[Madman]

Stuff we always don't seem to know about until after the fact.

 

[Madman]

And this;

 

[Lehigh74]

One man's opinion.

 

[Madman]

One man's opinion.

Agreed. It would be helpful to hear the other side of the story.

 

[bigdodgetrain]

seems like these days anyone can post anything on youtube

 

[Lehigh74]

Well I do agree with him about the subway extension to the Navy base. But only if they did it 50 years ago so I didn’t have to wait for the C bus at Broad and Pattison on cold windy winter mornings.

 

[OilValleyRy]

I'm not sure nationalized rail would solve anything. I only have one example to compare to.
Amtrak.
Created 1971.
Number is years between 1971 and 2023 that Amtrak has had revenue greater than operating costs: 0.

IMO Amtrak is a money pit and govt doesn't care because taxpayers are a money tree in govt eyes. Private companies like Bright Line need to stay in the black. Its do or die.

 

[Madman]

I'm not sure nationalized rail would solve anything. I only have one example to compare to.
Amtrak.
Created 1971.
Number is years between 1971 and 2023 that Amtrak has had revenue greater than operating costs: 0.

IMO Amtrak is a money pit and govt doesn't care because taxpayers are a money tree in govt eyes. Private companies like Bright Line need to stay in the black. Its do or die.

If some European railways have been nationalized for years and doing well, why then wouldn't nationalizing our railroads be a good thing ?

 

[Madman]

Well I do agree with him about the subway extension to the Navy base. But only if they did it 50 years ago so I didn’t have to wait for the C bus at Broad and Pattison on cold windy winter mornings.

Agreed. And what about the Broad Street Subway extension up the Roosevelt Boulevard ? I witnessed the building of the subway station at Sears, back around 1966. The Northeast is full of potential riders, now more than ever. Yet SEPTA is willing to spend, what did the video say, a couple billion for a mere 9000 riders !!!!!

 

[OilValleyRy]

If some European railways have been nationalized for years and doing well, why then wouldn't nationalizing our railroads be a good thing ?

I just feel that private industry can do things more timely & cost effectively than government red tape bureaucracy, that's all.
Government control of an entire industry is really just a monopoly, except the government also decides what is and isn't a monopoly, so then that's self-policing which seldom works out. There's no competition; they can do whatever they please when a monopoly exists. Like cellphone service: comcast, verizon, tmobile, sprint, yadda yadda all compete, striving to out do the others, prospective customers to lure over to their side with savings or better service or whatnots. If one entity controls the whole enchilada, it all stagnates. There's no need to innovate, increase efficiency, etc. It's slow death. Doesn't matter if Comcast controls it all, or government, or... me. The inevitable result sooner or later will be somebody saying "let them eat cake."
People talk about "big greedy corporations" because they control too much; like Amazon or Walmart etc. Government wouldn't be any different. Certainly not any better. Probably worse. People often make the mistake of thinking government has the population's best interests in mind; but the truth is government like any organization has it's own best interests first & foremost.
But that's just my opinion on why it wouldn't be good. I could be wrong.

 

[1905dave]

I used to ride the P&W all the time. A lot of his dissing the P&W at the beginning is not understanding the history, but I can see where the two Broad Street line extensions are good projects.

 

[gunrunnerjohn]

Well I do agree with him about the subway extension to the Navy base. But only if they did it 50 years ago so I didn’t have to wait for the C bus at Broad and Pattison on cold windy winter mornings.

The reason I had a car when my ship was in the yards at the Phila Navy Yard.

 

[1905dave]

If some European railways have been nationalized for years and doing well, why then wouldn't nationalizing our railroads be a good thing ?

Define "well". Despite what people say, the US haas the one of the world's best FREIGHT railroad networks. We haul more stuff safer than anybody else in the world and they do it for a profit. Most nationalized systems are subsidized by the governments. Our rail system has been optimized for freight traffic, while European systems are optimized for passenger traffic. Passenger traffic will never pay for itself because the "density" of the "load" is so much less than freight and the requirements for service are so much higher (and expensive).

We did nationalize our railroads back during WW1, that's what the USRA did. And it wasn't particularly successful. The proof of that is that they re-privatized the railroads and didn't nationalize the railroads in WW2.

What a lot of the European railroads do is nationalize the track, maintaining the right of way and providing dispatching services, and then have private companies operate the trains or lease and operate various lines. Most of the European freight runs are short (compared to the US) and tend to be a lot of "unit train" type operations. That type of operation becomes more problematic with US.

