Forums

commoncarrier

Ed Ellis former head of Amtrak Express and now president of Iowa Pacific....I want him as my tag team partner in a dual

I see you more as a "super single" than a half of a dual, but either way, it's a great analogy.  Ties are hollow, except for the hot air.

I know Ed Ellis.  He doesn't spread crazy ideas.  Unconventional perhaps, but not crazy.  The idiot who calls himself "commoncarrier," on the other hand, does not even understand his own comments and posts. 

Ed wrote a series of articals in Trains mag a few years back where he touched on these very issues.

As for myself I believe that the Gov. should own and maintain the railroads and let anyone who wants a switch get one and let private

railroads run trains. Sort like when the early canal system and the present day Army Corp barge river and canal system is set up now.

Matter of fact the New York State Canal system is set up the same way.Freight on the canal is not what it used to be but oversized cargo like

   wind turbines  still uses the canal with about 60 trips a year.

Good heavens!  An attempt at a rational comment.  What next?  OK, "commoncarrier," you've presented a position that can be discussed.  Government ownership of railroads?  ***!  I suspect you mean government ownership of the rights-of-way and private operation of the commercial venture known as a railroad that runs on the right-of-way.  If that is your position, you're welcome to it.  Just look at the United Kingdom, where the "state" has owned the railroads since World War II.  The state promised to provide sufficient taxpayer funding to enable the lines to be properly maintained and excellent service provided by the operators that would provide subsidized service.  This the state never has done.  Would you really put your fate in the hands of politicians who just might (you can count on it) find other things that draw their attention and provide the excuse to "temporarily" cut back on public investment.  After all, we all know that with such long-lived assets you can always reduce maintenance for a short time without any negative results.  That, of course, was the thinking of railroad executives in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. industry was scrambling to preserve itself.  The ICC even had accounts for "delayed capital" and "deferred maintenance."

You're entitled to your opinion, "commoncarrier," but  I wouldn't expect to find very many who agree with you, certainly not otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people.  You still demonstrate a lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues on which you choose to comment.  I have no doubt that Ed Ellis wrote a series of articles on which he touched on these issues.  Somehow, I have a hard time accepting that he actually supported public ownership of rail infrastructure, much less public ownership of entire railroads.  If you're going to claim support from people who have reputations, it's a good idea to do so honestly and correctly.  Your bona fides are suspect, and for good reason.

To all:  The PR system has blanked out my use of the French word "***" even though the word equates to "heavens" or other enign interpretations in English.  This is mindless censorship.

Larry Kaufman

Would you really put your fate in the hands of politicians who just might (you can count on it) find other things that draw their attention and provide the excuse to "temporarily" cut back on public investment. 

Another point worth considering: track affects rolling stock, and vice-verse.  It's possible for an above-the-rail operator to make decisions that give it a small benefit, but cause a far greater loss to whoever owns the rail.   (This might explain the ROW damage during nationalization in WW I as much as deferred maintenance.) Badly designed, badly maintained, or overloaded rolling stock can do considerable damage, and trackage agreements - which this idea is, really, on a huge scale- have to take that into account.

All that said, there may be something to the idea, a kind of rail interstate, but only to the extent there is genuine political support for actually making the railroad work.  You had that, for one example, in Prussia.  The current British system, as you say, has its flaws.  I don't think we have that kind of political consensus and knowledge here, now, nationwide, or even in any extensive regions, and until we do, it's a pipe-dream.

You dont have to go far to find state ownership of railroad track and ROW.

Cincinatti Southern-Owned by the city and leased to NS with CSX trackage rights

North Carolina-Raleigh-Charlotte-Leased to NS and improments paid for by the State

Vermont-ROW is owned by the state to Vermont Railway-Improvements paid for by the state

Ohio-Ohio Central owed by State Rail Redvelopment Authrity-Leased to Gennesee and Wyoming

Tennesee-Short lines owned by county rail authorities

New Orleans-Public Belt owned by city but as typical for NOLA is fraight with scandle recently.

There are dozens more but the biggest is Amtraks NE Corridor and North Carolina...Then there is the Union Pacific which is the only

railroad that was chartered by congress. What that charter says and if congress can hold that over UP head to force passenger service is something that should be at least looked into.

commoncarrier

You dont have to go far to find state ownership of railroad track and ROW.

Make up your mind, Ray.  Are you talking about marginal lines owned by local entities because they believe they would otherwise be abandoned, and belt lines that are pretty close to natural monopolies, or are you talking about long-distance trackage?  The first is roughly the equivalent of local streets and feeder  roads, the second the equivalent of long-distance highways

As for the UP, the firm created to make a transcontinental vanished in bankruptcy ...twice.  The intervening version didn't even have exactly the same name, being a railway, not a railroad.  The first UP has not existed for 132 years.

Still displaying your ignorance in public, I see, "commoncarrier."  Several of the "publicly owned" railroads that you cite are publicly owned but completely operated and maintained by the private railroad company to which they are leased.  The North Carolina and the line south from Cincinatti are in that category.  As Anmccaff points out above, there are any number of lines that are "owned" by public bodies as a means of preventing their abandonment.  The Burlington Northern even gave the Geraldine Line in Montana to a state agency to avoid the hassle over its bandonment.  The line, last I knew, was inactive.  You go, guy.  Continue to present ignorant statements; I need a daily laugh or two.  Truth be told, however, you are not good enough at logic or facts to make very good arguments.  You are just another ideologue and the best that can be said for for ideology is that it saves the ideologue from ever having to think at all.  Actually, you might start by learning something BEFORE you reach your conclusions.  But, as I said: You are an ideologue, so thinking is not on your agenda.  Ah, but I repeat myself.

I don't know about the rest of this discussion, but am curious about the French language Larry used.  I have a friend named Merle; perhaps the offending word that was censored is very similar in spelling?

Don't flatter yourself, "commoncarrier."  The so-called offending word was (and is) neither offensive nor misspelled.  Who knows how the PR blog thought-police software is programmed?  I'm satisfied that this was an automated response, which is the problem with automated responses: they are mindless.  Just like "commoncarrier."

Larry Kaufman

Don't flatter yourself, "commoncarrier."  The so-called offending word was (and is) neither offensive nor misspelled.  Who knows how the PR blog thought-police software is programmed?  I'm satisfied that this was an automated response, which is the problem with automated responses: they are mindless.  Just like "commoncarrier."

Or was there a post from Ray..."Common Carrier"..."Steamtrain"...or whatever it is he's calling himself this week...that got removed?

Anyway, for some actual Ed Ellis rail news:

http://poststar.com/news/local/johnsburg-rail-project-features-green-arguments-all-around/article_70171e3c-4091-11e1-aae9-001871e3ce6c.html

Nice little piece, IMO, that highlights the politics of re-introducing expanded service is rural areas where the environmental and economic stakes are both high.