# America’s System of Rail Freight is the World’s Best



## MrFSS (Jul 28, 2010)

The problem with America's plans for high-speed rail is not their modesty. It is that even this limited ambition risks messing up the successful freight railways. Their owners worry that the plans will demand expensive train-control technology that freight traffic could do without. They fear a reduction in the capacity available to freight. Most of all they fret that the spending of federal money on upgrading their tracks will lead the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the industry watchdog, to impose tough conditions on them and, in effect, to reintroduce regulation of their operations. Attempts at re-regulation have been made in Congress in recent years, in response to rising freight rates.

*FULL STORY*


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 28, 2010)

MrFSS said:


> Their owners worry that the plans will demand expensive train-control technology that freight traffic could do without.


With all the accumulated nuclear waste we've built up that will take multiple decades to ship by train (and truck, according to the DOE) I want our freight trains to be a lot safer than they currently are. Sure, I wish this was the goal of the freight operators themselves, but history shows us they really can't be trusted to keep us safe, even from easily preventable derailments. This is nothing more than the typical whiny bellyaching of America's spoiled corporate culture.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jul 28, 2010)

This was a well written article. I have a clearer understanding of the concerns of freight railroads. While I am excited to see high speed passenger trains succeed, I think it is unfair to impose a such a financial burden on freight railroads. The only way this is really going to work, IMHO, is to increase capacity on segments that involve high speed service. When the author stated that one 110 mph passenger train displaced 6 potential freight trains, i wonder if this is for single track with passing sidings, or on a double track railroad.

On my recent ride on the Cascades between Portland and Seattle, I could see the problems of time keeping even on a well maintained double track rr. We were delayed only about 20 minutes, but I could clearly see that double tracking and good dispatching is not the entire solution. We were delayed waiting for south bound trains so we could cross over to to over take slower moving freight trains. Maybe additional cross overs that allow higher speeds would help, but I don't know.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 28, 2010)

I would considr this article anything but well written. A friend of mine from a previous job, who is now overseas, sent me the article. Here is my reply, with a few personal thoughts removed:

There are so many errors in the article, I hardly know where to begin. He starts off on the wrong foot with the title and first paragraph. The graphs and pictures are fairly good, but I have my doubts concerning the "Railway Junction" chart that shows the huge jump in productivity after deregulation with stagnation before it. This looks more like some form of cooked data.Some of his terms are downright silly: Freight trains "trundle along" at 50 mph, which is also not accurate. A lot of the western lines have freight train speed limits of 70 mph, and many of the major eastern lines 60 mph. New corridors with trains "rattling along" at 150 mph. I would hope that any train moving 150 mph is not rattling. "Swish" electrics. Just to name the most obvious.

For a couple of errors in very basic facts: Acela does not at any point run on tracks owned by any of the freight carriers. It runs entirely on tracks owned either by Amtrak or commuter agencies (Connecticut DOT, Mass Bay TA, and maybe NJT). As to moving little more than half that (in reference to 150 mph) aside from the gross inaccuracy of the statement, as the 75 mph minus portion is relatively limited, the lower speed in most places has little to do with the equipment of the lines and a lot to do an unwillingness to do the necessary rebuilding to achieve a high speed alignment. The only significant "line equipment" related speed restriction to my knowledge is the 135 mph limit due to fixed (not constant tension) centenary between New York and Washington. Without major curve realignment, removing this limit would save only a few minutes, anyway.

The common passenger train limit of 79 mph is based on an FRA signal regulation and the break point in FRA track safety standards, not insistence of the railroad companies.

The LA union station through tracks is a plan that has been in the works for something like 10 to 15 years and has nothing to do with the California high speed system. In fact, the proposed high speed train tracks into LA do not connect with the existing LA station tracks, but are either beside or above them, depending upon whose plan you see. The though tracks plan was/is to take something like 5 to 8 minutes out of the time of the trains to San Diego and other points that could logically have departures from the south end of the station. (I have an opinion on the quality of the track arrangement that I will not express here.)

The idea that the high speed plans will mess up the success on the freight side is complete nonsense. Since the US freight right of ways are almost entirely privately owned, attempts to disadvantage freight for the sake of publically operated passenger service crashes right into the wall of laws prohibiting public taking without adequate compensation or provision of alternate facilities.

I could go on and on but I won't.

The guy also seems to be unaware that quite a few of the people with real international expertise on high speed railroads can now be found in this country, as opposed to "we know our home country standards, and you will use them and like it" people that are salivating over the thought of getting to set the standards for use here.


----------



## mfastx (Jul 29, 2010)

I just don't see how HSR could ruin freight rail, when HSR would be on seperate tracks.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 29, 2010)

mfastx said:


> I just don't see how HSR could ruin freight rail, when HSR would be on seperate tracks.


