy crises we have today if the lines were not abandoned or downsized from their 1950's or even from their previous maximum extents. Railroads could have conveyed them to government agencies back then and just concentrated on running their trains. But now we're in a mess so we have to analyze more efficient models.
There are very few lines that are 'at capacity' right now. Traffic is down from the late 90's. Coal is up, but automotive is WAY down. So is general merchandise outside of pig trains. Lumber is down because the housing industry is in the toilet.

The only places you have conjestion are around the major interchange points, like Chicago and St. Louis. Without upgrades there, you will ALWAYS have conjestion. Rebuilding a line from no where to no where isn't going to help that. The TPW/PRR, NYC, and all tried to by pass Chicago, and met with little success. The TPW is on the verge of colapse, and the NYC route only sees 1 train each way a day. Its a lot of railroad to operate for only 2 trains a day...

Actually, without downsizing you *probably* wouldn't have railroads. The inability to become profitable would have killed the industry, much as it did in the late 60's early 70's.

Railroads are in business to MAKE MONEY. Adding parallel routes drains the already limited funds. Capacity improvements such as double track or increased sidings is cheaper and more feasible then relaying an entire railroad from the roadbed up.

Practice Safe CSX
Last edited by CSX_CO on Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
amtrakjackson
Deactivated
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:43 am
Location: outside Jackson, MI
Contact:

Unread post by amtrakjackson »

EXCELLENT and realistic reply, CSX CO. Could not have put it any better myself.

At one time I thought my ideas about the rail industry might make a difference, but I've recently determined it's an extremely frustrating, strssful waste of my energy and thought.

User avatar
Multimodalways
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:01 am
Contact:

Unread post by Multimodalways »

CSX CO:

>I had a nice lengthy reply made up, and I musta forgot to hit 'post'.

Yeah I use a word processor to edit my posts, save frequently, and when done paste them here to avoid browser or website problems.

To respond to your replies-

>>Quote:
Communities losing or having no local rail access kills any of their heavy industrial, commercial, and support services economic development efforts, and risk losing what they do have to other locales having access. Yes transloading and intermodalism can help bridge some distance gaps but as we know gas prices are killing truckers so direct access to the dock or factory floor if possible is ultimately the most beneficial for producers' supply chains.

>Most communities don't WANT heavy industry. Sure they want the jobs and the tax base, just not the 'bad' things that go with it. Besides there is plenty of abandoned industrial space along current raillines that the factories shuttered and were bulldozed. The 'chance' of laying rail and 'maybe' attracting customers isn't going to get a line built.

At many of the government agency meetings I attend those officials want to retain and develop businesses with high paying jobs, and those are usually provided by manufacturing and related sectors. Many of those agencies try to undercut each other on property taxes and other subsidies to steal companies away to their jurisdictions. Obviously not all manufacturing that uses or could use rail is NIMBY.
While I think you are saying it’s risky to build a rail line and hope they will come (which it is risky under the current private business and governance model), this is exactly what many government agencies are doing with roadways and other utilities in hopes of getting companies to locate there. I don’t necessarily agree with this strategy (and China, India, etc. highly subsidize their infrastructures to steal our industries), but if the agency also constructs a rail line for access to a site for initial use as a marketing tool until it is actually used, it would cost them ~$1K/mile/yr (if not less for new track) to maintain it without any traffic until it is used, an amount they should be able to afford from their marketing budgets. Remember manufacturers are increasingly demanding competitive rail service else if they can they will relocate where it is available, so it would be in a government agency’s best interests if their line was openly accessible, again like the public roadways are.


>>Quote:
As in the case of the Pittsburgh-Columbus segment of the Panhandle Line, the initial railroad was marginal if not insolvent until the line was seamlessly completed between those cities for intercity through traffic since the local traffic alone apparently was unable to support the separate line segments under that business model. Remember too passengers were there, and using your example Athens and Ohio U. had service to Columbus, Cincinnati, DC, etc. to compliment freight service.
That being said, through lines and redundant routes are more beneficial to the overall rail network in terms of network operations and contingencies than dead end branch lines, also going by the need for having at least two of everything theory in the telecomm world. Access to through routes, alternative routes, and multiple carriers will definitely attract development to any area providing those.

>First of all, no company has EVER made money off moving people. Basing a decision to lay rail to move people has to acknowledge that fact. You will be providing a money losing service. Look at AMTRAK, the airlines, and Greyhound. The only way they get close to breaking even is moving freight on their respective methods of transport.

