I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:06 am Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
Peepers wrote:
It depends on the kind of rail service, and which highways you're talking about, as some are quite flat. If it's intercity or regional, the grades likely too steep. But, urban rail transit can take some pretty steep grades. Baltimore's north-south line has some grades as steep as 7 percent (meaning it climbs or descends seven feet for every 100 feet of distance). That's comparable to grades on interstates and other limited-access highways.
One thing we're overlooking here though, is the accessibility of the rail system. For urban rail transit systems, more than half of their ridership comes from pedestrians, called "walk-in trade." Such walk-in trade is generated from land uses within a 1,000-foot radius of stations. Thus, the the more densely developed an area around a station is, the more ridership that station will have. If you build rail in the medians of highways, the land having the greatest traffic generation potential (that which is nearest to a station) is of no use to a station. The first 200 feet or more on either side of a four-lane highway is taken up by the highway itself.
That situation is worsened if the station is at a highway interchange, where hundreds more feet are used up by the intersections of the on/off ramps. And, typically, land uses just beyond the on/off ramps are of an auto-centric design, with everything spread out to allow cars to manuever, park and what not.
In other words, building rail in highway medians isn't the best way to go. It might avail a right of way quickly and relatively cheaply, but quick and cheap often doesn't result in greater productivity. In fact, it usually means the opposite.
I think that intercity rail in interstate medians would work quite well between destinations, especially in the far-flung cities of the nation's interior. These lines could act as both the 'main' and 'express' lines, with spurs connecting smaller cities and towns to the 'interstate' rail line (Think about a 'reverse bypass', where a leg of rail curves 'into' the city, rather than 'around' it.) In urban areas, the interstates could eventually be demolished (think Embarcadero in SF) and replaced with boulevards and rail lines. The interstate ROWs & adjacent development in cities are largely blighted anyways and could enjoy a resurgence of investment with the implementation of rail through them.
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
Pops wrote:
I wonder how many of the main lines are still in existence or at least the ROW intact? I assume not many.
The total route miles of railroad line in the U.S. was just over 200,000 at the industry's peak in 1916. That has declined to about 150,000 route miles today. In other words, most of the route miles, especially the main lines, are still intact and often heavily used. In fact, you may be surprised to learn that the U.S. freight railroads are carrying more tonnage today than at any time in their history. Freight cars are much bigger than they used to be, freight trains are longer and rail traffic is way up. Plus, the total freight market (among all modes) has increased dramatically since World War II. So even though railroads are carrying record volumes of freight, they still comprise only about 35-40 percent of the total market, with the rest of the nation's freight tonnage split among trucks, barges and pipelines.
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
I assume you mean to ask, are the freight railroads taking a different attitude toward passenger trains operating on their tracks?
If so, the corporate attitude depends on the corporation, among a few other factors. Railroads like CSX and Union Pacific have generally taken antagonistic views toward passenger trains. But even this isn't always the case (hence my use of the word "generally"). Union Pacific has been pretty accommodating of regional commuter trains in the Los Angeles area, but much of this is because a great deal of money was spent by the state to build extra main tracks, grade-separated junctions and the like, to increase mainline capacity. For example, on the Union Pacific tracks through Burbank California, more than 30 passenger trains each weekday travel through town. Only 20 years ago, there were just two passenger trains daily. But it also had only two main tracks 20 years ago, whereas today has three, with some segments having four main tracks.
Some corporations are more friendly to passenger trains, namely Norfolk Southern, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Corp., and even Burlington Northern-Santa Fe railroad. Norfolk Southern has indicated it would be willing to operate some passenger trains, as long as they were subsidized so the company didn't lose money. And, it won't allow passenger trains to disrupt its core business -- hauling freight. Thus, the same condition -- public funding for more track capacity -- that Union Pacific had prior to accepting more passenger trains on its tracks is something that Norfolk Southern is also requiring.
I'm not as familiar with the other two railroads I mentioned, but M-K-T has said it would be willing to operate passenger trains if a public subsidy was available. And, in the 1990s, when the State of Illinois put is contractually supported, Amtrak-operated passenger trains out for bid, BNSF was one of the bidders. Amtrak outbid them, and continues to operate Illinois-funded trains on three routes between Chicago and St. Louis, Carbondale, and Quincy.
If that wasn't what you're asking about, then I hope this was at least somewhat interesting to read!!!
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:29 am Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
Anyone have any ideas as to how much it would cost/how much energy it would consume to electrify the main route railroad lines in the U.S and fit our diesel-electric engines with the equipment to run on that electricity rather than that from the diesel generator?
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6972 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:53 am Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
This is great Peepers, I toss out a question and you have an answer, where do you get your expertise if I may ask? BTW if you don’t have the answers just say so and I’ll go try to look them up myself.
