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.