Perhaps no company has ever profited from moving people under rail’s traditional business and governance model. The three examples cited are all subsidized in various ways, whereas the public railway turnpike model I propose is for a limited- or non-subsidized government agency to provide just the rights of way, infrastructure, and certain facilities, leaving freight and passenger carriage service to be provided by companies or government agencies not related to or subsidized by the turnpike agency.
Passenger service could break even for a government agency provider or be profitable for a private provider if scaled properly, or could be subsidized to an extent by some other government agencies if necessary. We don’t need 10-car TGV service in a rural-only corridor, as a cheaper RDC-like vehicle or more vintage equipment could suffice. If a carrier wants to move both light freight and passengers on their train, fine, just pay the turnpike its ton-mile toll, perhaps an additional access fee required in another financing scenario, and haul away.
As I wrote this during an Ohio DOT meeting, their #2 official just stated other cost factors such pollution abatement, energy savings, health care costs, and other public benefits are not cost-assessed properly into the passenger service equation (e.g., China can pollute all it wants now to achieve low cost products and capture market share, but eventually they are going to be a massive Superfund site and will have to choose between cleaning it up vs. abandoning the problem areas).

>Secondly, there already exists parallel routes between Pittsburg and Columbus. CSX maintains routes, as does the NS. Heck, CSX has three options to move traffic that way. First, up the former C&O to Fostoria and across to Pittsburg on the B&O. The second, up the Bert Line to Galion and then Greenwich for access to the B&O. The third up the Scottslawn to Ridgeway and then to Greenwich and beyond. The former PRR is parallel to the B&O, and thus traffic could head east via the NS at Crestline if required. That is a 'direct' route for either the traffic via Ridgeway or the Bert Line.

There are sort-of parallel routes between Pittsburgh-Columbus now. Of the direct routes the remaining original PRR Panhandle route is currently under about six different business models now, the W&LE serves the east end of the corridor for about 1/3rd of the route, and CSX’s former Pittsburgh-Wheeling-Columbus line was abandoned approximately between Washington-Cambridge.
The CSX routes you’ve listed are indeed available for contingencies and may even be used as current regular routes, but are still indirect out-of-route compared to the other lines, thereby introducing various inefficiencies due to the increased route mileage. Plus manufacturers will be more than tempted to resort to trucking if they need to go directly between those points because in this case various interstates and highways serve the corridor. Knowing this, highway advocates are petitioning for $1B+ of intersection abatements and Super-4 lane upgrades (http://columbuspittsburghcorridor.com/). For a fraction of that they could not only restore the missing rail segments but re-double track the route, abate grade crossings, and haul more tonnage while saving energy too.
I didn’t touch upon paper agreements that force certain traffic routings even if a current or restored line providing a shorter route might be available.

>Railroads don't want parallel routes that go to the same place. Its too much of a drain on the coffers to keep parallel routes. Look at the consoldiations of the 70's. Conrail kept the NYC, axed the EL, and severely downgraded the PRR. The Wabash was wholely abandoned for most of the way between Montpelier and Chicago.

Right, due to their chosen business and governance model that views duplicities as increased and unnecessary costs. State DOTs operate under different philosophies and have instead expanded their routes and capacities continuously over the decades. I’m trying to standardize (compare apples to apples) the business and governance models of rails and roads through the public turnpike administration instrument.
Conrail officials apparently admitted they made a mistake by eliminating so much of their network, and my insider sources say their officials wish they had the EL and other predecessors’ lines back in to help ease congestion.


>>Quote:
In this case gradual restoration of this particular line would provide redundancy for CSX's Toledo-Cincinnati main line and competition to US-127. It would also bypass Detroit and Toledo to help ease congestion in the corridor. I assume agriculture is present in that corridor and could possibly benefit from rail access.

>CSX HAS redundancy. Run trains to Columbus and then up to Toledo. Or, even further out of the way, Cincy to Indy and back to Toledo. In a pinch have the NS take the train to Muncie, hand it back off, and take it to Toledo via the former Conrail.

We need additional redundancy within corridors particularly because of the congestion there. Out-of-routing should be available for contingencies, but not as regular service lanes. A network with greater capacity and redundancy available especially within its corridors is more robust against risks.

