Pat Foran

John Fenton and the process at Patriot Rail

2012-09-15T16:14:00Z

During a recent interview, new Patriot Rail CEO John Fenton told me he was a "Deming" person, citing a quote from statistical quality control (and other adjectives) guru W. Edwards Deming: "If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing." Fenton, who's served several Class Is, Waste Management Inc. and California's Metrolink post-Chatsworth, is much more than a process articulator, of course. His pursuit of total safety culture and ability to leave organizations in a better place than he found them resonate beyond the rail realm. Colleagues past and present that I talked with say they're better for having worked with him. As longtime railroader and Fenton fan Ab Rees told me: "Basically, John's the best manager I've ever seen." For more on Fenton's career path, why he took it and why he believes he can make his dream of building at Patriot Rail what he calls "the right kind of railroad holding company" come true, read the story that appears in our September issue.

Tomorrow's State of the Union address

2012-01-25T16:45:00Z

In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama restated his commitment to ("vision" for) U.S. higher-speed rail. He also acknowledged freight rail's role in U.S. economic growth and prosperity, and called for investment in U.S. infrastructure. Will he name-check rail in his 2012 address tomorrow (Jan. 26) ... and if so, in what context? Predictions? Thoughts? Related tangents?

Global economic change & ‘The Morning After’

2009-04-30T21:42:00Z

This afternoon, I listened to an interesting (and sobering and, depending on your state of mind, possibly optimistic) summit of sorts via an online replay of the Port of Tacoma’s Annual Breakfast, which was held April 29. The theme: “The Morning After: Meeting the Challenges of Global Economic Change.”

Walter Kemmsies, Moffatt & Nichol’s chief economist, delivered a keynote (theme: the economic malaise and a path to recovery). He then moderated a panel that included, among others, two noted railroaders: John Kaiser, Union Pacific Railroad’s vice president and general manager of intermodal and marketing sales, and Fred Malesa, BNSF Railway Co.’s VP of international marketing.

A few sound bites:

* Kemmsies: "The bullish story is we didn’t have a Great Depression [but] the not-so-bullish point is we’ve dug a very deep hole, and you don’t get out of a deep hole in one jump. We’re going to have to climb our way out of this. … We’ve migrated from the label of ‘horrible’ to something that’s a little more stable.”

* Kemmsies: “I don’t think the Panama Canal expansion will have as much of an impact as some people think.”

* Mike Lingerfelt, president, Washington United Terminals: “I think [the Panama Canal expansion] will have a huge bearing on the West Coast.”

* Kaiser: “We’ve invested $17 billion since 2003 on the Union Pacific network, most of that focused on intermodal and energy. … These are transcon moves where we can literally move probably 40 to 50 percent more freight [than we were able to in] ‘04 or ’05. Now that [volume] has fallen off a bit, today, it’s more like 60 to 70 percent more freight. So we’re ready. And, candidly, we have to make sure we don’t forgo that on a long-term basis.

* Kemmsies: In the United States, exports “will probably grow faster than imports, but after 2012, we’ll see the old trends will reassert themselves and see import volumes go faster than exports.”

* Malesa: “I think 2012 is a stretch in terms of recovery. … I see a lot of different econometric views and forecasts, but just from a customer perspective, and with what we have in front of us in terms of ocean carriers … I would probably bring that forward a bit [to] toward the end of 2010 … with the economy picking up a little more speed or pace in 2011.”

* Tim Farrell, executive director, the Port of Tacoma, whose 14.7 percent Q1 volume decline was the “best” (as in lowest decline compared with Q1 2008 volume) among West Coast ports: “We don’t see a recovery any time soon.”

* Malesa: “We don’t know what the ‘new normal’ is going to be; we don’t know if that’s going to be [normal as in] 2005-2006, but this economy will rebound, the U.S. consumer will get back in the game — we’ll all get back in the game. There will be a rebound ... and we’ll have to figure out how to accommodate it.”

View the replay here.

Obama’s ‘Vision for High-Speed Rail in America’ elicits prompt (and positive) feedback

2009-04-16T20:30:00Z

Unveiled this morning, the Obama Administration’s “Vision for High-Speed Rail in America” elicited an outpouring of largely supportive sentiment from passenger-rail advocates, rail industry organizations and other interested constituencies. Among those issuing public statements:

• The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) on behalf of its 1,500 members: “[APTA] applauds President Barack Obama for his vision in developing much needed high-speed rail in the United States, which will change the way Americans travel.” Added APTA Chair Beverly Scott, who also serves as the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s general manager and CEO: “High-speed rail will not only be good for mobility, but it will be good for reducing our nation’s carbon footprint, for attaining energy independence and for creating economic prosperity.” … APTA President Bill Millar chimed in thusly: “This high-speed rail strategic plan signals a major step forward in transportation policy. The American public transportation industry stands ready to work with President Obama and his Administration to truly create an interconnected, intermodal transportation system. Finally, America is stepping up to the plate to develop high-speed rail like other countries around the world have.”

• The National Association of Rail Passengers (NARP): “It was truly an honor to be present when, for the first time in my 34 years with the Association, a president of the United States delivered a speech on passenger trains that I would have been proud to have authored, backed up by the unprecedented $9.3 billion for intercity passenger trains in the Economic Recovery law,” said Ross Capon, NARP’s president and chief executive officer. President Obama “hit exactly the right tone” by “underlining the many reasons why we need to invest in passenger trains … noting that the tasks at hand include both improvement of existing rail lines so trains can go faster and creation of world-class high-speed systems such as Californians voted for in November … and emphasizing that the Recovery law funds and the $5 billion planned for future budgets represent ‘just a first step.”’ Capon added that NARP’s board recently voted to make President Obama the first sitting president to be honored with the group’s George Falcon Golden Spike Award.