Anyway here is a couple more. What do you think is the mix of containerized vs old fashion boxcars and bulk freight?
And assuming less international trade in the future, what percentage of freight has either an origin or destination overseas? A reduction in foreign shipments would free up capacity/lower costs for domestic shipments.
Of course that brings up the question of whether the current reliance on containers and big warehouses means a change to smaller shipments would require a big investment in the old boxcar loaded with a pallet for Smith’s Grocery and one for Franks Hardware. I guess that rolling stock is a small part of the overall equation.
You mention about 50k miles of track gone. I assume many of those miles were the short line, town-to-town routes that couldn’t compete with the auto or truck. And that brings up the question of local stations. The nicest new passenger station I have seen was about a mile from my old house in Modesto Ca, on the BNSF line - Amtrak’s San Joaquin route. I believe it makes 10 or 12 trips up and down the valley.
In Ridgerunner’s great post on page 2, he explained how locals would deliver small loads 15-20 miles apart. My question is are those sidings and loading docks still there or is this again a small piece of the overall pie? _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:55 am Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
Regarding the electrification of main lines, a per-unit construction cost of about $2 million per mile for a double-track railroad is common (that includes substations, overhead electric catenary supports, wiring etc., but not locomotives). But that cost can vary widely on a number of factors, including geopgraphy, whether a proximate source of enough electricity is available, etc.
As for the amount of energy electrification would require, I can't tell you specifics but I can share a story with you. In the early 1980s, Ohio was planning a high-speed rail system, with up to 16 daily round-trip trains per route linking its major cities and those in surrounding states. The backers of the project approached the state's electric utilities for their support. While the utilities were supportive, it wasn't as much support as the backers would have liked. The reason? The trains wouldn't use enough electricity to make a big enough difference for them!
As for containerized traffic vs. all other rail freight, according to Railway Age, which prints a regular survey of car loadings from the Association of American Railroads, intermodal (containers, trailers) accounts for half of all car loadings. Now, that figure is a bit deceiving, because a couple of full-sized containers can fit into a single double-stack car (and double-stack cars often come in articulated sets of 3-5 units). Other kinds of freight car loadings, such as coal hoppers, tank cars, box cars and auto-racks are pretty much one car=one carloading. So I would suspect that the actual disposition of freight traffic is about one-third intermodal, two-thirds everything else.
I still believe that containerization will continue into the future, even if global commerce doesn't to the degree that it has. It's very easy to transfer a container from truck to train and back to truck as it travels through the distribution network. This is especially true as trucking companies face shortages of drivers and, ultimately, fuel. And, containerization lends itself to smaller shipments. But rail is not suited for local shipments. It's a paradox, because freight railroads perform better with the distance a unit of cargo is shipped, but passenger railroads are generally more efficient hauling people shorter distances (less than 500 miles).
And, you asked about my background. I write articles for railroad publications and newsletters (I'm editor of one of them) and do some consulting on rail, transportation, and land use planning for cities, environmental organizations and others. I've been doing this for about 20 years. It's the reason for my receding, graying hairline....
I've not seen much from railroad executives on this, but what I have seen is that they are at least casually interested. Having said that, they're always interested in things that reduce their costs.
I posted a series of news briefs here a couple of weeks ago, from Railway Age's website, about the railroad's traffic, profits, new railcar deliveries, etc. rising to record levels. But there is only so much they can do since railroads don't earn their cost of capital since they must finance capital construction projects through the private marketplace. Highways, aviation and waterways, on the other hand, have their capital construction projects financed by the government. Users of those transportation systems don't pay a bank's profit margin or interest, or for that matter property taxes and income taxes. But the railroads don't want to be funded in the same way.
I've not seen much from railroad executives on this, but what I have seen is that they are at least casually interested. Having said that, they're always interested in things that reduce their costs.
I posted a series of news briefs here a couple of weeks ago, from Railway Age's website, about the railroad's traffic, profits, new railcar deliveries, etc. rising to record levels. But there is only so much they can do since railroads don't earn their cost of capital since they must finance capital construction projects through the private marketplace. Highways, aviation and waterways, on the other hand, have their capital construction projects financed by the government. Users of those transportation systems don't pay a bank's profit margin or interest, or for that matter property taxes and income taxes. But the railroads don't want to be funded in the same way.
The railroads are the best approximation of the hallowed 'free market' at work in the U.S. They do well, in spite of subsidy upon subsidy given to truckers and airlines to prop up their respective industries. Kudos to railroads.
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
Yeah, I agree. It's really a testament to their efficiency...that's the only reason they are still around. Our gov't did just about everything possible to destroy them so they could get rich on GM stock.