>The Cincy Northern went from Cincy to no-where through no-where. Its end points were Cincy and Jackson, MI. Jackson is an NS town, so why would CSX want it? Any rebuilding would require new diamonds (which the railroads hate) or extensive 'grade seperations' wherever the line would cross another. Much of the line has been plowed under, and imagine the legal bill to get that property back. Fugetaboutit! Plus, if push came to shove, CSX could run trains via the NS and vice versa. When you consider the railroads together, your parallel routes exist.

I have to image though there was local traffic up and down the Cincinnati Northern line that interchanged with the major east-west main lines. Its gradual restoration could help provide interconnections to the east-west mains if needed.
As long as Jackson remains an “NS town”, then its area shippers remain captive to NS and have no equal choice of other rail carriers. Manufacturing companies constantly try to gain market share, so why shouldn’t rail carriers be given an opportunity to do so? Yes the costs for market entry are high for rail, but not so on a government-provided line as those costs are equally shared by users.
State DOTs grade separate interstate highways, so a railway turnpike restoring a main line would similarly implement rail and roadway grade crossing separations, or for existing lines invest in capital improvement projects to grade abate problem crossings.
Right of way acquisition costs should be less for a government agency vs. a private company, plus the agency can provide the adjacent landowner with better coordinated access to and use of the rail line (or with other utilities and uses on the ROW) should they desire it to help increase the value of their remaining capital.
Yes NS and CSX could share traffic on their lines, but if they are at capacity they will say (and have said) no unless there is a true emergency.


>>Quote:
I haven't compared former Detroit-Ft. Wayne, Detroit-Toledo-Ft. Wayne, and Ft. Wayne-Indianapolis lines to what exists today, particularly how they might compete vs. US 24, as my concentration has been more in restoring the main east-west lines and shifting traffic away from Chicago to St. Louis. But with the price of gas and trucks driving slower to save fuel (hurting JIT) I must believe planners have to be re-considering those rail routes as alternatives to US-24. Else we risk even more plant shutdowns.

>You've come up with all sorts of far fetched and economically disasterous ideas,

My primary concentration is on restoring the abandoned and downgraded main east-west lines to immediately help solve the Northeast and Midwest capacity, congestion, energy, liability and other crises. The proposal may be far-fetched and economically disastrous if implemented solely by the private sector or significantly subsidized by government agencies. Yet the Ohio Turnpike and its business and governance model upon which the proposal is largely based upon is among the best turnpikes in the world, is investment grade with nearly the best debt ratings available, and the concept works for vehicles using roads. It theoretically should work too for vehicles using rails, and if the same agency administers both highway and railway turnpikes it should be somewhat more immune to the financial effects of traffic shifts between those modes.

>… but couldn't see the need for Toledo to Indy via Fort Wayne and then the SW gateways direct access?I think this one quote here summarizes your entire post. The ONLY cooridor that MAY benefit from a direct rail route, and you haven't even considered it. And actually, outside of Toledo to Indy, access is possible via the NS already. That's why much of the former Conrail Detroit to St Louis and KC auto traffic goes on the NS. CSX and its customers are happy with the Toledo Branch and Indy line routing for Toledo-Indy traffic. So really, outside of limited direct traffic, the need really doesn't exist. Plus, most of the Indy auto based traffic has dried up, and what does remain is handled by Q218 and Q219. Indy to Fort Wayne Traffic is handed off in Muncie nightly by the J767, and it never amounts to more than 15 cars. Much of it bound for Battle Creek and the Cereal Plants, outside of the Chevy Stamping cars for Truck and Bus. A semi can be in Fort Wayne in 3 hrs from Indy, railroads can't compete with that.

Are you suggesting a new straight shot from Detroit/Toledo-Ft. Wayne-Indianapolis under one carrier, as opposed to the various existing routes now available provided by multiple carriers? If that corridor is already served I would not suggest a turnpike model for it, unless all of the carriers agreed to convey their lines to the turnpike in exchange for equal use of it a la the Alameda Corridor.
I can’t speak for CSX customers, but bet they would strongly consider dual or multiple carrier access for better competition.

>Another point, St. Louis isn't really designed to handle a HUGE shift in the interchange from Chicago. UP doesn't like taking what its supposed to now as is evident on a daily basis at CSX's Roselake Yard. Chicago is at least been built and rebuilt to handle the bulk of the east west interchange. St. Louis, especially the east side of the river, is a mess of interlockings and railroads criss-crossing each other.

