Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
A few questions about the structure of US railroads and how it differs from the structure in other countries? Am I right to say that generally, passenger rail services are publicly owned (Amtrak for long distance services - state transit agencies like MTA/Metra for local services?) but freight is of course privately operated on infrastructure which is privately owned - and there is no vertical integration excepted for the infrastructure owned by Amtrak on the NE corridor? And are there currently any privately operated passenger services in the US think Brightline is one is this the only privately operated passenger service is the US was just thinking this as I saw an interview with Paul Krugman who is a liberal economist was critical of rail privatisation in the UK and he said 'not even the US has privatised passenger rail' just asking is this true but you could say it is not true of the infrastructure outside the NE corridor which is owned by the freight companies. Also is the freight operation essentially an open access operation and is the likes of Brightline what you would call an open access operation in the UK/Europe? Also regarding responsibility for the regulation of the railroads is this a federal or state responsibility - the US has a body called the Federal Railroad Administration what would be the equivalent in the UK this has safety regulation responsibilities so would the UK equivalent of this be the ORR in this case like the FAA is equivalent of the CAA for civil aviation?
Vertical integration is the norm in the US and Canada.
The major railroads are huge businesses and own all their assets, though there are also many joint operations and running powers as used be here until 1948.
The railroad companies are often diversified businesses with land, property and industrial interests as well as operating the railway in their areas.
CP used to operate ships, hotels and an airline, but that transport model has faded away, and they tend to call themselves resources companies today.
There's a "two-operator" policy which seeks ensure main centres have a choice of rail operator.
Recent mergers (eg UP/SP, BN/SF) were also allowed on condition another operator was allowed access to key markets over their routes.
Also regarding responsibility for the regulation of the railroads is this a federal or state responsibility - the US has a body called the Federal Railroad Administration what would be the equivalent in the UK this has safety regulation responsibilities so would the UK equivalent of this be the ORR in this case like the FAA is equivalent of the CAA for civil aviation?
Regulation is basically a federal responsibility, but the states do have some powers as well.
Yes, the FRA is the federal regulatory body and is the nearest equivalent to the ORR. Accident investigation is handled by the NTSB. Approval (or not) of railroad mergers & takeovers is handled by the Surface Transportation Board (STB).
The railroad industry trade body is the Association of American Railroads (AAR) - this is bit like the Rail Delivery Group, but is much, much older and has a research/technical/interoperability standards side to it as well.
A few questions about the structure of US railroads and how it differs from the structure in other countries? Am I right to say that generally, passenger rail services are publicly owned (Amtrak for long distance services - state transit agencies like MTA/Metra for local services?) but freight is of course privately operated on infrastructure which is privately owned - and there is no vertical integration excepted for the infrastructure owned by Amtrak on the NE corridor? And are there currently any privately operated passenger services in the US think Brightline is one is this the only privately operated passenger service is the US was just thinking this as I saw an interview with Paul Krugman who is a liberal economist was critical of rail privatisation in the UK and he said 'not even the US has privatised passenger rail' just asking is this true but you could say it is not true of the infrastructure outside the NE corridor which is owned by the freight companies. Also is the freight operation essentially an open access operation and is the likes of Brightline what you would call an open access operation in the UK/Europe? Also regarding responsibility for the regulation of the railroads is this a federal or state responsibility - the US has a body called the Federal Railroad Administration what would be the equivalent in the UK this has safety regulation responsibilities so would the UK equivalent of this be the ORR in this case like the FAA is equivalent of the CAA for civil aviation?
Your liberal economist is way of base there all US passenger services were originally provided by the private railroads it was only the rise of the automobile\trucks, the interstate system and airlines that forced either the withdrawal or even the collapse of the railroads into bankruptcy in the 1970s that forced the 'bailout' of passengers services and the creation of Amtrak for long distance and the transfer of commuter railroads to state\city government control.
Am I right to say that generally, passenger rail services are publicly owned (Amtrak for long distance services - state transit agencies like MTA/Metra for local services?)
Note that the actual operation and staffing of some 'transit agency' commuter/local services is contracted out either to the host freight railroad, a service company or Amtrak, and the tracks they operate over are often a mixture of freight railroad and state-owned trackage.