 

[Madman]

I just feel that private industry can do things more timely & cost effectively than government red tape bureaucracy, that's all.
Government control of an entire industry is really just a monopoly, except the government also decides what is and isn't a monopoly, so then that's self-policing which seldom works out. There's no competition; they can do whatever they please when a monopoly exists. Like cellphone service: comcast, verizon, tmobile, sprint, yadda yadda all compete, striving to out do the others, prospective customers to lure over to their side with savings or better service or whatnots. If one entity controls the whole enchilada, it all stagnates. There's no need to innovate, increase efficiency, etc. It's slow death. Doesn't matter if Comcast controls it all, or government, or... me. The inevitable result sooner or later will be somebody saying "let them eat cake."
People talk about "big greedy corporations" because they control too much; like Amazon or Walmart etc. Government wouldn't be any different. Certainly not any better. Probably worse. People often make the mistake of thinking government has the population's best interests in mind; but the truth is government like any organization has it's own best interests first & foremost.
But that's just my opinion on why it wouldn't be good. I could be wrong.

It seems that "Privatization" is the key word these days. I am not a fan of it. When services become privatized, we are at the mercy of shareholders. We don't get a say in the operation of whatever entity it may be.

A small but prime example of privatization screwing things up would be trash collection. In our township, we haven't privatized it, but in some surrounding townships it has been privatized. Not only do those townships have trash trucks plying their streets almost every day, but those residents are at the mercy of each of the collection companies.

It reminds me of Bell telephone. Before Reagan broke up Bell, we knew where to go for everything phone related. Their service was excellent. Sure, Bell may have had a monopoly and dictated prices, but Uncle Sam should have dictated back to them, instead of making mass confusion of our phone system.

In Pennsylvania we have the option to select electric and gas suppliers. I took "advantage of that option for a few years in the beginning, but realized that PECO's pricing was still a better deal.

If SEPTA hadn't been formed, we may not have any public transportation now. A prime example of saving what remained of public transportation. Does SEPTA always get it right, absolutely not, but there is a future in public transportation that we must pay for now, so that when the roads become intolerable, there will be something in place to transport the public, whether we will like it or not.

So, these are just my own observations and opinions. And you know what they say about opinions, they are like A Holes, everyone has one.....

 

[Madman]

Define "well". Despite what people say, the US haas the one of the world's best FREIGHT railroad networks. We haul more stuff safer than anybody else in the world and they do it for a profit. Most nationalized systems are subsidized by the governments. Our rail system has been optimized for freight traffic, while European systems are optimized for passenger traffic. Passenger traffic will never pay for itself because the "density" of the "load" is so much less than freight and the requirements for service are so much higher (and expensive).

We did nationalize our railroads back during WW1, that's what the USRA did. And it wasn't particularly successful. The proof of that is that they re-privatized the railroads and didn't nationalize the railroads in WW2.

What a lot of the European railroads do is nationalize the track, maintaining the right of way and providing dispatching services, and then have private companies operate the trains or lease and operate various lines. Most of the European freight runs are short (compared to the US) and tend to be a lot of "unit train" type operations. That type of operation becomes more problematic with US.

I don't know if you have ridden any trains in Europe. I have, and let me tell you that there was never a train I rode on that was not packed to the gills. So I don't understand how they are not making a profit.

The narrator in one of the videos I posted talks about our four private railroads, Union Pacific, Burlington Norther Santa Fe, CSX and Norfolk Southern. They are interested in keeping their shareholders fat and happy. They do that by running trains that are too long, claiming that the crews are what is eating up profits. BS, I say. If they had their way, we'd see two mile long trains with a single engineer and no other crew.

He then goes on to talk about the train lengths clogging up the works which causes delays for Amtrak trains. So Amtrak looks like the bad guy and people can't see through it. If our freight system was as good as you say it is, we'd have far less trucks on the roads. We all know that a single locomotive can haul many times the freight that a fleet of trucks can at far less of an impact on our environment.

Somewhere in one of the videos, the narrator points out that roads don't make a profit, but simply eat up our tax dollars. While railroads maintain their own right of way, pay taxes that most likely go toward highway maintenance.

As for unit trains, it seems to me that most of our freight traffic is more like a unit train than a mixed freight train.

Again, these are my observations based on what I witness and read.

 

[1905dave]

I don't know if you have ridden any trains in Europe. I have, and let me tell you that there was never a train I rode on that was not packed to the gills. So I don't understand how they are not making a profit.