• The Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC), which for the past 15 years has pushed for a Midwest high-speed rail network, praised President Obama’s “vision for a modern high-speed rail network that will transform America’s transportation system.” Added ELPC Executive Director Howard Learner: “The President’s strategic plan and vision gets modern, fast, comfortable and convenient trains on the fast track to connect our cities. High-speed rail development can create new jobs now, spur regional economic growth, and improve our environment by reducing pollution.”

• Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association: “I had the honor of attending this press conference today. It was very exciting to hear the President set a new agenda for transportation. … The President laid out two priorities: fixing existing routes to reduce transit times and constructing new world-class high-speed rail lines.”

• The Association of American Railroads on behalf of U.S. freight railroads: “We applaud the President's leadership in recognizing the importance of rail to the future of our nation’s transportation network. Just as freight rail provides significant environmental benefits to Americans, so too will the expansion of high-speed rail passenger service. … As members of the OneRail Coalition, we support expanded use of both freight and passenger rail in this country. … However, it is essential that improvements aimed at developing high-speed passenger routes do not ignore freight rail’s need to move our nation’s goods. … We look forward to working with the Administration, Congress and the states to see that the promise of expanded freight and high-speed passenger rail is realized.”

• And this from EMBARQ - The World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport, a non-profit organization that develops transport solutions for cities: “The President is on the right track,” said Nancy Kete, director. “The new plan to integrate high-speed rail with urban transit will help reduce congestion and make cities better places to live. … But there's a missing mode in the plan. To complement rail, we also need to help cities build high-quality, high-capacity bus rapid transit systems, which can offer good high-speed service, but at a fraction of the cost of rail.” To that end, the Obama Administration ought to consider new “pricing policies,” such as raising fuel taxes and charging car commuters when they drive on downtown streets during rush hour, Kete said. “This will not only cut traffic and clear air pollution, but it will also raise much-needed revenue for better transportation services, including mass transit expansion and highway maintenance,” she added.

A marketgram from India

2009-03-19T20:58:00Z

Last month, industry consultant/globetrotter Bob McIntire traveled to India to visit with officials from the India Ministry of Railways. The 64,000-kilometer Indian Railways is in the initial stages of what McIntire termed a “huge project concerning dedicated freight corridors” — plans call for doubling and perhaps tripling lines on highly congested routes. In all, the railway will add more than 10,000 rail kilometers during the next five years, said McIntire, president of The McIntire Group, which (among other things) conducts market-entry studies, and helps clients develop foreign custom and agent contacts.

Here are a few of his trip takeaways:

• Records set for two straight years. The Indian Railways are “highly profitable,” as McIntire put it in a trip write-up, hauling such commodities as iron ore, coal, steel, oil, grain, fertilizer, cement and food grains. The railway set records in several categories — from revenue ton miles to return on investment to profit — in 2006 and again in 2007, McIntire wrote. The 2008 figures weren’t available, but railway officials told him that they estimated freight revenue would be up 13 percent year over year. They also projected an ’08 operating ratio of about 81.4.

• Moving forward in the face of global recession. Although India’s economy hasn’t been untouched by the far-reaching economic crisis, it’s still on track to be the world’s third largest, in terms of gross domestic product, by 2010 (behind the United States and China) — and the demand for rail transport will grow accordingly. To keep pace, the railway is stepping up its investment plans. “Their requirement for the next five years is between $45 billion to $50 billion,” he wrote.

• New terminals are being constructed. They’ll be equipped with modern handling facilities, and terminal developers are being asked to invest in special-purpose wagons.

• They’re investing in wagons. The 210,000-wagon inventory is aging, and aging rapidly, so the railway’s 2009 budget calls for the procurement of anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 new wagons with “more sophisticated” bogies, McIntire wrote. In addition, a new leasing policy has been instituted as a way to “increase the availability of wagons in the system,” he added. Meanwhile, The India Ministry of Railways’ Research & Design Standards Organization has developed 25-ton axle load wagons, and the Indian Railways is encouraging private builders to come up with new designs. The aim is to “simplify procedures” in order to “advance the latest technology,” McIntire wrote.

• They need power, too. The Indian Railways currently owns 150 diesel, 120 electric and 1,400 switching locomotives. “It is interesting to note that the railways have decided to throw open the manufacture of locomotives to the private sector,” McIntire wrote, adding that GE and Electro-Motive Diesel are among those competing to build and supply 1,000 diesel engines over an eight-year period. The railway owns 4,800 diesel units and 3,200 electric units; 250 to 300 are being built, and more than 400 are being upgraded annually. Several steel mills also have their own locomotives. “For example, Bhilai Steel owns over 200 of their own locomotives attached to eight manufacturing mills,” McIntire wrote.

Pictures (as in lots of them) at Exhibition: 'The West the Railroads Made' opens March 7 at Barriger Library

2009-03-06T21:57:00Z

Conrail President & COO Ron Batory, a trustee at the John W. Barriger III National Railroad Library in St. Louis, sent me the following information and I thought I’d share it:

Tomorrow (March 7), “The West the Railroads Made” exhibit will open at the Mercantile Library at the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL). Sponsored by the Barriger Library at UMSL’s Mercantile Library and the Washington State Historical Society, the national traveling exhibit is free and open to the public.

The exhibit “tells the story of how America’s railroads and the West helped shape each other,” according to a UMSL press release. “More than transportation, the railroads changed the character of the country’s population [and] constructed their own landscape with bridges, depots and towns, and promoted agriculture, mining and ranching on an enormous scale.”

The 4,000+-square-foot exhibit comprises paintings, photographs, 3D objects, video, audio and interactive media, including Barriger Library artifacts. It also features exhibits from more than 20 other institutions, including the Smithsonian, the Frontier Army Museum and Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc.

“Most Americans don’t have a grasp of the significance of how the railroads shaped the West, and how they influenced our economy, society and culture,” said Barriger Railroad Library Director Greg Ames. “One of the goals of this exhibit is to bring railroads back into the public consciousness.”