Regarding passenger service...it would be great if we could get the freight roads interested in providing passenger service again. If there was some real profit incentive it in for them passenger service would likely get higher priority than it does now. I know the NS expressed interest in running commuter trains in the Pittsburgh area. Not sure what's come of that. From all I've read passenger service was never very lucrative for the RR's. I'm sure they are also wary from past experiences...i.e. in the 50's and 60's many RR's were required to run commuter service etc. even though it was in the red. The local govt's eventually began subsidizing the service, but not initially. I'm sure they don't want to get involved in that type of forced loss arrangement again.
Regarding the 50k of lost trackage...here in the northeast most of the trunk lines still operate. Many of the parallel competing lines built during the peak have been consolidated somewhat. I think you can safely say we have a 1940's era rail system in the US...that was the last time there were any major updates.
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:12 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
Backtosteam wrote:
I think you can safely say we have a 1940's era rail system in the US...that was the last time there were any major updates.
I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Are you referring to routes? I hope you aren't referring to technology because, if so, that's not a true statement at all.
Consider that the railroads have reduced employment from about 1.5 million in 1940 to less than 250,000 today, reduced route miles from 250,000 to about 150,000 today, yet are carrying more freight in 2005 --
1.5 trillion ton-miles of freight -- than at any time in their history. Much of this increase in traffic and productivity was achieved in the past 25 years since the deregulation of the rail industry. How did they achieve that?
On the technology side, let's start from the ground up:
> Tracks -- while wooden ties still dominate, railroads are increasingly using concrete ties on heavily trafficked mainlines and where train speeds in excess of 100 mph are routine. Concrete ties are heavier and hold tracks in place better, and last longer than wooden ties. Also, nearly every main railroad line today is laid with seamless welded rails, rather than short lengths of rail that are bolted together and had to be constantly maintained.
> Signal systems -- the old manual block system of having a staffed, trackside tower every 10-30 miles to control switches and pass trains along from one block operator to another gave way to trackside electronic signals in the years right after World War II. Now, those are giving way to GPS-based signal systems that display directly inside a locomotive's cab, and are allowing railroads to steadily retire the trackside signal systems (some are keeping the trackside system as a redundant/backup system). GPS also is used by railroads to track shipments, allowing greater efficiency of movement and improved customer service.
> Rail yards -- The equivalent of electronic bar-code readers allows yardmasters to sort and distribute freight cars more quickly and accurately, often using remote-control locomotives to make the sorting more cost-effective (but is very controversial for labor unions).
> Locomotives -- Today's locomotives are amazing places to work. They are clean, quiet, air conditioned and rely heavily on touch-screen computer controls. The computers have self-diagnostic features to ensure the power plant is operating at peak efficiency. And, speaking of the power plant, today's locomotives produce 2-4 times the horsepower and tractive effort of 1940's-era diesels, but with greater fuel efficiency. They allow railroads to haul longer and heavier trains than ever before.
> Rail Cars -- gone is the caboose, replaced with a telemetry unit that communicates brake pressure with the locomotive's computer to ensure that the rear of the train is receiving the right amount of brake pressure (or lack of pressure) as needed.
Today, there are a number of rail car designs in use that weren't even thought of in the 1940s. Piggybacked trailers were just starting to see limited applications in the 1940s. But the double-stack cars that were invented in the 1980s have revolutionized the railroad industry, allowing railroads to recapture the high-value, Less than Truck Load shipments.
Another is the tri-level auto rack car, for carrying finished automobiles. In the 1940s, new autos had to squeezed in boxcars, fitting only two at a time. A tri-level auto rack can fit up to 15 automobiles, with much faster loading and unloading. New, articulated auto racks can fit even more cars.
Plus, there are coiled-steel cars, 125-ton bathtub coal hoppers, spine cars for handling the explosive growth in intermodal traffic, plus there are other types of rail cars.
There's more, such as train crews whose shift now consists of an 8-hour day instead of finishing their shift after traveling only 100 miles (the distance covered in a day in 1900 when the standard came into practice, but the standard continued into the 1990s). Train crews are smaller in number, with an engineer and conductor, and sometimes an assistant engineer (formerly a fireman) or maybe a brakeman. In the old days of the 1980s (!), a train crew of four to five people was common. Now it's two to three people.
That's about it for now. It's past midnight, but I hope this shows how much things have changed. If you'd like to see more changes, see if you can get your hands on a copy of Railway Age magazine, or maybe Progressive Railroading. You might be able to get a complimentary copy from each magazine's website.
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
I was thinking in terms of ROW's when I wrote that we have efffectively a 1940's era rail system. I understand the RR's are much more effective today than in 1940...but if we didn't have other transportation options the RR's would need a trememdous amout of infrastructure built.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