Ignoring heritage and tourist railways, AFAIK Brightline is the only privately operated passenger service in the US.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
it was only the rise of the automobile\trucks, the interstate system and airlines that forced either the withdrawal or even the collapse of the railroads into bankruptcy in the 1970s
Add outdated (by the 1960s) federal regulation of railroad freight rates to the list - not fixed until after the collapse of Penn Central and the creation of (federally-owned) Conrail out of the ashes, mostly by the passing of the 'Staggers Act' in 1980 which largely de-regulated rates.
It is really surprising that the US doesn't use the concession model favoured in much of the rest of the world and prefers outright public ownership and operation. The federal government, states and cities are quite willing to involve the private sector in other public services.
There are various commuter railroads where the state\city has acquired track. Not just in the historic bailouts such as Penn Central but more recently where the freight railroads desires conflict with that of the passenger operator. I think around Philadelphia former four track formations have been refurbished to provide two dedicated passenger tracks with a third freight line for example.
It is really surprising that the US doesn't use the concession model favoured in much of the rest of the world and prefers outright public ownership and operation. The federal government, states and cities are quite willing to involve the private sector in other public services.
It is indeed remarkable, given that (irrespective of blue/red politics), the US prides itself on being the land of free enterprise. Yet almost every city bus system or airport (to give the most obvious transit examples) is publicly owned and operated.
It is indeed remarkable, given that (irrespective of blue/red politics), the US prides itself on being the land of free enterprise. Yet almost every city bus system or airport (to give the most obvious transit examples) is publicly owned and operated.
Airports aren't quite as straightforward. New York being a prime example. The airport field being owned\operated by the Port Authority, the odd NY\NJ joint organisation. And the terminals built and owned by individual airlines. At La Guardia is a similar pattern although ISTR consolidation and rebuilds have left two terminals one owned by Delta and the other by the Port Authority.
They have even nationalised airport operation! For example, Indianapolis airport used to be managed by BAA, but that contract was cut short and reverted to full public operation.
It is indeed remarkable, given that (irrespective of blue/red politics), the US prides itself on being the land of free enterprise. Yet almost every city bus system or airport (to give the most obvious transit examples) is publicly owned and operated.
Yes this is one of the paradoxes of transport in the US. Of course basically every mode of transport is subsidised in some way, in theory highways are paid for out of fuel taxes but that had been insufficient for many years now and highway maintenance has to be subsidised out of general funds. This will only het worse with the increased use of electric vehicles. Air and water transport are also heavily subsidised through government provided infrastructure. There is often criticism of Amtrak for "losing money" which is frustrating to rail advocates because of so many hidden subsidies for competing modes.
Am I right to say that generally, passenger rail services are publicly owned (Amtrak for long distance services - state transit agencies like MTA/Metra for local services?)
Yes, but things like funding are a bit more complicated. Amtrak is owned by the federal government but only gets federal funding for NEC services and services over 750 miles long - anything below 750 miles is funded by state governments. Local transit agencies are usually funded and controlled by a mix of state governments and city/county governments.
but freight is of course privately operated on infrastructure which is privately owned - and there is no vertical integration excepted for the infrastructure owned by Amtrak on the NE corridor?
Amtrak owns more infrastructure besides the NE corridor, and of course many of the local transit agencies own their own track. Vertical integration in freight traffic is the norm.
Absolutely not - infrastructure is nearly always owned by the same company who operates freight trains over it, and whether other operators can operate over it is entirely up to the infrastructure's owner - they have no obligation to allow anyone else on their tracks (unless it's Amtrak).
The closest you get to open-access operation are cases like terminal railroads, who operate yards in major cities and are usually jointly owned by all the railroads that serve that city. There are also some cases of state governments owning infrastructure, but even there these lines tend to only be used by one or two operators.
No. Brightline operates on its own tracks and on those of the Florida East Coast Railway - but the latter is a private contract, there's no government enforcement like there is with open-access - provided it doesn't breach the terms of contract, FECR has no obligation to provide infrastructure to Brightline.
Also regarding responsibility for the regulation of the railroads is this a federal or state responsibility - the US has a body called the Federal Railroad Administration what would be the equivalent in the UK this has safety regulation responsibilities so would the UK equivalent of this be the ORR in this case like the FAA is equivalent of the CAA for civil aviation?