The exhibit curators — UMSL professor of history and transportation studies Carlos Schwantes, and University of Tulsa professor of history James Ronda — also have penned a 200-page book titled “The West the Railroads Made.”

In conjunction with tomorrow’s opening, the Barriger also is celebrating its 25th anniversary. The guest of honor at the reception? Matt Rose, BNSF Railway Co.’s chairman, president and CEO.

“The West the Railroads Made” will run at UMSL through Sept. 20. For more information, visit the Barriger Web site or call 314-516-7240.

A post-'Railroad Day' post (part 3)

2009-03-03T13:59:00Z

A recap of the four legislative sessions I sat in on during the afternoon on Railroad Day on Capitol Hill,” held Feb. 26 in D.C.:

1 p.m. — The office of U.S. Rep. John Boccieri (D-Ohio): A first-termer, the congressman is one of the newest members of the House T&I Committee. He was a little late getting to the session, so Legislative Director Chad Tanner started the conversation in the hall outside the freshman congressman’s office, which wasn’t large enough to accommodate the dozen or so rail advocates. Talking first (and eloquently) was Todd Portune, vice president of the Hamilton County (Ohio) Board of Commissioners. “We view investments in rail infrastructure as key to an economic turnaround,” he said as he sported a “436” pin. Tanner noted it and said he knew what it referred to. Portune proceeded to present all of Railroad Day’s key points. (“What we don't want to do is over-regulate the rail industry, and there’s some potential for legislation that would do that — it could standardize rates, which wouldn't be competitive.” ... “We see a great opportunity here to align local government with state government and the federal government to create an economic turnaround. From Ohio’s standpoint, we have to retain our competitiveness. Our message is, we hope you will support the tax-credit bills, because railroads help make us competitive.”) A few railroaders in the group then chimed in, offering up a brief history about rail life, pre-Staggers environment (“Staggers eliminated bureaucratic control,”" said Norfolk Southern Corp.’s Bill Harris. “What we have now is balanced regulation.”) By this time, Rep. Boccieri had arrived. “My family has an affinity for railroading,” he assured the group. “We want to be helpful.” It was a statement he’d reiterate a few times during the next few minutes. He added that he was looking forward to doing some heavy lifting on the T&I Committee. When asked what it felt like to be one of the new congressmen on the block, Boccieri said: “It kind of feels like multiple rookie-league at-bats vs. Nolan Ryan,” he said, eliciting laughter. “But, again, I want to be helpful.”

1:30 p.m. — The office of U.S. Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pa.): A half-dozen visitors meet with Rep. Dent, a third-termer who also serves on the T&I Committee. The first question for a Dent staffer who entertained the group before Dent arrived: Would the congressman consider opposing any measure that aims to further regulate the rail industry? A longtime railroader who worked for the erstwhile Penn Central expressed the hope that “the Pennsylvania delegation can provide the leadership and tell the others that ‘This is what can happen’ if you increase economic regulation. Just the hint of that coming back scares the heck out of equity. We don't need that again.” And when it comes to antitrust, said another railroader, the “shipper community already has a place to go — the STB.” Even so, Dent’s district is home to at least a few unhappy shippers, the staffer said — something Dent, who’d just walked in, acknowledged. “I’ll be honest with you — I do get concerns from all sides on this,” he said. “The cost to file a [STB] rate case seems to be the principle issue. I have utilities and cement companies, the big industrials, who've called.” A somewhat puzzled railroader asked: “So it’s the filing fees and not us?” It’s not that clear cut, Dent responded. “They always bring it up in a ‘re-reg’ context,” he said. “Again, I’ve not said I’m supporting any of these bills, but I’m getting a lot of heat for it at home.” It'd help, Dent suggested, if railroads could meet with these concerned shippers, something the rail folks in the room seemed amenable to. Meanwhile, Dent told the lobbyists for the day that he was on board for the short-line tax credit extension and that he “probably will co-sponsor the Class I [tax credit] bill.” Then, as abruptly as he’d entered the room, the congressman left it. “I apologize for having to go vote, but thank you all for coming,” he said.

2 p.m. — The office of U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.): The 10th-term congressman representing Manhattan doesn’t suffer fools. And if it’s on his mind, he speaks it. “This mortgage cram-down thing is so elementary – it should be easy to get through,” he said, sitting down behind his desk after returning from the House floor. A member of the House T&I Committee, Nadler backs the short-line tax credit — “I support that kind of thing, as you know,” he said to Anacostia & Pacific Co. Inc.'s Bruce Lieberman — but the congressman said he couldn’t comment on a new version of Rep. Oberstar’s “competition" bill because there was nothing yet to comment on. “If he pushes it again, we'll look at it again,” Nadler said, adding that he thought he’d agreed with some of what the previous one contained but not with all of it. When one of the half-dozen visitors referred to a measure that Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) has suggested he’d reintroduce as a “bill to overturn Staggers,” Nadler cut her off. “No one's advocating the overturn of Staggers,” he said. “Nobody’s that crazy. Not even any liberal Democrats like me.”