St. Louis used to handle significant traffic amounts until the railroads arbitrarily decided to consolidate many of their routes in favor of Chicago, in addition to downgrading the capacity and interchangeability of those remaining lines. Now with the surge in their traffic and the new high capacity yards Chicago is clogged.
I recall an article saying the railroads are looking at Chicago bypasses, and if they are smart they will look at St. Louis again, with the opportunity to pick up I-70 highway through traffic too. Now’s the time to improve St. Louis while its traffic is not severely congested.


>>Quote:
PTS and additional tracks do increase line capacities, but as previously mentioned redundant routes are also necessary to maintain a fluid network in case of contingencies. Quite often train wrecks are severe enough to take out all of the main line tracks on a route, so PTS and additional tracks for capacity improvements are not quite helpful for re-routing needs.

>Why spend millions of dollars for that 'once every few years' contingency? Derailments can be cleaned up in a matter of hours or at most days. Bulldoze the stuff to the ditch, bring up your panel track, tamp it, and you are in business albeit with a slow order. Heck, CSX had several stretches of railroad wash out, one section twice, in the last week on the St Louis line, and they are back to running trains in a matter of 2 days on one of the mains, the other which took the brunt of the damage took 3-4 days of work. Yes, they spent a lot on recrews and work trains, but thats still cheaper then maintaining a pair of parallel routes for that 'once every 20 years' kind of disaster.

Yes minor washouts can be fortunately rebuilt quickly, but consider Hurricanes Agnes and Katrina, the Midwest flooding, and numerous other examples over time. If significant route mileage is lost and if bridges and tunnels fail, that could be months to repair.
Redundancy to keep manufacturers’ supply chains intact and efficient is extremely important. As long as our power plants are reliant upon coal, which is also being sold overseas for their power plants that are just as reliant upon a constant supply, a rail line disruption could imperil our electricity much less our economy. The last thing we need now is additional inflation brought about by a railroad’s rationalized capacity. Risk is the keyword - when networks (rail, telecomm, pipelines, power grids, etc.) are consolidated risk increases. Then when trouble happens the railroads risk government re-regulation. The cyclic rationalization/restoration game can end if a turnpike agency provides ROW, infrastructure, and certain facilities for all to use.


>>Quote:
The current Columbus-Indianapolis route requires an indirect, "out of route" move to Ridgway. If their line is not at capacity now, it would be if some of I-70's intermodal traffic were dumped upon it. Conrail tried consolidating as much traffic on as few lines as possible, but now we need those other lines and routes back for as mentioned additional capacity, redundancy, and now energy savings with more direct routing. Plus freed-up capacity would help open slots for passenger service.

>Intermodal can't compete on the 'short' haul such as Columbus to Indy, but thats because of the 'just in time' philosophy that rules industry now. Shift from that, and short haul intermodal is more promising.

I believe rail can compete for all intermodal distances under the proposed model, especially if horsepower is properly scaled to the tonnage hauled, and if shippers and receivers have the option to carry too. Because of rising energy costs trucks are having to slow down to save on costs, affecting JIT and those supply chains relying upon it. Companies are also considering moving their plants closer together as a solution. Energy is really affecting logistics, and rail should be able to compete successfully due to its inherent technological advantages, and even more so if a turnpike business and governance model is available.

>Also, widen your use of I-70 a bit more, and then the CSX is in direct competion with it. Go St. Louis to NYC or Baltimore and then it IS a more direct route. St. Louis to Indy is within a couple of miles of I-70 for the entire distance. Much of it less then a mile apart. I'd wager CSX's route from St. Louis to Cleveland and the NE is considerably shorter than the Interstates.

CSX competes against I-70 between St. Louis-Indianapolis, and somewhat between Indianapolis –Columbus as the infrastructures increasingly separate in distance from each other. But there the split widens to the Northeast just as the Ft. Wayne Line left the I-70 corridor west of Pittsburgh. But the question is what routes do the shippers require? The further out-of-route you go, the more the risk that they will leave rail at some point.


>>Quote:
I pose we wouldn't have the capacity, congestion, and energy crises we have today if the lines were not abandoned or downsized from their 1950's or even from their previous maximum extents. Railroads could have conveyed them to government agencies back then and just concentrated on running their trains. But now we're in a mess so we have to analyze more efficient models.

>There are very few lines that are 'at capacity' right now. Traffic is down from the late 90's. Coal is up, but automotive is WAY down. So is general merchandise outside of pig trains. Lumber is down because the housing industry is in the toilet.

