3 ms·

I'm confused why you think that private rail owned, operated, and built by private companies is somehow "rent seeking". Amtrak is even only allowed to use thei

I'm confused why you think that private rail owned, operated, and built by private companies is somehow "rent seeking". Amtrak is even only allowed to use their rails by forced act of Congress. If things followed normal commercial rules Amtrak would have no right to use them at all. More so, they operate below the cost of any freight rail of anywhere in the developed world. They're incredibly efficient in operation. US Freight rail is a massive success story.

stetrain 4y ago
> From 1850 to 1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres (71 million ha) of public land – an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger in area than Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That establishes that they were given land, and a hell of a lot of it. So we're settlers, Ranchers, and individuals. A bass portion of land in the US was handed over to private parties who wanted to put it to use. I don't see how that undermines the idea that they are the rightful owners of it today. They were giving it in the expectation that they would put in rails to make money for themselves, and as a byproduct, there would be rail service for customers. Sellers remorse after 150 years is not grounds to claim that they don't actually own it
crote 4y ago
It depends on how you look at it. Purely from a $/tonne/mile perspective, it is a massive success. There is no doubt about that. However, the technology is literally decades behind compared to the rest of the world. Electrification basically does not exist, and basic safety systems are in their infancy. Precision Scheduled Railroading has resulted in a system with very little flexibility which makes extremely poor use of the infrastructure available. Working conditions are appalling, and the resulting stress has major safety implications. Meanwhile, passenger transport - which was the reason they were developed in the first place - has been reduced to a rounding error, and is the laughing stock of the Western world. Europe transports 35% of its freight by boat, 12% by rail, and 55% by road. The US transports 5% by boat, 11.6% by rail, and 75% by road. The observed success of American freight is primarily due to geographic restrictions: there are virtually zero waterways in the western half, and cross-continent barge transport is impossible. Combine that with a country which is incredibly big and mostly empty, and rail ends up being the only viable method for bulk cargo transport. The way I see it, US freight is deeply troubled by operating issues, and is only economically successful due to geography making it the only viable option.
- stonogo 4y ago
  We had electric railways. They couldn't compete and shut down.
Aloha 4y ago
Amtrak is allowed to use their rails in exchange for the railroads being let out of the obligation to run passenger trains. No one expected Amtrak to last 50 years.

stetrain 4y ago

> From 1850 to 1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres (71 million ha) of public land – an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger in area than Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts

s1artibartfast 4y ago
That establishes that they were given land, and a hell of a lot of it. So we're settlers, Ranchers, and individuals. A bass portion of land in the US was handed over to private parties who wanted to put it to use. I don't see how that undermines the idea that they are the rightful owners of it today. They were giving it in the expectation that they would put in rails to make money for themselves, and as a byproduct, there would be rail service for customers. Sellers remorse after 150 years is not grounds to claim that they don't actually own it

crote 4y ago

It depends on how you look at it. Purely from a $/tonne/mile perspective, it is a massive success. There is no doubt about that. However, the technology is literally decades behind compared to the rest of the world. Electrification basically does not exist, and basic safety systems are in their infancy. Precision Scheduled Railroading has resulted in a system with very little flexibility which makes extremely poor use of the infrastructure available. Working conditions are appalling, and the resulting stress has major safety implications. Meanwhile, passenger transport - which was the reason they were developed in the first place - has been reduced to a rounding error, and is the laughing stock of the Western world. Europe transports 35% of its freight by boat, 12% by rail, and 55% by road. The US transports 5% by boat, 11.6% by rail, and 75% by road. The observed success of American freight is primarily due to geographic restrictions: there are virtually zero waterways in the western half, and cross-continent barge transport is impossible. Combine that with a country which is incredibly big and mostly empty, and rail ends up being the only viable method for bulk cargo transport. The way I see it, US freight is deeply troubled by operating issues, and is only economically successful due to geography making it the only viable option.

stonogo 4y ago
We had electric railways. They couldn't compete and shut down.

Aloha 4y ago

Amtrak is allowed to use their rails in exchange for the railroads being let out of the obligation to run passenger trains. No one expected Amtrak to last 50 years.