This assumes packed = profitable. A typical freight car can carry 100 tons of freight. A typical passenger coach carries less than 100 people. 100 people x 250 lbs per person = 25,000 lbs = 12.5 tons. That means that to break even a railroad has to charge 8 times as much per lb for passengers as it does for freight (assuming everybody is packed in coach style). If you are talking about long distance then that most likely doubles to 12-20 times as much. Plus operating a passenger line is waaaaaay more expensive than operating a freight line. The track has to maintained to a higher (more expensive) standard for passenger service, you need more power to make the train go faster, which means higher fuel/energy costs.
By the way, how much of Europe's freight travels by rail? Less as a percentage of the total available freight then in the US and waaaaaaaay less as a percentage of ton-miles.

They do that by running trains that are too long, claiming that the crews are what is eating up profits. BS, I say. If they had their way, we'd see two mile long trains with a single engineer and no other crew.

Other than offending your sensibilities, what is wrong with a long train? Will you similarly ban double or triple bottoms on trucks and ban 53' trailers, making everybody go back to 40 ft trailers with two drivers in each cab? Why is a two mile long train too long?

He then goes on to talk about the train lengths clogging up the works which causes delays for Amtrak trains. So Amtrak looks like the bad guy and people can't see through it. If our freight system was as good as you say it is, we'd have far less trucks on the roads.

Having actually been in charge of dispatching a territory with Amtrak on it, it's not necessarily the train length, it's the train volume and the difference in train speeds. With freight trains they all are going about the same speed so you only have to worry about meeting opposing trains. With passenger trains, they are going 20-30 mph faster than the freights, so you not only have to clear opposing trains, you have to clear trains in the same direction because they will be overtaken. That means you need half again as many sidings as with freight.
Also you need to pick direction and go with it. On one hand you complain there freight trains are too long, on the other hand you complain that we don't have enough freight moving by rail. Pick one. If you have more tonnage you have more trains. If you have shorter trains you have more trains. More trains is not easier to dispatch than fewer trains. More trains will not interfere with passenger train less. The footprint of a train is the size of the signal block, which is always longer than the train because it allows for stopping distance. If you have one 12000 ft train it occupies one signal block, lets say 5 miles of track. If you have two 6000 ft trains it occupies 2 signal blocks, the exact same number of cars is now 10 miles long. In the end that's going to slow down meets.

We all know that a single locomotive can haul many times the freight that a fleet of trucks can at far less of an impact on our environment.

Once again, pick a direction. You say a train is more efficient because it can haul more per engine, but then you complain because the trains are too long, you want them to be efficient, but not that efficient. Do you want to maximize the efficiency or not?

As for unit trains, it seems to me that most of our freight traffic is more like a unit train than a mixed freight train.

There is still a lot of mixed freight out there. Unit trains have decreased with the lessening of coal traffic (which was about 1/2 to 1/3 of all unit trains). Boxcar traffic which was a major part of mixed freight has migrated to intermodal which operates like a unit train in many ways, but uses truck for both ends of the trip.

 

[Madman]

This assumes packed = profitable. A typical freight car can carry 100 tons of freight. A typical passenger coach carries less than 100 people. 100 people x 250 lbs per person = 25,000 lbs = 12.5 tons. That means that to break even a railroad has to charge 8 times as much per lb for passengers as it does for freight (assuming everybody is packed in coach style). If you are talking about long distance then that most likely doubles to 12-20 times as much. Plus operating a passenger line is waaaaaay more expensive than operating a freight line. The track has to maintained to a higher (more expensive) standard for passenger service, you need more power to make the train go faster, which means higher fuel/energy costs.
By the way, how much of Europe's freight travels by rail? Less as a percentage of the total available freight then in the US and waaaaaaaay less as a percentage of ton-miles.


Other than offending your sensibilities, what is wrong with a long train? Will you similarly ban double or triple bottoms on trucks and ban 53' trailers, making everybody go back to 40 ft trailers with two drivers in each cab? Why is a two mile long train too long?