See the article cited here- (viewtopic.php?t=8713). So I assume from his observation, unless he is trying to induce panic or move the stock market a certain way, that there currently is congestion.
Now you raise a good point that the economy is getting worse, which should mean traffic would be down too. Or are the railroads additionally attracting a lot of truck traffic, so much so that they can’t handle it? Whom to believe?

>The only places you have conjestion are around the major interchange points, like Chicago and St. Louis. Without upgrades there, you will ALWAYS have conjestion. Rebuilding a line from no where to no where isn't going to help that. The TPW/PRR, NYC, and all tried to by pass Chicago, and met with little success. The TPW is on the verge of colapse, and the NYC route only sees 1 train each way a day. Its a lot of railroad to operate for only 2 trains a day...

The proposal would restore and provide strategic main lines, capacity improvements, and redundant routes where initially needed to quickly help solve the crises. If additional intrastate and local lines are desired, local agencies like counties and port authorities could emulate the model for their construction and provision.

>Actually, without downsizing you *probably* wouldn't have railroads. The inability to become profitable would have killed the industry, much as it did in the late 60's early 70's.

>Railroads are in business to MAKE MONEY. Adding parallel routes drains the already limited funds. Capacity improvements such as double track or increased sidings is cheaper and more feasible then relaying an entire railroad from the roadbed up.

Railroads always had the option to convey their unwanted lines to the government, but instead liquidated them or spun them off in poor condition to smaller companies that rely upon public subsidization to try and improve them, which I believe is a very poor model. Yes railroad companies are in the business to make money, but do so by providing carriage service, other lines of business, and at times M&As. The proposed public railway turnpike is non-profit, thus a railroad company utilizing a public railway turnpike would not have to pay for the entire cost of constructing, maintaining, and administering rights of way, infrastructure, and certain facilities, just for the share that they use them on an equal basis that other competing carriers would use it. I pose regular rail investors would jump at the opportunity, but fringe investors desiring railroads use their monopolies for increased pricing power and other investors in it only for quick M&A cashouts would oppose it. Government agencies should step up and better dictate how our economy is supposed to run, and not leave everything to certain investors who through the companies have cornered the market.


Amtrakjackson:

Yes it is tiring advocating a change, but consider the alternative like being priced out of the market or the economy failing to our foreign competitors that unfairly subsidize their transportation, undervalue their currencies, and underpay their labor. We at the least need to boost rail to fight the energy cartel, and if restructured for greater competition, access, and use with hopefully increased cost savings can help increase more rail traffic and reduce costs up and down numerous sectors’ supply chains.

CSX_CO
Over and Out
Posts: 3434
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Unread post by CSX_CO »

So basically what you are saying is you want the public to pay for a bunch of rail lines and then let it be a 'free for all' to get service on them? Railroading isn't cheap, even if you don't have to pay for the infrastructure. Good luck getting anyone to want to do that, even if the Government picks up the tab on upkeep.

I'm sorry, I'd rather see MY tax money going to improve existing cooridors and increasing speeds there, then spending tons of money to relay track in the hopes that *someone* uses it.

Also, industry doesn't use rail for speed so much as they use it for reliability. Get REIABLE schedules, no matter how much time it may take, and industry will shift to railroads. The problem is reliable schedules cannot be maintained verses a truck at this point in time. If Shipper A knows it will take a week every time to get a car from Supplier B, they can adjust accordingly. When it takes a week for one car, ten days for another, or a month for a third, and four days for a fourth, then you have problems. They can't plan for something like that, and invariably end up with a shortage or surplus at any given time, and that costs them money. They have to figure out if the costs incurred because of unreliable service and transit times is worth the savings verses a truck.

Rail is by far cheaper per ton then every mode of transportation except for water transportation (but canals don't go everywhere anymore). Spend the tax money on double track and other improvements to existing cooridors and that will alleviate highway conjestion. You don't need to go and reinvent the flanged wheel to get people to use rail.

Also, your figure for track upkeep is probably accurate, but you need to factor in the cost of construction first. Last I knew, it cost $1,000,000 to lay a mile of track from the ground up with signals (which you will need). That is a lot of traffic you are going to have to generate to recover those costs. That is a HUGE drain on a states money for a 'what if' senario', especially at a time when schools are cutting budgets, etc. As a tax payer, I'd be IRATE my money was being spent so carelessly.

