4 ms·

Not sure what you're saying here? Amtrak service is notoriously terrible and technologically backwards, which does not strike me as a good argument for having t

Not sure what you're saying here? Amtrak service is notoriously terrible and technologically backwards, which does not strike me as a good argument for having the US government nationalize an industry.

mulmen 11y ago
I don't think he advocated nationalizing the railroads, just the infrastructure.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  If you take away the infrastructure from a railroad, there isn't much left...
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    There's a shitload of stuff to compete on when you don't own the railroads. Pricing (hello Deutsche Bahn, 10x more expensive than buses LOL), service (thumbs up to Austria's Westbahn here), quality of the carriages (again, thumbs up to Westbahn, displacing even the DB ICE trains), WiFi...
  - mulmen 11y ago
    I don't see how this would be any different than trucking companies competing on public roads. There is certainly competition in that industry. Are there regions where two railroad (companies) have built competing infrastructure?
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      It wouldn't be different than trucking companies competing on public roads. But a "trucking on rails" company would be very different from a railroad, for the same reason that a trucking company is different from a toll road. (I know, the analogy isn't perfect. Still, I would guess that 90% of a railroad's capital is tied up in track, right of way, signaling, and similar stuff, and only 10% in engines and cars. Saying "let's nationalize the infrasturcture" means nationalizing almost all of the railroad company. Hence my comment that "there's not much left". Your distinction between nationalizing all the company and nationalizing "just the infrastructure" is not much of a difference.)
      - mulmen 11y ago
        Disclaimer: I am not an accountant. According to http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/form-10-k-filings/pdf/10k-llc-a-2014.pdf#page=18&zoom=auto,-266,539 http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/form-10... BNSF has about 85% of their revenue in the tracks and 15% in the trains so your guess isn't far off. Can you comment on competition for a given route in the current railroad model? I assume railroads control who uses their tracks so they can prevent competitors from serving those routes, is that the case and how does that not constitute some form of monopoly? Edit: Thank you for the clarification, I had no idea how much railroads had tied up in the infrastructure. It seems that much of the value of a railroad is on the ability to serve certain routes without competition which in hindsight is pretty obvious.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Let's define the "route" to be Chicago to Los Angeles. UP and BNSF both serve that route (with different tracks). NS and CSX don't serve that route, because they have no tracks out there. Now take the route from Flagstaff, Arizona, to Los Angeles. BNSF is the only one who serves that route, because they're the only railroad that has tracks to Flagstaff. So BNSF has a monopoly on railroad service to Flagstaff. But the fact is, there's not enough railroad traffic that originates in Flagstaff to make it economically worthwhile to have two different rail lines. And in fact, this kind of "monopoly" has always been an issue with rail service. If you have a factory in Chicago, there were something like 18 different railroads that served Chicago back in the day, but only one of them had a track to your door. So you only had one choice for your factory, even though there were 18 railroads in town. On the other hand: That railroad had a monopoly on your rail service because they built a track to your door (at their expense), and the other 17 railroads didn't. So I have a hard time getting too upset about this kind of "monopoly" as any kind of unfairness. The fact is, though, the main railroad competition is trucks, not other railroads. (Also barges, for low-speed bulk stuff.) And the trucks (and barges) are running on highways (and waterways) paid for with taxes (including the truck's gasoline taxes), whereas the railroads are paying for their track (and paying taxes on it).
        11y ago
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Part of the reason Amtrak trains are always late is because they're getting stuck waiting for freight trains to clear a track.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Thing is, freight trains are a far better use of the track than passenger trains: the system is ideal for slow-moving bulk cargo that doesn't care if it has to sit on a siding for a week, not to mention that it's a much less damaging way of moving heavy material around than trucks. Passengers, meanwhile, want to go specific places at specific times, and that just does not coexist well with freight. Better for passengers to travel by air, private car, dedicated high-speed rail, and other systems focused on the job.
  - oasisbob 11y ago
    This argument neglects the fact that the railroads have no problem moving high-priority Z trains just fine. If UPS can ship Amazon prime packages overnight via rail, I have a hard time buying the argument that I should be taking a flight from Portland to Vancouver because the system can't handle it.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      "High priority Z trains" still take three to six days to get to their destination. Freight schedules are unpredictable, and that's fine, because freight doesn't care. Passengers do care. > I have a hard time buying the argument that I should be taking a flight from Portland to Vancouver because the system can't handle it. Do you really want to sit overnight from Portland to Vancouver on a train as opposed to flying there in an hour and twenty minutes? Most people don't.