3 p.m. — The office of the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): There's something of a culture shock when you leave the House buildings via the little “subway” and arrive at the essence of ornate (at least in a U.S. federal building context) that is the Capitol, where Speaker Pelosi’s office is. The Speaker won't be able to meet with this group of (mostly) Californians, which for the most part include Class I and short-line railroad reps on this visit. “It's kind of a crazy day today — the President's budget was released, and we kind of want to look at it,” Lara Levison, a Pelosi staffer, told the group. Jalene Forbis, representing the McCloud Railway Co. as well as the California Short Line Railroad Association, cut to the chase, spelling out the issues of the day, including the “green" message, “436” pins included. “Oh yeah — there’s an ad campaign on that,” Levison said. As Forbis discussed the short-line tax credit and the need to extend it (“Now is the time to build capacity so we’re ready when the economy comes back”), Levison reminded the group that the Speaker “doesn’t co-sponsor bill very often, but a person in the office handles tax policy.” Union Pacific Railroad's Mike Rock made the case for the Class I tax credit (“It’d help us invest more than we already do”) while expressing concern about “regulatory actions that would dampen our ability to invest,” characterizing his concerns about the Baldwin bill and the various iterations of the Rockefeller/Oberstar measures in the process. Levison nodded, jotted a few notes, and said: “I’ve heard about these issues once or twice.” At meeting's end, she invited the visitors to take in the unparalleled panoramic views of D.C. that the Speaker's balcony affords. Nothing like a little perspective on a long day, especially with even longer ones to come for legislators and the rail lobby alike as the rules (and the language used to frame them) of the surface transportation reauthorization road begin to take shape.

For more "Railroad Day on Capitol Hill" notes, see "A post-'Railroad Day' post (part 1)" and "A post-'Railroad Day' post (part 2).

A post-'Railroad Day' post (part 2)

2009-03-03T13:40:00Z

A recap of the four legislative sessions I sat in on during the morning on Railroad Day on Capitol Hill,” held Feb. 26 in D.C.:

9:15 a.m. — The office of U.S. Rep. Bill Foster (D.-Ill.): The second-term congressman, who lately has been spending a lot of time in House Committee on Financial Services meetings, couldn’t make this particular appointment, so the dozen or so rail lobbyists in the room, which included officials from Chicago-area suppliers, contractors and Class Is, told Foster staffer Pete Judge that they'd like the congressman to support both tax credit measures but not the Baldwin bill (“Railroads already are covered under antitrust law,” said one). And when they began to talk up rail’s “green” qualities, Judge interjected — “Yes, I saw the ‘436’ pin” — and then added: “The congressman understands that for transporting cross country, rail is the most efficient way.” He also noted that even though the congressman “wasn't happy with CN” (he was referring to the Class I’s EJ&E deal but didn’t elaborate), and that when it comes to transportation issues, the congressman “trusts [Jim] Oberstar,” the Minnesota Democrat who chairs the House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee and is believed to be preparing to reintroduce a “competition” bill that railroads historically have deemed “re-regulatory,” Rep. Foster was “not looking to reinvent the wheel in any way” with respect to rail legislation.

9:45 a.m. — The office of U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.): The congressman championed the original short-line tax credit legislation in 2003, and he’s a co-sponsor of H.R. 1132, which aims to extend short lines’ tax credits from Dec. 31, 2009, to Dec. 31, 2012. It wasn’t lost on this group of 10 or so, which was short-line top-heavy and thanked Mr. Moran for his support and his attentive staff for their efforts. They also wanted to make it clear that they didn’t take that support for granted. From The Watco Cos. Inc., Terry Towner and Ed McKechnie cited infrastructure projects that wouldn’t have happened had it not been for the tax credit, and they added that they’d prefer for the program to be included in the next transportation bill. “That's a noble aspiration,” Moran said, adding that “we need to do everything we can to make the extension as long as possible.” He also said he’d support the “Class I” tax credit, reminding the group why he supports the concept: “I'm not here supporting railroads — I’m supporting their customers.” The group also told the congressman they were wary of the potential for bills to be introduced that’d increase railroad regulation, but struggled to steer clear of the use of the “re-reg” word. When told of the change in thinking, Moran said, chuckling: “I’m going to have to get used to this. You guys have said that for so long ... [but] in today’s political climate, I can see why you're taking that approach.”

10 a.m. — The office of U.S. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.): The crowd for the meeting with Mica, the House T&I Republican Committee leader, was so large (three dozen or so) that it had to be moved from the congressman’s office to a T&I Committee hearing room. And Mr. Mica was his usual quotable self: “There was far too little infrastructure in the stimulus bill — it was pitiful. I want to know where you were if you weren’t supporting my effort to double it.” ... “I have a pretty stilted view on transportation as it involves rail. I believe it has to be a strong component with every major transportation initiative we take — both freight and passenger." ... “There is going to be a very robust effort to include you [rail] in the next transportation bill. And I’m trying to get us to develop a strategic national transportation plan, and a coherent, comprehensive planning process to make that come about." ... “And then there’s my ‘437-Day Plan’ — I want it for all modes. It’s modeled after the [I-35] bridge we repaired over the Mississippi River in Minnesota. It might have taken seven to eight years, normally, to complete, but that got done in 437 days. There is no reason we can't do infrastructure projects more quickly. We’ve made a cottage industry of studies.” When a self-described “private investor” in transportation shared his concerns about “rate reasonableness” and the potential for regulatory involvement in monitoring same in this still-emerging political climate, Mica said: “When government takes anything over, you want fairness and equity in the process — particularly rates. But we’ll get there. We have to create an atmosphere that’s conducive to public-private partnerships and creative financing.” For what it’s worth, he added, his Democratic counterpart — House T&I Committee Chair Oberstar — also “strongly supports that we continue to make it very attractive for rail to invest.”

11:30 a.m. — The office of U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.): There was a lot going on The Hill on this day, and nowhere was it more evident than within the activity swirling around and within the congresswoman's office. “I've got to tell you — there’s 1,000 things going on today,” she said, bursting into her office. “I was just on the [House] floor, talking about the bankruptcy bill, and I want to know: Why can't we open them up to credit unions? But that's not why you’re all here to see me.” No, it isn't, the group told Brown, who chairs the Railroad Subcommittee of the House T&I Committee. They were there to talk tax credits, balanced regulation, rail’s “green” qualities. Brown said she supports the tax-credit bills (“I am going to push it — if we can invest in the industry now, it’d be one way to jumpstart the economy”), but suggested the lobbyists for the day also rally their members and make sure they talk up the need, as well. “We need to hear from them on this.”) When asked if she believed there might be a rail title in the next surface transportation bill, Brown said: “We’ve been discussing it. I spoke with Mr. Mica yesterday and he indicated to me it should be part of the bill. Stimulus was a one-time shine. What we're talking about is a long-time shine.” When asked about the — and this time, the word was used — "re-reg" bill, she said: “We're working through it with the shippers because we're all partners ... [but] I don’t think it’s the way to go. It would set us back.”