Also, I never really understood the logic in offering tax breaks to attract industry. Once the tax breaks are over, they more often then not pull up stakes and go somewhere else that offers them more tax breaks. Then the municipality is left with an abandoned factory and no revenue from the time it was in operation. Meanwhile they incurred expenses from damage to the roads, having to connect it to sewer and water, etc etc etc

Practice Safe CSX

User avatar
J T
Hates Supper
Posts: 11367
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:23 pm
Location: Grand Rapids
Contact:

Unread post by J T »

CSX_CO wrote:Last I knew, it cost $1,000,000 to lay a mile of track from the ground up with signals (which you will need). That is a lot of traffic you are going to have to generate to recover those costs. That is a HUGE drain on a states money for a 'what if' senario', especially at a time when schools are cutting budgets, etc. As a tax payer, I'd be IRATE my money was being spent so carelessly.
And as a land/home owner, you'd be more irate that a new railroad line was being laid through your neighborhood. Well, maybe not you in particular, but the average joe out there. When is the last time a new line was built? I don't see that to be a possibility in this day and age of the rabid NIMBY's. Double it, triple it, side it...that's probably the only solution these days. But to create a new line? I can't see that ever happening anywhere. This isn't the 1800's any more.

User avatar
esprrfan
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:11 pm
Location: Toledo
Contact:

Unread post by esprrfan »

Plus on the "Turnpike System' you'd still need QUALIFIED crews and a standard signal system.

Who would dispatch it as you can be asured that the railroads won't give it automatic priority at diamonds. Even if you build overpasses your still going to have trains waiting to enter/exit. Such as at Oak Harbor on the NS you can't leave/enter until the other division is ready to accept that train and that's on on the SAME RR.

Then you have the union pool agreements with crews. If for example you had a " US 24 turnpike, Toledo-Ft Wayne". You can bet that the Tol-Peru and the Peru-Tol pools aren't going to give up trains to run on it and lose those jobs. The Bellevue-Ft Wayne pools won't give up their work to Ft Wayne-Toledo-Bellevue routing.

While I understand the original post I don't see the railroads willing to pay "Tolls" to go point A to point B when they have their own routeS.

Even in the event of a temperory blockage such as 14Q taking out the NYC Chicago line for a few days NS got around it on it's own trackage. I know the Toledo-Bellevue pool was making lots of cash those days.

Even though the hot trains were rerouted to CSX I'm sure the CSX guys were happy for the extra trains $$$. By doing it like this had already QUALIFIED CREWS IN PLACE to run the reroutes alibet with NS paying CSX.

I just don't see this option as viable as unlike the I80/I90 turnpike anyone that can afford a truck and the toll can use it. A "Rail Pike" would REQUIRE NS and CSX opening THEIR systems up to anyone that could afford a locomotive to gain access to such a route. We all know how likely that would be.

User avatar
Multimodalways
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 1:01 am
Contact:

Unread post by Multimodalways »

CSX_CO:

>So basically what you are saying is you want the public to pay for a bunch of rail lines and then let it be a 'free for all' to get service on them? Railroading isn't cheap, even if you don't have to pay for the infrastructure. Good luck getting anyone to want to do that, even if the Government picks up the tab on upkeep.

The Ohio Turnpike was paid for with $326M of public revenue bonds (equivalent to $2.78B in 2007) purchased by investors. The debt was repaid by tolls and other Turnpike activities revenues, and not by property or income taxes or other federal subsidies. The state subsidizes it with a small portion of the state gas tax revenues. User access to and use of a public railway turnpike would be metered using ton-mile tolls and in some scenarios an additional access fee. MOW costs are in part determined by users’ ton-miles usage and are recouped by the tolls.


>I'm sorry, I'd rather see MY tax money going to improve existing cooridors and increasing speeds there, then spending tons of money to relay track in the hopes that *someone* uses it.

I oppose my gas taxes subsidizing trucks that are not paying their fair share of highway MOW, and likewise oppose having my other taxes subsidizing private monopolies especially when better, more efficient, and more equitable business and governance models are available. I believe the public turnpike model is the most fair and equitable form of a public-private partnership for infrastructure provision to relieve the capacity and congestion crises that undoubtedly would make use of more rail lines should they be made available.