In America "high speed rail" is just a euphemism for anything over 79 MPH. It will operate on the exact same tracks as our freight trains because we'll never spend (or probably ever have) the kind of money necessary to build separate passenger routes.


----------



## mfastx (Jul 30, 2010)

daxomni said:


> mfastx said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't see how HSR could ruin freight rail, when HSR would be on seperate tracks.
> ...


Not the HSR they are building in Florida. In all cases, they will upgrade the technology on existing routes, allowing the trains to run faster. This will allow freight and passenger trains to co-exist. The idea that HSR will ruin freight rail is rediculus. What does that mean? That freight is more important than human beings?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 30, 2010)

mfastx said:


> What does that mean? That freight is more important than human beings?


Not at all. It simply means that Chinese made consumables are far more important than American pensioners.


----------



## leemell (Jul 30, 2010)

mfastx said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > mfastx said:
> ...


That is not true in California either with a total length approaching 1000 miles. They slated to build all new track. There is a disputed section where it is very tight in the Fullerton area. On the other hand, railroad freight lines own most of the track and can hardly be expected to jump up and down over sharing those with any HSR. Those lines perform a gigantic operating balancing act every day to turn enough profit to keep everything running now and in the future and still pay their shareholders.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2010)

George hits the nail on the head. It seems to me that _the Economist_ probably had a chat with someone from _AAR _and decided to write an article about AAR's position on the matter.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 31, 2010)

jis said:


> George hits the nail on the head. It seems to me that _the Economist_ probably had a chat with someone from _AAR _and decided to write an article about AAR's position on the matter.


I doubt it. There was simply too much completely wrong information in there for the AAR to have anything to do with it. Even if disagreeing with their opinions and conclusions, at least their basic facts are correct, which was not the case in this article.

The most glaring error, that Acela makes parts of its run on tracks owned by the freight companies. I would like to know where that is, because I sure can't think of any. The ownership of Boston to Washington is, to the best of my knowledge, and anyone feel free to correct my errors:

Boston to some point southwest thereof: MBTA

from that point to New Haven: Amtrak

From New Haven to the New York state line: Connecticut DOT

From theat point to somewhere toward Penn Station: NY state DOT / Metro North.

Through Penn Station to some point southeast thereof: Either Amtrak, New Jersey Transit, or some combination thereof.

from that point to Washington DC: Amtrak, unless some of the Philadelphia area is owned by SEPTA.

Acelas do not go south of DC, and cannot due to lack of overhead power source.


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2010)

George Harris said:


> I doubt it. There was simply too much completely wrong information in there for the AAR to have anything to do with it. Even if disagreeing with their opinions and conclusions, at least their basic facts are correct, which was not the case in this article.


Upon reflection, I agree



> The most glaring error, that Acela makes parts of its run on tracks owned by the freight companies. I would like to know where that is, because I sure can't think of any.


There isn't any.



> The ownership of Boston to Washington is, to the best of my knowledge, and anyone feel free to correct my errors:
> 
> Boston to some point southwest thereof: MBTA


Boston South Station to MA/RI State line is owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts but maintained and dispatched by Amtrak under a long term contract.



> from that point to New Haven: Amtrak
> 
> From New Haven to the New York state line: Connecticut DOT
> 
> From that point to somewhere toward Penn Station: NY state DOT / Metro North.


Upto CP216 or what used to be known as Shell interlocking where the Hell Gate Line and the GCT line separate.



> Through Penn Station to some point southeast thereof: Either Amtrak, New Jersey Transit, or some combination thereof.
> 
> from that point to Washington DC: Amtrak, unless some of the Philadelphia area is owned by SEPTA.


CP216 to Washington DC is Amtrak. None of the NEC spine is owned by NJ or PA or their respective transit agencies.



> Acelas do not go south of DC, and cannot due to lack of overhead power source.


That bit about an HSR eating up six freight slots seems to be a direct quote from what CSX said to NY State - just as a random observation.


----------



## Moses (Sep 22, 2010)

Interesting 2007 report for Montana Rail Cargo.

http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/pubs/UnionPacificReport.pdf

(Originating and terminating, not counting bridge traffic; total shipments = 40 million tons)

Coal, 28, 69%

Petroleum products,

4, 10%

Farm products

(mostly grain), 3,

8%

Glass and stone

products, 0.5, 1%

Chemicals, 0.25,

1%

Lumber and wood

products, 2, 5%

Food products,

Other, 2, 5% 0.25, 1%

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/railways/railcomp_study.pdf


----------



## WICT106 (Sep 23, 2010)

Guys, if we don't make our voices heard, there will not be any high speed rail anywhere in the US. The political rhetoric is getting quite loud here in the Midwest.


----------