See “A post-‘Railroad Day’ post (part 3)” for a summary of four afternoon sessions ... or return to part 1 (for reference etc.).

A post-'Railroad Day' post (part 1)

2009-03-03T13:15:00Z

This multi-part post is materializing a few days later than I’d planned, but so it goes. On Thursday, Feb, 26, I attended “Railroad Day on Capitol Hill” along with 300 people from various walks of rail life — freight railroads, transits, suppliers, consultants, shippers and other interested observers. What these lobbyists for the day descended upon D.C. to do:

• convince lawmakers to support the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2009 (H.R. 272), which would provide a 25 percent tax credit for any business that invests in new track, sidings, intermodal facilities, locomotives or other rail infrastructure;

• urge them to extend the Section 45G short-line tax credit (S. 461/H.R. 1132), which provides small railroads credits for infrastructure improvements and is set to expire at year’s end;

• talk up the “rail is an extraordinarily environmentally friendly” mode message and ornament it by wearing a “436” lapel pin, which many of the Day's attendees did (U.S. roads move a town of freight an average of 436 miles on one gallon of fuel); and

• oppose Sen. Herb Kohl’s (D-Wis.) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s (D-Wis.) reintroduction of the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act (S. 146/H.R. 233), which proposes to repeal railroads’ antitrust exemptions ... along with any as-yet-to-be-introduced measures that they believe would inhibit rail investment (i.e., anything that’d further regulate freight railroads … although notably there is now a concerted effort to tone down the "battle lines are being drawn" rhetoric and wean themselves off the use of "them’s fightin’ words" terms like "re-reg" and replace them with the likes of "balanced" and "reasonable" regulation — a bit more on that in the “Context” column that’ll appear in the March issue of Progressive Railroading).

I spent most of the Day slumming in the three "houses" that are home to the House of Representatives: Rayburn, Longworth and Cannon, with a side visit to the U.S. Capitol, where the Speaker of the House sets up shop. Collected notes and noodlings from the meetings I attended appear in two subsequent pieces: “A post-‘Railroad Day’ post (part 2)” & “A post-‘Railroad Day’ post (part 3).”

Stimulus Post-Game: Rail got what, exactly?

2009-02-15T18:40:00Z

Now that the House and Senate have passed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, it's up to President Obama to sign it into law, which he'll do early this week.

After all the hand-wringing and wrangling, what's in it for rail?

• Some $50 billion in funds for transportation projects, including $27.5 billion for U.S. DOT highway formula grants to the states. The bill expands eligibility for these funds to include both freight and passenger rail projects at the states' discretion. The package also provides $1.5 billion for projects of "regional and national significance" (e.g., Chicago's CREATE). Rail projects as well as transit, ports, and highways and bridges are eligible.

• Of the $8.4 billion provided for public transit, $6.9 billion goes to systems via the existing Federal Transit Administration's formula program, $750 million for the fixed guideway modernization program to modernize urban rail systems and $750 million for the New Starts program.

• The package also includes $9.3 billion for intercity passenger rail, including $8 billion for high-speed rail corridors and $1.3 billion for Amtrak.

• Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will administer a separate $150 million fund for rail transit security.

How do rail proponents feel about the final iteration of "stimulus"? Publicly, they're saying this:

"This bill represents a huge victory for both passenger and freight rail," said Association of American Railroads President and CEO Ed Hamberger in a prepared statement. "The additional flexibility that was provided opens up the possibility for critical investment in rail projects that will improve the efficiency of our nation's freight transportation system."

"This groundbreaking legislation will give people expanded travel options, while creating or supporting hundreds of thousands of American jobs," said American Public Transportation Association President Bill Millar. "Setting the course for years to come, this legislation will begin to craft a greater intermodal transportation system that our nation desperately needs."

Ultimately, the package featured some good things and a few disappointments, said Chuck Baker, president of the National Railroad Construction & Maintenance Association Inc.

"From the overall perspective of people who build, supply, service, and maintain rail infrastructure, it's a huge win, taking into account high-speed and intercity passenger rail, rail transit, and potential freight rail funding," he said. "It was a bit of a disappointment for freight rail, specifically, but better than nothing. And there is the potential of significant freight rail funding from two programs — state highway money and national surface transportation discretionary grants — that have money for which freight rail will be able to compete. We would have also preferred more direct funding to transit agencies for the Fixed Guideway Modernization program and the New Starts program."

Now, to work. To National Association of Railroad Passengers President Ross Capon, the responsibility for "realizing the potential of this bill" rests with:

• Governors and state DOTs to "expeditiously complete applications for sound rail projects";

• Governors and state DOTs to make "appropriate use of the flexibility that enables some of that $27.5 billion in "highway" money go to passenger and freight rail projects;

• The U.S. Secretary of Transportation to create a "sound strategic plan" with respect to using rail funds, and to give applications for "good rail projects prompt and favorable decisions";

• Amtrak to commit its capital funding within the required 30 days, and to use its funds to "make clear its commitment to a truly national system with a dramatically improved resilience to, for example, Chicago winters"; and

• Private freight railroads and commuter agencies to "take full advantage of the opportunities to fund important projects, including the Chicago-area CREATE project aimed at untangling congestion in the nation's rail hub," Capon said.

We'll be tracking the ins and outs of all this (along with the reactions to same) on www.progressiverailroading.com, as well as within the pages of our monthly magazine.