>Also, industry doesn't use rail for speed so much as they use it for reliability. Get REIABLE schedules, no matter how much time it may take, and industry will shift to railroads. The problem is reliable schedules cannot be maintained verses a truck at this point in time. If Shipper A knows it will take a week every time to get a car from Supplier B, they can adjust accordingly. When it takes a week for one car, ten days for another, or a month for a third, and four days for a fourth, then you have problems. They can't plan for something like that, and invariably end up with a shortage or surplus at any given time, and that costs them money. They have to figure out if the costs incurred because of unreliable service and transit times is worth the savings verses a truck.

The aforementioned article said UPS loses $100M for every five minutes of delays, so what if they could operate their own trains on a rail turnpike between say Pittsburgh-Columbus on their own schedules? Trucks are encountering not only congestion but also mandated slowdowns to save gas. Shippers desire reliability and also would appreciate increased delivery speeds for advantages against competitors. The consolidated rail networks are a primary cause of delays, and capacity and redundancy restoration must be made a priority. But under the model shippers, receivers, and other users could use the rail line too to to haul their own consists or provide competition against traditional rail carriers.

>Rail is by far cheaper per ton then every mode of transportation except for water transportation (but canals don't go everywhere anymore). Spend the tax money on double track and other improvements to existing cooridors and that will alleviate highway conjestion. You don't need to go and reinvent the flanged wheel to get people to use rail.

Rail could potentially be even less expensive per ton-mile under the public turnpike model. Other studies have shown cost savings where shippers have access to dual rail, so why not explore full open access rail provision? I’m opposed to public subsidies financing private railroad capacity improvements that they liquidated only a few decades ago. If public funds are to be used they should be for a railway turnpike openly accessible to all carriers with the ROW, infrastructure, and certain facilities kept in the public domain so they are not liquidated (or bought by foreign interests) again.

>Also, your figure for track upkeep is probably accurate, but you need to factor in the cost of construction first. Last I knew, it cost $1,000,000 to lay a mile of track from the ground up with signals (which you will need). That is a lot of traffic you are going to have to generate to recover those costs. That is a HUGE drain on a states money for a 'what if' senario', especially at a time when schools are cutting budgets, etc. As a tax payer, I'd be IRATE my money was being spent so carelessly.

The no-load MOW quote was from the Ohio Rail Development Commission. Your track costs are correct, with signal costs extra. The spreadsheets in the proposal have calculated how much traffic is required per desired amount of rail line to be administered. The bigger drain for states are highway costs that are 10x+ compared to new rail installs, and have risen 40%+ in the last few years due to inflation according to ODOT. Plus as we know highways are nowhere near as energy efficient as rail, so the choice is obvious. We don’t seem to care much when government agencies build secondary roads and streets everywhere and have to maintain them thereafter, but for some reason we hold rail lines to much higher accountability standards. If that reason is because they are privately owned, then consider implementing the turnpike model which should work as well as the highway turnpike. Plus the Ohio Turnpike is independent from the state budget and is closed loop meaning their expenses are primarily paid for by turnpike revenues with little if any subsidization.

>Also, I never really understood the logic in offering tax breaks to attract industry. Once the tax breaks are over, they more often then not pull up stakes and go somewhere else that offers them more tax breaks. Then the municipality is left with an abandoned factory and no revenue from the time it was in operation. Meanwhile they incurred expenses from damage to the roads, having to connect it to sewer and water, etc etc etc

The US Supreme Court OK’d their use, but likewise I do not agree with using them, and I cringe when this country does nothing about other countries that use them extensively to raid our industries. It’s like these companies can’t get a loan from a bank and have to go begging to government agencies with promises of jobs, which of course the politicians like to tout come election time, but rarely do they ever materialize much less are the better high paying jobs. That being said I don’t like the highway subsidies, and already US DOT is looking at more highways being converted into tollways, but will they operate as true turnpikes (using ton-mile tolls) and scale back the gas taxes accordingly? My bet is not, so I insist upon strict straight-line ton-mile tolling for a rail turnpike (the more wear users cause the more they pay, no exceptions) minus subsidizations and cross-subsidizations.


J T:

CSX_CO wrote:
Last I knew, it cost $1,000,000 to lay a mile of track from the ground up with signals (which you will need). That is a lot of traffic you are going to have to generate to recover those costs. That is a HUGE drain on a states money for a 'what if' senario', especially at a time when schools are cutting budgets, etc. As a tax payer, I'd be IRATE my money was being spent so carelessly.