Add outdated (by the 1960s) federal regulation of railroad freight rates to the list - not fixed until after the collapse of Penn Central and the creation of (federally-owned) Conrail out of the ashes, mostly by the passing of the 'Staggers Act' in 1980 which largely de-regulated rates.
Though let's be honest - private passenger rail would have gone even if the Staggers Act was passed much earlier. It just didn't fit with the American railroads long policy of focusing on long, slow, and infrequent traffic.
Absolutely not - infrastructure is nearly always owned by the same company who operates freight trains over it, and whether other operators can operate over it is entirely up to the infrastructure's owner - they have no obligation to allow anyone else on their tracks (unless it's Amtrak).
That's not universally true, there are extensive stretches of track where one freight railroad has running powers over another railroad's tracks. This has often been a condition of approval of mergers.
No. Brightline operates on its own tracks and on those of the Florida East Coast Railway - but the latter is a private contract, there's no government enforcement like there is with open-access - provided it doesn't breach the terms of contract, FECR has no obligation to provide infrastructure to Brightline.
That's not universally true, there are extensive stretches of track where one freight railroad has running powers over another railroad's tracks. This has often been a condition of approval of mergers.
No, I wasn't suggesting it was, though the running powers are often granted to provide competition in an area where one railroad owns all the tracks and would otherwise have a monopoly on rail freight.
It's probably nearer to the pre-nationalisation system in this country.
FEC is owned by Grupo México today who also run 11000km of railways south of the border among other interests, predominantly mining. It was through the arrangement with Brightine that FEC double-tracked its mainline all the way into Miami, with big capacity improvements for intermodal freight to and from the docks there. The route is still plagued by countless level crossings, however.
Not commonly realised is that the railroads which have Amtrak service have a legal obligation to allow it. This goes back to the original formation in 1971, when it took over the array of private railroad passenger services, all of which were loss-making, and their financial responsibilities, in exchange for the railroads permitting the service to be provided by Amtrak, unimpeded. This is a gross simplification, but that's broadly how it was, and is. Of course, 50 years of changes, and the US legal system's grindings, have led to an array of changes.
The private railroads had been constrained pre-Amtrak by a further range of legal obligations, some going back to when they were built, to provide this service, where they had to apply to the Federal government to withdraw it, which often was not given, and Amtrak provided a sought-after relief from this responsibility. Notably on the day Amtrak took over they themselves abandoned about half of what was transferred, the real basket cases, which they were now able to do.
Actually it was a bit more complicated than that - Amtrak only took over intercity passenger services - any services classified as "commuter" the private railroads still had to run absent ICC permission to discontinue the service. These all eventually ended or were folded into local transit agencies, but some are still operated by the freight railroads under contract to transit agencies. A few railroads, most notably the Rio Grande and the Southern, also initially opted out of Amtrak and continued running their few remaining passenger services.
Yes, of course it would have gone - it was the speed of air travel and the convenience of the private car that started the death-spiral of long-distance passenger trains the US, then the US Post Office steadily reduced its use of the remaining trains for mail traffic (which historically was a major source of passenger train revenue). While some railroads were quite pro-passenger (e.g. the SAL & ACL who served the Northeast to Florida market, and the CB&Q) and others hostile to it (e.g. SP), falling revenues and increasing costs meant even the formally pro-passenger railroads threw in the towel and applied to abandon their remaining routes by the late 1960's.
Why would a railroad focus on "long, slow, and infrequent traffic" - going slow increases crew and loco costs (as you need more of them). There's always a balance between train lengths, train speed and route capacity which maximises revenue versus operating costs, but that varies with traffic type, route characteristics and what service level a customer is willing to pay for.
Generally bulk commodities e.g. minerals, grain, oil are in the 'cheapest possible transport' category because the transport cost is a very significant part of the delivered price. So they usually travel in long, heavy trains with the minimum motive power to get over the route. But on a reasonably flat route that doesn't mean they go slowly.
At the other end of the scale, some intermodals are pretty hot-shot e.g. BNSF's 'Z' trains used by the likes of UPS, Fedex, DHL, US Post Office etc. - those are today's equivalent of trains like the SP 'Blue Streak Merchandise' and Santa Fe 'Super-C' of old.
How much time have you spent trackside watching freight trains go by in the USA and/or Canada?
Generally bulk commodities e.g. minerals, grain, oil are in the 'cheapest possible transport' category because the transport cost is a very significant part of the delivered price. So they usually travel in long, heavy trains with the minimum motive power to get over the route. But on a reasonably flat route that doesn't mean they go slowly.