'Learning' as the operative word

2008-11-03T14:00:00Z

One thing about the line of work I'm in is that the likes of us learn something during every conversation we have or overhear — in person, over the phone, wherever. The interaction is inherently instructive. Same is true in railroading, railroaders tell me. They learn by experience, often shared experience, by listening to and learning from the people they report to and work with.

But spreading the wealth of all that institutional knowledge — to new hires, up-and-comers, managers-in-training — has become an increasingly daunting challenge since railroads began running leaner and as more of that institutional knowledge began to leave the yard (so to speak).

What can they do to ensure they transfer the know-how they've got? If it isn't in-house, where can they go to get it? If they seek outside help, how do they know it is the kind of knowledge workers truly need? And how do today's "teachers" actually teach this stuff?

I recently had an opportunity to experience first hand some of the instructive work being done out there.

On Oct. 22, I sat in on the second day of a new course the University of Wisconsin is offering via the College of Engineering's Department of Engineering and Professional Development in Madison. The subject? "Freight Railroads: Best Operating Practices." The objective? To "assist in meeting the developmental needs of railroad operating managers and their organizations by expanding knowledge of operations basics; and increasing managerial skills and competencies."

"I think it will be of interest," wrote C. Allen Wortley, director of the Railroad Engineering Program, in an email invite he sent this past summer.

It was. From the "Network Management and Continuous Improvement" session (delivered by Rod Richardson, Union Pacific Railroad's general superintendent-Chicago service unit) to a "Leadership and Operations" lecture (by Conrail Corp. President and Chief Operating Officer Ron Batory) to "Line Management in the Railway Industry-Case Studies" module (by railway operations consultant and author Earl Currie), the diversity in information and experiences shared was impressive. But it wasn't just the info-sharing that struck me. It was the way each instructor imparted knowledge, telling the railroad operating story as he knew it. Each shared his own story that, in a roundhouse-sort-of-way, resonates with those who've been there, done that and are still doing it.

Then there was the instructor-student interaction. I didn't attend the Day One session, which featured presentations from Currie and three other instructors, but Currie told me the students had helped generate some pretty lively discussions the previous day.

"These people are used to communicating, so they don't hold back," he said.

They didn't on Day Two, either. Students asked instructors to shed light on railroads' approach to the capital spending planning process, the industry's growth prospects and whether railroads truly were prepared to meet the capacity challenge, the nuanced art of community relations in the neo-NIMBY era, even demographics and the workforce of the not-so-distant future. In short: The questions were as varied as the students' professional backgrounds. Despite the word "freight" in the course title, state transportation department officials, federal officials, a cross-section of consultant types and even transit agency reps were among the 40 or so students in attendance.

Apparently, there aren't too many places to go for railroad operations "best practices" instruction, so there would appear to be a need for a course like this — although just what "this" is remains a work in progress, said Wortley and Currie, who pumped students for ideas on how to improve the course. But clearly, there's something to this kind of instruction, and I'd think there are plenty of railroaders out there interested in sharing their instructive stories. The art of storytelling is alive and well in the rail world as long as the industry keeps it alive.

I'll write a bit more about what the instructors talked about (and the undercurrents that resonated with me as a result of sitting in on the course) in our December issue.

One organization's aim to address the continental disconnect

2008-03-27T13:00:00Z

Paul Mangelsdorf knows too well how difficult it can be to craft a "rail is the answer" message that'll resonate with legislators, policymakers, business leaders and the general public. He also knows the message sink-in frequency rate in North America has been fair, at best.

But a 2007 rail-press call convinced Mangelsdorf, the executive director of Texas Rail Advocates, to think harder about the message and its delivery. A recent ride on the European high-speed train Eurostar, which travels at a speed of up to 186 mph, cemented his resolve to do something about the disconnect on this continent.

"I came home and wanted to do something constructive," Mangelsdorf says.

That something? "Future Mobility North America: 21st Century Transportation" (FMNA), which would address what Mangelsdorf terms the "important transportation issues of our time." (read: intermodal solutions to capacity and environmental problems)

"Rail is both the greenest and least expensive way to move goods and people in large volumes," he says.

Which, of course, isn't news to the rail world. And if what I saw, heard and otherwise observed in the halls and offices of the U.S. Senate and Congress earlier this month during "Railroad Day on Capitol Hill" (more on that event in our April issue) is any indication, the word might be sinking in in federal policy-making circles. But the disconnect — measured in terms of how long it'd actually take to develop high-speed passenger rail or create the freight-rail capacity we'll need to meet even near-term demand — is deep, deep, deep.

All the more reason to get the "Future Mobility North America" show on the road.

"The goal is to inform the general public about railroad technology," Mangelsdorf says. "I think most people in the U.S. have no idea what a railroad is ... or why it is the mode to take us into the 21st century."

Initially, FMNA hopes to convince corporate North America, the not-for-profit sector, the media, the general public, and legislators and policymakers to think "intermodal" by talking up a range of public policies and private initiatives. Among them:

• Interstate II, a plan to build 30,000 to 40,000 miles of double and triple track in existing rights of way.

• High-speed rail technology. FMNA promotes installing GPS train control and separate railroad rights of way from street and highway systems to permit 90 mph speeds for trains carrying containerized freight and highway trailers, and passenger train speeds of 125 mph and higher.

• Energy independence. FMNA suggests converting the busiest rail lines to electric propulsion. ("Only rail can be powered entirely by electricity, which can be generated without imported fuels," Mangelsdorf says.)

• Public/private partnerships. FMNA would identify opportunities for private and public capital to be set aside to build intermodal transportation infrastructure that promotes environmentally clean economic development through such means as tax incentives.

Mangelsdorf has no illusions about what it'll take to deliver FMNA's message, or for it to sink in. But he says he's in this for the long haul.

"And, for better or worse, I'm persistent," he adds.

You'll hear more from Mangelsdorf in the months ahead. In the meantime, he'd be happy to deliver the message directly — call him at 214-749-3549 or contact via email (pmangelsdorf@hotmail.com).