>And as a land/home owner, you'd be more irate that a new railroad line was being laid through your neighborhood. Well, maybe not you in particular, but the average joe out there. When is the last time a new line was built? I don't see that to be a possibility in this day and age of the rabid NIMBY's. Double it, triple it, side it...that's probably the only solution these days. But to create a new line? I can't see that ever happening anywhere. This isn't the 1800's any more.

My concentration is on restoring the main lines where they once existed to address the various crises. Those that live near an abandoned main line to be restored would be assisted in moving elsewhere, a somewhat easier job now that the housing market is pretty soft. The restored mains should then help address the crises at least in the Northeast and Midwest. If new main lines are later needed elsewhere then the model could be used for their administration and financing.


esprrfan:

>Plus on the "Turnpike System' you'd still need QUALIFIED crews and a standard signal system.

Yes the turnpike would have to qualify its users and implement some type of signal system.

>Who would dispatch it as you can be asured that the railroads won't give it automatic priority at diamonds. Even if you build overpasses your still going to have trains waiting to enter/exit. Such as at Oak Harbor on the NS you can't leave/enter until the other division is ready to accept that train and that's on on the SAME RR.

The turnpike administration would dispatch it with direct telecommunication network links among carriers’ control centers and users, a la air traffic control. The turnpike would work with carriers for agreements at diamonds, crossings, interchanges, etc., until those of strategic value were eventually grade abated. The turnpike may have to construct some holding yards at urban points to hold trains until cleared, but the coordinated dispatching should help predict slot schedules and eliminate queue backups.

>Then you have the union pool agreements with crews. If for example you had a " US 24 turnpike, Toledo-Ft Wayne". You can bet that the Tol-Peru and the Peru-Tol pools aren't going to give up trains to run on it and lose those jobs. The Bellevue-Ft Wayne pools won't give up their work to Ft Wayne-Toledo-Bellevue routing.

BLET is aware of the proposal and the possibility of more job opportunities should shippers, receivers, and other users desire to operate their own trains.

>While I understand the original post I don't see the railroads willing to pay "Tolls" to go point A to point B when they have their own routeS.

Railroads can still use their own lines as much as they want. If they find a turnpike route could be added to their network as a through route, serve as a backup route, or need to access a turnpike lineside customer specifically requesting their service, then they would be welcome to use it. See the Alameda Corridor as an example. Users would be accessed tolls and possibly fees per their metered ton-mile usage.

>Even in the event of a temperory blockage such as 14Q taking out the NYC Chicago line for a few days NS got around it on it's own trackage. I know the Toledo-Bellevue pool was making lots of cash those days.

>Even though the hot trains were rerouted to CSX I'm sure the CSX guys were happy for the extra trains $$$. By doing it like this had already QUALIFIED CREWS IN PLACE to run the reroutes alibet with NS paying CSX.

The turnpike would provide additional routes and capacities without worry of clogging up a competitor’s network or not being provided access at all. Plus there is the opportunity to equally compete for lineside customers.

>I just don't see this option as viable as unlike the I80/I90 turnpike anyone that can afford a truck and the toll can use it. A "Rail Pike" would REQUIRE NS and CSX opening THEIR systems up to anyone that could afford a locomotive to gain access to such a route. We all know how likely that would be.

The proposal does not advocate third party “forced access” (also known incorrectly as open access) upon private railroad networks and respects their right to private use of their networks. If the feds want to try forcing third party access upon private networks, that’s the fed's problem especially since the US Supreme Court said the feds couldn't force access on private telecomm networks as a means to create more competition. But in this model the public access turnpike is openly accessible to all qualified users, which would encourage growth in the rail carriage field. If a private railroad would not have further use for a main line for some reason, instead of liquidating it the turnpike could possibly acquire and administer it to prevent it from being lost and to retain capacity.

User avatar
amtrakjackson
Deactivated
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:43 am
Location: outside Jackson, MI
Contact:

Unread post by amtrakjackson »

I've read and re-read this discussion.

Most of us are looking at this in the near-term. Folks in the 1940s could never imagine a day when the PRR across Indiana would be as it is now, or the Erie main gone for 30 years. Globalization of economies will change the landscape of our railroads drastically in years to come.

I believe that if railroads are to exist in any viable form at the end of the 21st century, many, if not most, of the concepts Multimodalways has brought to our attention will be commonplace. It's really the only viable, long-term view. It will take a while. Perhaps creakingly slow. Perhaps generations- but I can see it. Clearly.

The current business model cannot last. It never does.

Post Reply