"The Economist" lauds success of USA's freight railways

MGWR

Only 17 percent of revenues (fully private, with only a minimum of government investiture in a number of cases, mostly localised) go into infrastructure, to support extremely heavy freight trains that run at about 75 mph top speeds. (A lesson for Eire?) If not for the Federal Railroad Administration, there would have been "fast freights" running at 90 mph or better, though (BNSF has some tracks that are 90-mph compliant but only for passenger trains).

Link

Europeans have long pitied Americans for their rotten passenger trains. But when it comes to moving goods, America has a well-kept freight network that is the most cost-effective in the world.

It is, however, a capital-intensive business. Since the Staggers Act of 1980 deregulated the sector, rail companies have invested about 17% of their revenues in their networks. This is about half a trillion dollars of private money over the past three decades.

Even the American Society of Civil Engineers, which howls incessantly (and predictably) about the awful state of the nation’s infrastructure, shows grudging respect for goods railways in a recent report. ...

Sponge Bob

MGWR wrote: »

to support extremely heavy freight trains that run at about 75 mph top speeds.

We can hardly get passenger trains to run at those speeds here. They used to but a combination of Health Safety and Timetable Padding obviated the need.

Captain Chaos

Our freight rolling stock is all limited to 50mph by IE anyway, even the air braked wagons that can be used up to 75mph.

Sponge Bob

I doubt if a single freight train EVER hit 75mph here in the last 50 years.

D'lads want to stretch their overtime out.

MGWR

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I doubt if a single freight train EVER hit 75 mph here in the last 50 years.

D'lads want to stretch their overtime out.

Thought that there were no more Working Time Directive opt-outs?

In the USA, I believe, train crews by law can't work more than four hours overtime per day. Even with all the money that crew members do make, the railway company still makes a very good bundle.

Cookie_Monster

The US has the advantage of huge distances to cover to make it worthwhile and can double stack containers within the loading gauge which effective double the freight carried per given unit. Both of which give considerable benefits over Ireland, not to mention the speed.

MGWR

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The US has the advantage of huge distances to cover to make it worthwhile and can double stack containers within the loading gauge which effective double the freight carried per given unit. Both of which give considerable benefits over Ireland, not to mention the speed.

That's not the point. Double stacking is not universal with US freight haulage, besides, and that applies only to the container part of the business; boxcars, refrigerator cars, tanker cars et al all have a much smaller loading gauge by themselves. The point relates to fully-privatised companies being able to invest in infrastructure out of their own pockets, and being able to be a profitable enterprise even while competing with trucking that uses state-built roads financed by taxpayers. In other words, get the government out of the way completely, which is something that the UK was not able to do.

corktina

i can't see the point, Railroads in the US have always been big players in the freight market because the economies of moving large tonnages over great distances are in their favour as well as long sections with few junctions and curves which allows higher speeds.In fact the direct opposite of Irish conditions.

the_syco

Instead of looking at success of USA's freight railways, pick a state that doesn't have much desert, and a sea port, and then compare it to Ireland.

Cookie_Monster

the_syco wrote: »

Instead of looking at success of USA's freight railways, pick a state that doesn't have much desert, and a sea port, and then compare it to Ireland.

Hawaii is about the only comparable state then. All the rest have heavy connectivity to their surrounds

Duggys Housemate

freight also has priority there. I can't see IRish passengers putting up with pulling into a siding to let a faster freight train past.

corktina

THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJDIFUOsZQ0 is Railfreight! (turn up the sound!

dowlingm

Freight has priority where the track is owned by the freight company. Even then the Surface Transportation Board (for US lines) can make them up their maintenance if their lack of maintenance means that passenger trains lose an inordinate amount of time.

I honestly can't see how mile long trains pulled by several engines as big or bigger than a 201 equates to any freight flow in Ireland that lessons might be learned from.

That being said, a lot of "closed" lines in Ireland would be carrying freight flows at 5mph with track warrants rather than signals and indicator lights rather than automatic or manual barriers if a US shortline owned them.

MGWR

dowlingm wrote: »

Freight has priority where the track is owned by the freight company. Even then the Surface Transportation Board (for US lines) can make them up their maintenance if their lack of maintenance means that passenger trains lose an inordinate amount of time.

I honestly can't see how mile long trains pulled by several engines as big or bigger than a 201 equates to any freight flow in Ireland that lessons might be learned from.

That being said, a lot of "closed" lines in Ireland would be carrying freight flows at 5mph with track warrants rather than signals and indicator lights rather than automatic or manual barriers if a US shortline owned them.

A lot of "dark territory" (track warrant) short lines haul freight at speeds between 45 mph and 60 mph, depending on the volume. If a private owner has to move trains at 5 mph in Ireland, then that would be the government's thumb pushing down too hard.

Passenger rail is grossly over-regulated in the USA; it's been that way for ages, and while Staggers de-regulated freight, the passenger regulations were not lessened. And no, the STB does not get on Amtrak's side when travelling on privately-owned railway lines; if Amtrak misses their slot (which they frequently do), they have to wait for the next slot. (Amtrak would not even exist but for government meddling.)

MGWR

corktina wrote: »

THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJDIFUOsZQ0 is Railfreight! (turn up the sound!)

Norfolk Southern wants to increase capacity on that line. Of course, it didn't help that the capacity on parallel-running lines was decreased (e.g. Pennsylvania RR main line/Trenton Cut-off, former Central of New Jersey main line)...what makes things worse is that if passenger rail could be restored on that line, it'd be the shortest rail route between New York and Harrisburg.

dowlingm

MGWR wrote: »

And no, the STB does not get on Amtrak's side when travelling on privately-owned railway lines; if Amtrak misses their slot (which they frequently do), they have to wait for the next slot.

It's not just about slot dispatching, it's about consistent causation of delay.

Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act 2008 creates metrics which the freight roads must pay heed to, and Section 213 gives Amtrak the ability to complain to the STB for ongoing delays exceeding those envisaged in S.207. In January 2012, Amtrak lodged the first such complaint with STB, against CN (docket No. NOR 42134).

Those proceedings are ongoing, and were delayed by a lawsuit by AAR against the Department of Transportation claiming PRIIA is unconstitutional - this was decided in favour of the government by the US District Court for DC.

Opinion of Boasberg J. wrote:

To ensure the continued vitality of passenger rail service, accordingly, Congress obligated the freight railroads to lease their tracks and facilities to Amtrak. See 49 U.S.C. § 24308(a). Congress also provided that Amtrak’s intercity passenger trains would generally take “preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing.” Id. § 24308(c).