4 ms·

There are a lot of reasons standard rail in the US is cargo centric. Profit and a much easier customer service case are big ones. Also, sending cargo in a new

There are a lot of reasons standard rail in the US is cargo centric. Profit and a much easier customer service case are big ones. Also, sending cargo in a new transportation system is much easier and less lawsuit prone than people. An old story in the US since the post office basically made airplane travel viable via postal contracts.

daniel-cussen 5y ago
Radio too, Marconi suggested to the Italian Post they use radio for mail.
- protomyth 5y ago
  Didn't hear that one, good to know. China Clipper: The Age of the Great Flying Boats by Robert Gandt talks a lot about the Postmaster General and those postal contracts in the US. I came away from the book with a distaste for Pan Am given some of the stunts they pulled. It basically details that having the postal contract was the only way to make regular flights profitable in the early aviation years. To the point, many routes started as postal only.
chucksta 5y ago
Glossing over the fact that almost all the railways in the US are privately owned by cargo companies which prioritize their cargo over transport. Huge reason Amtrak struggles so much
- 7735835835 5y ago
  There is presumably a reason they are cargo companies and not passager transport companies. Unless Amtrak has a government enforced monopoly?
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Most cargo is going long distances that passengers should fly for. The needs of freight and passengers is different enough that they should almost never be on the same track. When humans are on a train speed counts and they are willing to pay extra for it. When freight is on a train they can save money by going slower.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Because all the US passenger rail companies went out of business. Amtrak was essentially created out of the wreckage to maintain some passenger rail service. (It's a very complicated history.) Amtrak makes almost all of its money on the Northeast Corridor which it then basically throws away in the rest of the country.
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      Arguably Amtrak was intended to dismantle the remains of passenger rail, and its persistence 50 years later was not foreseen.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        I don't know. Passenger service collapsed in the decade leading up to the formation of Amtrak. Other than bailing out and heavily subsidizing a bunch of failing railroads, I'm not sure what the fix was--although the Federal government could have made a much bigger investment at the time than it did. (Basically, spend what it would take to create popular Shinkansen routes.)
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    Amtrak was created to relieve the freight companies' of the legal requirement to offer passenger service. > Railroad corporations operated under charters received from the states, [...] These charters usually vested the railroad with a public mission and some pub- lic responsibility. Railroads were chartered to carry passengers and freight, for which they were incidentally permitted to charge fares. > AMTRAK has not, during its brief existence, attempted to operate its own trains with its own personnel, but has instead chosen to rely upon contracts with the railroads. The result has been the immediate freeing of railroads from the passenger deficit. AMTRAK has also created a type of cost-plus subsidy, with no incentive to the operating railroad to improve services or control costs. The results are generally what one would expect. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2143&context=cklawreview https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... I've heard it said Amtrak was designed to fail so that freight would have no competition. It seems to me this is the case, since anytime Amtrak tries to expand (or even re-establish service as in Mobile-New Orleans), the freight companies immediately go to court to prevent being forced to share their infrastructure.
- brimble 5y ago
  I'd prefer Amtrak over aircraft for lots and lots of my travel, if not for this. Hell, I'd probably travel more total, too. Even if the price were the same as flying for a given destination. The huge trip-duration and arrival-time uncertainty due to the shared rail, and having to defer to cargo trains, is what sinks it, for me. They can vary by large double digit percentages of the nominal time, at which point they're usually much slower than just driving. I love how relaxing and comfortable they are and not having the security circus and dealing with crowded, distant-from-the-city airports, but not at nearly-air-travel prices and a 25-75% time premium over driving.
  - stevage 5y ago
    Yeah it was amazing living in France where rail is often faster, and sometimes much faster than driving. And often quicker than air travel when going from city centre to city centre.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Sure, now try shipping freight in France...
      - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
        They had that, for a while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste There is also this https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2021/01/05/new-claim-for-fastest-freight-train-in-the-world-350-kmph/ https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2021/01/05/new-claim... Supposedly, don't know if it's in regular operation, or has been a publicity stunt.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Yeah, but there is also a reason that privately owned companies have no interest in passenger rail travel.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    Because the US government shovels hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies every year into competitors of passenger rail?
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    You've missed the Brightline news, huh?
- jdasdf 5y ago
  The companies that own the railways are in the business of making money, not in the business of screwing Amtrak. I'm sure they would be more than happy to prioritize Amtrak trains over their cargo customers if they are suitably compensated for the trouble. If Amtrak isn't willing or able to compensate them for it... Then clearly it's not that important.
  - protomyth 5y ago
    Also, the whole scheduling of cargo trains has big dollar penalties for delays in loading, unloading, and not arriving on time. Its amazing how detailed folks get about trains showing up. Cargo rail has a lot of moving parts that need to coordinate to keep the goods flowing.
- protomyth 5y ago
  I'm not glossing over anything. If passenger travel was more profitable or even less profitable but easier, than all of the private companies would be in the passenger business. Here we see a company that will end up building its own infrastructure deciding cargo is a better business opportunity than passenger. I think there was a certain amount of inevitability given the economics.