So, in other words, slow is cheaper, or at least a byproduct of operating methods that are cheaper. I also note the obsession over "slow" and the complete concession on "long" and "infrequent". Why do you think passenger and freight segregation is the norm in North America but not elsewhere?
Why would a railroad focus on "long, slow, and infrequent traffic" - going slow increases crew and loco costs (as you need more of them). There's always a balance between train lengths, train speed and route capacity which maximises revenue versus operating costs, but that varies with traffic type, route characteristics and what service level a customer is willing to pay for.
But this does characterise US rail service. A majority still of east-west routes, and as far as I recall all north-south ones, are mostly single line, and efficiency measures, such as the misnamed "Precision Scheduled Railroading" are all about maximising each trainload.
And you need more locos per train (or per car) if you try to increase speeds. The infrastructure doesn't suit different trains running at different speeds.
Yes, it can be - that's just like most railways that carry heavy freight operate, including the UK. It's why we have 5000 tonne stone trains hauled by a single cl. 59, and used to have 3000 tonne iron ore trains hauled by a cl. 60 in South Wales (over a more steeply grade route), both on mixed-traffic lines. It's all about minimising the operating costs, and it's what railways have done since their inception - trains have got steadily longer and heavier as locomotives have got more powerful and infrastructure has been upgraded for higher axle loads. Yes, on a mixed-traffic railway you can't drop the power-to-weight ratio too low because the slow trains eat up too much route capacity, but I would point out that 5000 tones with a cl.59 is only around 0.6 hp/tonne, which is comparable with North American practice for that sort of train. US intermodals normally run with higher hp/tonne just like ours do, for the same reasons - speed is a more saleable product for that kind of traffic. Go and sit alongside the BNSF 'Southern Transcon' for a day or two and decide for yourself how it runs.
I didn't 'concede' anything, just didn't mention it. I'm not 'obsessed' with slow either. I know very well that on many routes the freights are long and infrequent - I've sat waiting for something to turn up enough times to know that...(then two turn up 20 minutes apart following each other, and 30 minutes later one comes in the other direction, after the daytime maintenance possession has been lifted...).
Because it's overall better for both if the infrastructure is available. It happens to some extent elsewhere as well e.g. the two banks of the Rhine in Germany, and there are places in North America where frequent passenger and freight trains share the same tracks e.g. LA to Fullerton in California (Metrolink and Amtrak passenger on BNSF tracks), west from downtown Chicago to Aurora (Metra and Amtrak passenger on BNSF tracks) and west from Washington DC to Martinsburg (MARC commuter rail on CSX tracks, but that's largely a peak-hours only passenger service).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But this does characterise US rail service. A majority still of east-west routes, and as far as I recall all north-south ones, are mostly single line, and efficiency measures, such as the misnamed "Precision Scheduled Railroading" are all about maximising each trainload.
Most of the major east-west routes are very largely double-track e.g. :
UP Chicago - Bay Area (via the pre-merger UP+SP+WP). The Portland, OR and Los Angeles 'branches' from Ogden are largely single track AFAIK.
BNSF Chicago - LA (ex-ATSF) is now almost all double-track (and triple on Cajon Pass).
UP (ex-SP) 'Sunset Route' is a mixture, but UP has added some double track sections since the merger.
BNSF 'Northern Transcon' is complicated as the very roughly parallel ex-Great Northern and ex-Northern Pacific routes are still in use for most of the way from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Seattle (The Sandpoint to Spokane 'funnel' is a single combined route for both ex-GN & NP route traffic). AFAIK, the ex-GN is the faster route and carries the majority of the intermodal traffic, with the ex-NP handling more of the the slower bulk and mixed freight trains, despite needing serious helper power added to trains over the mountain passes on the (soon to be ex-) MRL in Montana.
You can have mixed traffic only if you have spare capacity. A full up passenger railway has no room for freight, and heavy freight traffic will not leave room for passengers. When the US and Canada had railways literally everywhere, there was room for both. Now most tracks are abandoned, and what is left is too busy to allow much mixed traffic.
But this does characterise US rail service. A majority still of east-west routes, and as far as I recall all north-south ones, are mostly single line, and efficiency measures, such as the misnamed "Precision Scheduled Railroading" are all about maximising each trainload.