Recapping RailtecMéxico: a few capex details

2008-02-12T14:00:00Z

The significance of ceremony reverberates at RailtecMéxico, and nowhere was that more apparent this year than the post-ribbon-cutting, exhibit hall parade of dignitaries that kicked off the event, held Jan. 27-29 in Monterrey, Mexico. (The event was presented by Asociacion Mexicana de Empresas Ferrocarrileras A.C. and co-sponsored by Progressive Railroading.) As they do every year, the VIPs visited selected booths (including Kansas City Southern de México S.A. de C.V., Ferrocarril Mexicano S.A. de C.V. and the Port of Mexico) and stayed just long enough to let the more than two dozen photographers and a handful of videographers record the moment for posterity.

Also part of the Railtec ritual: the unveiling of the railroads’ spending plans for the year ahead. In short: The railroads plan to invest in infrastructure (as opposed to rail cars and locomotives) in 2008 and, with respect to the two major roads, continue to pursue their intermodal-growth dreams. A few highlights of their presented (via translation) plans:

• Kansas City Southern de México S.A. de C.V. (KCSM) has set aside $251 million for 2008, said Transportation Director Oscar del Cueto. The railroad will invest more than $100 million in track maintenance, capacity improvement and commercial projects, including the replacement of 232,000 ties and 50 miles of rail, according to a Jan. 29 press release. To boost capacity, KCSM will extend sidings at Tarentan and San Miguel Allende, and double-track a line from Rojas to Ramos Arizpe. The railroad also intends to complete preliminary engineering and environment impact studies of proposed “international” crossings at Nuevo Laredo (“the most important commercial trading point for Mexico,” del Cueto said) and Matamoros, and work with Mexican and U.S. officials to obtain “as soon as possible” authority for a new international bridge in Nuevo Laredo. KCSM also will continue to work with state of Tamaulipas officials to develop a new international bridge in Matamoros. … On the mechanical side, KCSM will spend more than $100 million, with plans to purchase 35 new locomotives and 600 new freight cars, as well as upgrade existing cars and locomotives. … Meanwhile, the railroad plans to push ahead with the Lazaro Cardenas-North America International Intermodal Corridor by accelerating intermodal terminal construction at Palm Island, a facility designed to complement the new Hutchison Port Holdings Terminal facility that opened in November. KCSM also is just about ready to select a “strategic development partner” for MEGAMEX, a logistics center slated to be developed in the Valley of Mexico.

• Ferrocarril Mexicano S.A. de C.V. (Ferromex) will spend $182.2 million this year, but none of it on new locomotives after acquiring 40 AC units in 2007. Instead, the railroad will focus on infrastructure upkeep and intermodal/automotive terminal development, said Juan Manuel Soler, director of maintenance/operations resources. Work will include installing 125 miles of new rail and 263,000 ties (wood and concrete); rehabbing 38 bridges; extending or building 30 sidings; aligning 730 track miles; and installing 2 WILD detectors, 11 DOAs and11 hot-box detectors. … On the intermodal/automotive front, Ferromex expects to continue planning/developing terminals, including facilities in such strategic locations as Ciudad Juarez, Tabalaopa, Culiacán and Viborillas, with yard expansions scheduled for facilities in Manzanillo, Bojay, Empalme and Guadalajara, Ferromex’s operations center. … Mechanically speaking, the railroad won’t be buying power (as mentioned) or rail cars, but it will overhaul 43 locomotives.

• Ferrosur S.A. de C.V. has budgeted $42.6 million. Operations Director Hugo Gomez didn’t delineate the peso/dollar allocation, saying only that the railroad planned to invest in “main track capacity,” in part by rehabilitating track (no kilometer amount given); extending 11 sidings and building four new ones; rehabbing 49 bridges; and building a new yard just outside the Port of Vera Cruz, and “continuing work” on infrastructure at the ports of Coatzacoalcos and Tierra Blanca. The railroad also plans to “implement hot box detectors” (no total provided) and “relieve rail friction” by installing Pandrol® “e” Clips on 25 5-degree-or-higher curves, Gomez said, adding that Ferrosur installed 35 “e” Clips in 2007.

• Ferrocarril del Istmo de Tehuantepec S.A. de C.V. (Ferroistmo) could spend up to $25 million, mostly to rebuild (per Mexican government dictates) the former Chiapas-Mayab S.A. de C.V., which was ravaged by Hurricane Stan in October 2005. The work could include rebuilding 28 bridges, many of which had been completely washed away — or, as in one instance, “the water raised it up 7.4 meters and we have to correct it,” said Operations Director Gustavo Baca.

• Ferrocarril y Terminal del Valle de Mexico (Ferrovalle) will invest $18.1 million, said Operations Director Antelmo Melgarejo Guzmán. The breakdown: $9.1 million for locomotive maintenance and repair; $5.6 million on infrastructure, primarily rail rehab work; $2.3 million on “signals,” as Guzmán simply put it; and $1.1 million for (mostly) equipment for the Pantaco intermodal facility.

• Linea Coahuila Durango S.A. de C.V. was scheduled to present but didn’t.

Recapping RailtecMéxico: grown-up growth

2008-02-12T13:58:00Z

The city of Monterrey has changed a lot since 2002, the last time RailtecMéxico was held at Centro Internacional de Negocios Monterrey (CINTERMEX).

New developments — housing complexes, industrial parks, parks proper, a river walk — dot the stretch of highway from Monterrey Airport to CINTERMEX, which is part of Parque Fundidora, a multiuse development comprising an ex-steel mill that was converted into an industrial museum/race track/amusement park/gathering place. Six years ago, this “park” was still pretty industrial and anything but idyllic. On a late-January Sunday afternoon, Parque Fundidora was brimming with strollers, skateboarders and other recreating citizens of the so-called “Sultan of the North.” Home to 4 million-plus and counting, this city has “really grown up” during the past decade, as one Monterreyan told me.