Having actually been in charge of dispatching a territory with Amtrak on it, it's not necessarily the train length, it's the train volume and the difference in train speeds. With freight trains they all are going about the same speed so you only have to worry about meeting opposing trains. With passenger trains, they are going 20-30 mph faster than the freights, so you not only have to clear opposing trains, you have to clear trains in the same direction because they will be overtaken. That means you need half again as many sidings as with freight.
Also you need to pick direction and go with it. On one hand you complain there freight trains are too long, on the other hand you complain that we don't have enough freight moving by rail. Pick one. If you have more tonnage you have more trains. If you have shorter trains you have more trains. More trains is not easier to dispatch than fewer trains. More trains will not interfere with passenger train less. The footprint of a train is the size of the signal block, which is always longer than the train because it allows for stopping distance. If you have one 12000 ft train it occupies one signal block, lets say 5 miles of track. If you have two 6000 ft trains it occupies 2 signal blocks, the exact same number of cars is now 10 miles long. In the end that's going to slow down meets.


Once again, pick a direction. You say a train is more efficient because it can haul more per engine, but then you complain because the trains are too long, you want them to be efficient, but not that efficient. Do you want to maximize the efficiency or not?

There is still a lot of mixed freight out there. Unit trains have decreased with the lessening of coal traffic (which was about 1/2 to 1/3 of all unit trains). Boxcar traffic which was a major part of mixed freight has migrated to intermodal which operates like a unit train in many ways, but uses truck for both ends of the trip.

"Why is a two mile train too long ?" You ask.....

Another Norfolk Southern train derails in Ohio; railroad says no toxins aboard

A Norfolk Southern train derailed in Ohio on Saturday, the second such incident involving the railroad in that state in about a month, prompting local officials to order residents living near the accident site to shelter in place.

www.reuters.com

 

[MichaelE]

DB returns to profitable business • Schenker and passenger transport are booming
DB Group generates EUR 876 million in operating profit in first half of 2022 • Revenues up 28.4% • "We have turned our business around and are preparing for robust growth to continue," says DB CEO Richard Lutz


Please note: This information on the 2022 Interim Results Press Conference is blocked until Thursday, July 28, 11 a.m.


Deutsche Bahn (DB) has returned to profitable business. For the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic began, DB has generated an operating profit, returning DB to its path of profitable growth. DB closed out the first half of 2022 with adjusted earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT adjusted) of EUR 876 million. Group revenues increased by 28.4% to roughly EUR 28.0 billion. Many more passengers used DB's regional, local and long-distance services. Demand for international freight forwarding and logistics was also higher than ever before. "Our turnaround has been successful," said Dr. Richard Lutz, CEO of DB, in Berlin. "Demand is booming and we have returned to profitable business."
Operating profit (EBITD adjusted) was up by around EUR 1.9 billion compared with the first half of 2021. At that time, the global Covid-19 pandemic had driven DB into the red, to the tune of nearly EUR 1 billion. Altogether, DB's core business lost over EUR 10 billion due to the Covid-19 pandemic. DB Schenker, DB's logistics subsidiary, made the largest contribution to DB's current success by far. It nearly doubled its operating profit compared with the first six months of 2021 to around EUR 1.2 billion.
DB CEO Lutz: "More ICE trains now than ever before"
Earnings, revenues and volume in DB's core business also rose considerably overall. In the first six months of the year, 59.1 million passengers used DB's long-distance trains. That was a year-on-year increase of 117%. Some 725 million passengers used DB's regional and local trains, an increase of 60%. DB's volume sold in rail passenger transport grew by 109% to 36.4 billion passenger kilometers in the first half of 2022. DB Cargo posted slight increases in revenues (up 5.6%) and volume sold
(up 1.2%), but also faced a negative impact from the war in Ukraine and reduced capacity due to construction.
"The fact that our passengers have returned so quickly shows us that it was definitely the right decision to stay the course even in difficult times and prepare for robust growth with new trains, better service and more staff," said Lutz. He added that DB had hired roughly 90,000 new employees in Germany since 2019 and had accepted some 19,500 applicants so far in 2022. "We have done a great deal to equip DB for booming demand. More ICE trains serve Germany and Europe now than ever before," said Lutz.

 

[Severn]

I think some things are best as a mix of private and public. Passenger train service may well be that kind of thing. This is because consumer choice is limited by the nature of train track, even if popular -- and trains travel through different demand areas yet people expect the same level of service at the same price regardless.

In a purely private scenario the train company would favor performing markets, cutting folks out of the service or have dramatically different ticket prices for low passenger areas, etc...

 

[1905dave]

"Why is a two mile train too long ?" You ask.....

I have always been confused by this. Railroads were running 200-250 car trains back in the 1960's. Back in 1980, the standard siding length on the MP was 8000 ft and on the SP they had 10000 ft sidings because they ran 10000 ft trains. Since railroads have been running mile and a half to two mile trains for 40 or 50 years now, why have we now decided that it can't be done?