mulmen 11y ago

I don't think he advocated nationalizing the railroads, just the infrastructure.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
If you take away the infrastructure from a railroad, there isn't much left...
- mschuster91 11y ago
  There's a shitload of stuff to compete on when you don't own the railroads. Pricing (hello Deutsche Bahn, 10x more expensive than buses LOL), service (thumbs up to Austria's Westbahn here), quality of the carriages (again, thumbs up to Westbahn, displacing even the DB ICE trains), WiFi...
- mulmen 11y ago
  I don't see how this would be any different than trucking companies competing on public roads. There is certainly competition in that industry. Are there regions where two railroad (companies) have built competing infrastructure?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    It wouldn't be different than trucking companies competing on public roads. But a "trucking on rails" company would be very different from a railroad, for the same reason that a trucking company is different from a toll road. (I know, the analogy isn't perfect. Still, I would guess that 90% of a railroad's capital is tied up in track, right of way, signaling, and similar stuff, and only 10% in engines and cars. Saying "let's nationalize the infrasturcture" means nationalizing almost all of the railroad company. Hence my comment that "there's not much left". Your distinction between nationalizing all the company and nationalizing "just the infrastructure" is not much of a difference.)
    - mulmen 11y ago
      Disclaimer: I am not an accountant. According to http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/form-10-k-filings/pdf/10k-llc-a-2014.pdf#page=18&zoom=auto,-266,539 http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/form-10... BNSF has about 85% of their revenue in the tracks and 15% in the trains so your guess isn't far off. Can you comment on competition for a given route in the current railroad model? I assume railroads control who uses their tracks so they can prevent competitors from serving those routes, is that the case and how does that not constitute some form of monopoly? Edit: Thank you for the clarification, I had no idea how much railroads had tied up in the infrastructure. It seems that much of the value of a railroad is on the ability to serve certain routes without competition which in hindsight is pretty obvious.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Let's define the "route" to be Chicago to Los Angeles. UP and BNSF both serve that route (with different tracks). NS and CSX don't serve that route, because they have no tracks out there. Now take the route from Flagstaff, Arizona, to Los Angeles. BNSF is the only one who serves that route, because they're the only railroad that has tracks to Flagstaff. So BNSF has a monopoly on railroad service to Flagstaff. But the fact is, there's not enough railroad traffic that originates in Flagstaff to make it economically worthwhile to have two different rail lines. And in fact, this kind of "monopoly" has always been an issue with rail service. If you have a factory in Chicago, there were something like 18 different railroads that served Chicago back in the day, but only one of them had a track to your door. So you only had one choice for your factory, even though there were 18 railroads in town. On the other hand: That railroad had a monopoly on your rail service because they built a track to your door (at their expense), and the other 17 railroads didn't. So I have a hard time getting too upset about this kind of "monopoly" as any kind of unfairness. The fact is, though, the main railroad competition is trucks, not other railroads. (Also barges, for low-speed bulk stuff.) And the trucks (and barges) are running on highways (and waterways) paid for with taxes (including the truck's gasoline taxes), whereas the railroads are paying for their track (and paying taxes on it).
        11y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

Part of the reason Amtrak trains are always late is because they're getting stuck waiting for freight trains to clear a track.

13thLetter 11y ago
Thing is, freight trains are a far better use of the track than passenger trains: the system is ideal for slow-moving bulk cargo that doesn't care if it has to sit on a siding for a week, not to mention that it's a much less damaging way of moving heavy material around than trucks. Passengers, meanwhile, want to go specific places at specific times, and that just does not coexist well with freight. Better for passengers to travel by air, private car, dedicated high-speed rail, and other systems focused on the job.
- oasisbob 11y ago
  This argument neglects the fact that the railroads have no problem moving high-priority Z trains just fine. If UPS can ship Amazon prime packages overnight via rail, I have a hard time buying the argument that I should be taking a flight from Portland to Vancouver because the system can't handle it.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    "High priority Z trains" still take three to six days to get to their destination. Freight schedules are unpredictable, and that's fine, because freight doesn't care. Passengers do care. > I have a hard time buying the argument that I should be taking a flight from Portland to Vancouver because the system can't handle it. Do you really want to sit overnight from Portland to Vancouver on a train as opposed to flying there in an hour and twenty minutes? Most people don't.