So has Mexico’s railroad industry, which was on display in all its evolutionary glory at the ninth iteration of Railtec. Held Jan. 27-29, the event was presented by Asociacion Mexicana de Empresas Ferrocarrileras A.C. and co-sponsored by Progressive Railroading.

The rail evolution hasn’t been lost on the Monterrey media, which swarmed not only the Mexican government officials and other dignitaries in attendance, but the rail execs, as well. With notebooks and digital recorders in hand, newspaper, television and online services reporters pressed rail officials for details on the spending plans they’d just unveiled (see “Recapping RailtecMéxico: a few capex details”), trackage rights tussles (“They’re trying to make something out of nothing,” one rail official said of the long-simmering Ferromex-Kansas City Southern de México feud — if they’re stirring it up, you know you’ve arrived) and rail safety.

The latter topic hadn’t been discussed much at past events. But during Railtec’s opening session, rail execs had talked up their safety accomplishments, thereby inviting the scrutiny. That they’d emphasized safety at all — and, in turn, knowingly encouraged the questions — was new, refreshingly so. It prompted one supplier to wonder aloud if they’d soon begin to talk about environmental improvements. Probably not. “We’re not there yet,” one freight exec told me. “But, you know, we will be someday.”

Publicly, optimism has always been an undercurrent at Railtec, as well as within railroads’ corporate offices. The underlying message: “We’re here, we’re part of the North American rail system and we’ll get better — you’ll see.” So railroaders seemed pleased when AAR President & CEO Ed Hamberger, in his Jan. 28 luncheon keynote, said he saw what they saw.

“We are part of the North American marketplace,” he said, adding that it had never been more apparent that railroads in Mexico, Canada and the United States were facing the same issues – that they were on better-service and safety-improvement quests and, at varying degrees, working to “react and inter-react with different levels of government.”

And vice versa. Other links in Mexico’s transport chain, notably the ports, now recognize the need to partner more productively, and publicly, with rail. In a standing-room-only Jan. 29 panel discussion, General Coordinator of Mexico’s Ports and Merchant Navy César Patricio Reyes Roel called the session the “first exchange of ideas” between the ports and rails.

“Railroads are our national ally,” he said. “The first step is talking, and that is why we are here.”

And talk, they did. The discussion — which ranged from rethinking supply-chain processes to improving port-related rail infrastructure to figuring out how to cope with more intense container scrutiny at the U.S.-Mexican border — continued long after the session ended.

Real dialogue is real growth, and it was heartening to see (and hear).

Overriding circumstances: However obliquely, Congress' reversal of Bush's water bill veto put infrastructure needs front and center — for a moment, anyway

2007-11-12T14:00:00Z

From the who'd-have-thunk-it file: The first Congressional override of a President George W. Bush veto was about infrastructure funding. At least partly.

Now, a majority of U.S. senators and congressmen didn't believe the $2.3 billion Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) was worth preserving simply because they wanted to do something about our deteriorating water resources infrastructure. WRDA includes enough pork to feed a not-so-small small army, which is at least partly why the president vetoed it on Nov. 2.

But just because congressmen bless politically important projects for their respective states doesn't mean the projects (or at least some of them) aren't worth funding in the bigger-picture scheme of things, which is why many links in the transport chain were out there pushing hard for Congress to override the Bush veto.

There was the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), which had been pleading with anybody who'd listen that it won't be long before our unwillingness to fund the burgeoning backlog of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs — from navigation system and flood-control improvements to wetlands restoration projects to hurricane-related damage repairs — starts doing a number on international trade. ("The legislation is supposed to be biennial, [but] the last WRDA bill was signed into law in 2000," AAPA argued last week.)

Then there was the agriculture lobby the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), National Corn Growers Association and American Farm Bureau, among others — which supported WRDA because it'd authorize funds for inland waterway projects that have been delayed more than a dozen years. NGFA, in particular, cited $3.6 billion worth of construction and renovation of dilapidated locks on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterway. "If the United States fails to modernize its inland waterways system, U.S. agricultural exports will be further undermined as competing foreign countries continue to invest in their own transportation infrastructures," said NGFA President Kendell Keith early last week.

Perhaps the pro-WRDA lobby swayed some of the senators and congressmen. Maybe the pork did. Or maybe the majority of them believed it was time to spend more (as in a lot more) on water resources infrastructure. On Nov. 6, 138 Republicans joined 223 Democrats in the House to vote 361-54 to override the veto. On Nov. 8, the Senate easily cleared the two-thirds majority needed to override with a 79-14 vote.

What's next? Likely, more lobbying. WRDA doesn't provide any funding — it merely authorizes the projects and policy revisions in the bill. Funding appropriations for specific provisions require separate action and further congressional review.

So: How much ultimately will be spent on water resources infrastructure isn't clear. Equally cloudy is just how much this Congress will go to bat for infrastructure development in other contexts and for other modes. The override certainly doesn't suggest anything about the prospects of rail-specific infrastructure programs seeing the light of day on the Hill. But given the inter-modal connectedness that permeates the Rail Renaissance era, one mode's capacity gain is another's ... well, potential capacity gain. As NGFA's Keith put it: "If U.S. transportation capacity cannot be efficiently expanded through improved waterways, increasing congestion on the highway and rail network will hamper overall U.S. economic growth."

I wouldn't call the override a win-win-win ... in part because I'm not sure it is (the devil's in the project/funding details) and in part because I would never ever use that phrase unless I could say it out loud while batting my eyelashes and pausing for (hopefully) humorous effect (it's a phrase that doesn't ... well ... mean anything). But I'll take the veto and the potential for infrastructure development (and congestion relief) on faith. And I know it means a lot to the ag and port folks, so that's a good thing. On to the next infrastructure needs program, then ...