5 ms·

Great deep dive. Those that decry the US for not having a rail network comparable to Europe's only consider the passenger side of the equation. We have perhaps

Great deep dive. Those that decry the US for not having a rail network comparable to Europe's only consider the passenger side of the equation. We have perhaps the best freight railroad network in the world.

Spooky23 4y ago
That’s disturbing. Being familiar with a couple of railroads, they aren’t exactly the best run corporations.
ericbarrett 4y ago
The first time I saw this claim was about 15 years ago in libertarian circles, deployed as a talking point against high-speed passenger rail, and justification for lack of investment therein by the U.S. There's no doubt we have an extensive rail system—most of the country was built by rail—but is it modern? Is it safe? Is it serving its purpose? Seems to me there are many scheduling, personnel, automation, safety, and supply-chain issues constantly popping up around the rail industry, though I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert. I wonder how much of its success relies on work done in the 19th and early 20th century that won't scale (or isn't scaling) with modern needs. I'm curious if there are any industry folks hanging around HN who'd care to comment.
- seibelj 4y ago
  A fairly good rule of thumb for the market test of an industry is how much subsidies they receive as a percentage of their revenue. For example renewable energy is constantly said to be cost competitive with fossil fuels, yet the industry is always demanding (begging) for subsidies and carve outs. In Boston they recently increased everyone’s electric bills by 30% by switching everyone’s supplier to renewable with an opt-out rather than opt-in change. If renewables were so cost effective, why are they always scheming for tax credits and subsidies? For railroads, the story is the same. Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed. But they win a lot of votes and get a lot of union make-work jobs so they keep getting subsidized.
  - sleepychu 4y ago
    > Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed. Citation needed, in the UK they are franchised to private companies. It's hard to imagine companies bidding to renew their enormous money losers. :-)
    - seibelj 4y ago
      Here is a fairly good overview from 2013 https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/high_speed_rail_lessons.pdf https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/high_speed_rail_... But again - lose the subsidies and lose the unions, and then see what is cost effective.
    - djbebs 4y ago
      UK railways were (no longer are) public companies in all but name. To claim they were privatized in anything but name is quite frankly insulting.
  - occz 4y ago
    >For railroads, the story is the same. Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed. Roads don't make money either.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > For example renewable energy is constantly said to be cost competitive with fossil fuels, yet the industry is always demanding (begging) for subsidies and carve outs. > If renewables were so cost effective, why are they always scheming for tax credits and subsidies? I don't quite follow; subsidies don't get worse if you're already profitable. They get better!
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      I think the parent meant it this way: In any country there are thousands of special interest groups looking to do the same. How are the folks advocating for renewables succeeding over and above so many other groups where tax credits, subsidies, etc., are a matter of life and death, when renewables are already so cost effective, and thus don’t need it as much?

Spooky23 4y ago

That’s disturbing. Being familiar with a couple of railroads, they aren’t exactly the best run corporations.

ericbarrett 4y ago

The first time I saw this claim was about 15 years ago in libertarian circles, deployed as a talking point against high-speed passenger rail, and justification for lack of investment therein by the U.S. There's no doubt we have an extensive rail system—most of the country was built by rail—but is it modern? Is it safe? Is it serving its purpose? Seems to me there are many scheduling, personnel, automation, safety, and supply-chain issues constantly popping up around the rail industry, though I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert. I wonder how much of its success relies on work done in the 19th and early 20th century that won't scale (or isn't scaling) with modern needs. I'm curious if there are any industry folks hanging around HN who'd care to comment.

seibelj 4y ago
A fairly good rule of thumb for the market test of an industry is how much subsidies they receive as a percentage of their revenue. For example renewable energy is constantly said to be cost competitive with fossil fuels, yet the industry is always demanding (begging) for subsidies and carve outs. In Boston they recently increased everyone’s electric bills by 30% by switching everyone’s supplier to renewable with an opt-out rather than opt-in change. If renewables were so cost effective, why are they always scheming for tax credits and subsidies? For railroads, the story is the same. Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed. But they win a lot of votes and get a lot of union make-work jobs so they keep getting subsidized.
- sleepychu 4y ago
  > Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed. Citation needed, in the UK they are franchised to private companies. It's hard to imagine companies bidding to renew their enormous money losers. :-)
  - seibelj 4y ago
    Here is a fairly good overview from 2013 https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/high_speed_rail_lessons.pdf https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/high_speed_rail_... But again - lose the subsidies and lose the unions, and then see what is cost effective.
  - djbebs 4y ago
    UK railways were (no longer are) public companies in all but name. To claim they were privatized in anything but name is quite frankly insulting.
- occz 4y ago
  >For railroads, the story is the same. Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed. Roads don't make money either.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > For example renewable energy is constantly said to be cost competitive with fossil fuels, yet the industry is always demanding (begging) for subsidies and carve outs. > If renewables were so cost effective, why are they always scheming for tax credits and subsidies? I don't quite follow; subsidies don't get worse if you're already profitable. They get better!
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    I think the parent meant it this way: In any country there are thousands of special interest groups looking to do the same. How are the folks advocating for renewables succeeding over and above so many other groups where tax credits, subsidies, etc., are a matter of life and death, when renewables are already so cost effective, and thus don’t need it as much?