daniel-cussen 5y ago

Radio too, Marconi suggested to the Italian Post they use radio for mail.

protomyth 5y ago
Didn't hear that one, good to know. China Clipper: The Age of the Great Flying Boats by Robert Gandt talks a lot about the Postmaster General and those postal contracts in the US. I came away from the book with a distaste for Pan Am given some of the stunts they pulled. It basically details that having the postal contract was the only way to make regular flights profitable in the early aviation years. To the point, many routes started as postal only.

chucksta 5y ago

Glossing over the fact that almost all the railways in the US are privately owned by cargo companies which prioritize their cargo over transport. Huge reason Amtrak struggles so much

7735835835 5y ago
There is presumably a reason they are cargo companies and not passager transport companies. Unless Amtrak has a government enforced monopoly?
- bluGill 5y ago
  Most cargo is going long distances that passengers should fly for. The needs of freight and passengers is different enough that they should almost never be on the same track. When humans are on a train speed counts and they are willing to pay extra for it. When freight is on a train they can save money by going slower.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Because all the US passenger rail companies went out of business. Amtrak was essentially created out of the wreckage to maintain some passenger rail service. (It's a very complicated history.) Amtrak makes almost all of its money on the Northeast Corridor which it then basically throws away in the rest of the country.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    Arguably Amtrak was intended to dismantle the remains of passenger rail, and its persistence 50 years later was not foreseen.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      I don't know. Passenger service collapsed in the decade leading up to the formation of Amtrak. Other than bailing out and heavily subsidizing a bunch of failing railroads, I'm not sure what the fix was--although the Federal government could have made a much bigger investment at the time than it did. (Basically, spend what it would take to create popular Shinkansen routes.)
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  Amtrak was created to relieve the freight companies' of the legal requirement to offer passenger service. > Railroad corporations operated under charters received from the states, [...] These charters usually vested the railroad with a public mission and some pub- lic responsibility. Railroads were chartered to carry passengers and freight, for which they were incidentally permitted to charge fares. > AMTRAK has not, during its brief existence, attempted to operate its own trains with its own personnel, but has instead chosen to rely upon contracts with the railroads. The result has been the immediate freeing of railroads from the passenger deficit. AMTRAK has also created a type of cost-plus subsidy, with no incentive to the operating railroad to improve services or control costs. The results are generally what one would expect. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2143&context=cklawreview https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... I've heard it said Amtrak was designed to fail so that freight would have no competition. It seems to me this is the case, since anytime Amtrak tries to expand (or even re-establish service as in Mobile-New Orleans), the freight companies immediately go to court to prevent being forced to share their infrastructure.
brimble 5y ago
I'd prefer Amtrak over aircraft for lots and lots of my travel, if not for this. Hell, I'd probably travel more total, too. Even if the price were the same as flying for a given destination. The huge trip-duration and arrival-time uncertainty due to the shared rail, and having to defer to cargo trains, is what sinks it, for me. They can vary by large double digit percentages of the nominal time, at which point they're usually much slower than just driving. I love how relaxing and comfortable they are and not having the security circus and dealing with crowded, distant-from-the-city airports, but not at nearly-air-travel prices and a 25-75% time premium over driving.
- stevage 5y ago
  Yeah it was amazing living in France where rail is often faster, and sometimes much faster than driving. And often quicker than air travel when going from city centre to city centre.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Sure, now try shipping freight in France...
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      They had that, for a while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste There is also this https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2021/01/05/new-claim-for-fastest-freight-train-in-the-world-350-kmph/ https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2021/01/05/new-claim... Supposedly, don't know if it's in regular operation, or has been a publicity stunt.
MattGaiser 5y ago
Yeah, but there is also a reason that privately owned companies have no interest in passenger rail travel.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Because the US government shovels hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies every year into competitors of passenger rail?
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  You've missed the Brightline news, huh?
jdasdf 5y ago
The companies that own the railways are in the business of making money, not in the business of screwing Amtrak. I'm sure they would be more than happy to prioritize Amtrak trains over their cargo customers if they are suitably compensated for the trouble. If Amtrak isn't willing or able to compensate them for it... Then clearly it's not that important.
- protomyth 5y ago
  Also, the whole scheduling of cargo trains has big dollar penalties for delays in loading, unloading, and not arriving on time. Its amazing how detailed folks get about trains showing up. Cargo rail has a lot of moving parts that need to coordinate to keep the goods flowing.
protomyth 5y ago
I'm not glossing over anything. If passenger travel was more profitable or even less profitable but easier, than all of the private companies would be in the passenger business. Here we see a company that will end up building its own infrastructure deciding cargo is a better business opportunity than passenger. I think there was a certain amount of inevitability given the economics.