And you need more locos per train (or per car) if you try to increase speeds. The infrastructure doesn't suit different trains running at different speeds.
It is not so much the more locomotives, but more that the infrastructure has to be maintained to a higher standard and strength, and the freight rolling stock (which traditionally does not have the same maintenance and inspection regime as higher speed passenger cars). The safety risk and cost rises exponentially with the speed. There comes a speed where the economics do not stack up, and their speed even on the best main lines in North America is not comparable to passenger train speeds on the best main lines of Europe.
You can have mixed traffic only if you have spare capacity. A full up passenger railway has no room for freight, and heavy freight traffic will not leave room for passengers. When the US and Canada had railways literally everywhere, there was room for both. Now most tracks are abandoned, and what is left is too busy to allow much mixed traffic.
Yes, it can be - that's just like most railways that carry heavy freight operate, including the UK. It's why we have 5000 tonne stone trains hauled by a single cl. 59, and used to have 3000 tonne iron ore trains hauled by a cl. 60 in South Wales (over a more steeply grade route), both on mixed-traffic lines. It's all about minimising the operating costs, and it's what railways have done since their inception - trains have got steadily longer and heavier as locomotives have got more powerful and infrastructure has been upgraded for higher axle loads. Yes, on a mixed-traffic railway you can't drop the power-to-weight ratio too low because the slow trains eat up too much route capacity, but I would point out that 5000 tones with a cl.59 is only around 0.6 hp/tonne, which is comparable with North American practice for that sort of train.
I don't see the relevance of quibbling over horsepower-to-load ratios when the obvious fact is that UK stone trains run at speeds capable of not interfering with passenger traffic and a lot of American freight trains don't.
US intermodals normally run with higher hp/tonne just like ours do, for the same reasons - speed is a more saleable product for that kind of traffic. Go and sit alongside the BNSF 'Southern Transcon' for a day or two and decide for yourself how it runs.
I don't think that "some trains put some emphasis on speed" is a sufficient counter to my argument. They seem rather the objection that proves the rule.
I didn't 'concede' anything, just didn't mention it. I'm not 'obsessed' with slow either. I know very well that on many routes the freights are long and infrequent - I've sat waiting for something to turn up enough times to know that...(then two turn up 20 minutes apart following each other, and 30 minutes later one comes in the other direction, after the daytime maintenance possession has been lifted...).
Slow isn't necessarily cheaper, as reducing the journey time on a long run allows the same amount of payload to be carried with fewer locomotives, freight cars and crews, and with less product inventory (the shipper is able to sell their goods more quickly after paying to produce it). The last factor is more significant for high-value goods but all the others apply equally whatever the cargo.
What may happen is that a railroad with long flat stretches and a few hills may accept slow running on the hilly sections as more cost-effective than using more locomotives over the entire journey or attaching and detaching helpers. I've been on Amtrak trains that did this too. That was probably one of the major impetuses behind adopting creep control and AC traction motors to increase tractive effort - the extra adhesion may mean less power is needed on the hills (accepting some slow running), so it may be possible to reduce the number/power of locomotives to just what is needed to keep a good speed on the flat. Also of course hilly sections are often tightly curved and unsuitable for running fast anyway.
Slow isn't necessarily cheaper, as reducing the journey time on a long run allows the same amount of payload to be carried with fewer locomotives, freight cars and crews, and with less product inventory (the shipper is able to sell their goods more quickly after paying to produce it).
But of course how much this actually reduces costs depends on how fast you're going, and thus depending on the circumstances it may not make up for the extra costs going fast imposes.
But of course how much this actually reduces costs depends on how fast you're going, and thus depending on the circumstances it may not make up for the extra costs going fast imposes.
That is true. But if you're going 1000 miles an average of 50mph is 20 hours and an average of 40mph is 25 hours, it all starts to stack up. There's also the issue of slower trains on shorter journeys, where going faster might not confer significant cost saving or increase revenue, holding up trains on longer routes or carrying more time-sensitive cargo. My impression is that most trains on a particular section run at about the same speed, and away from mountain sections and perhaps the dedicated heavy haul lines that speed is relatively fast. On most routes it's limited to 79mph by federal requirements to have cab signalling for higher speeds - not sure if the more recent mandate of Positive Train Separation replaces this.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
