747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3183 posts, RR: 3 Posted (4 months 9 hours ago) and read 1373 times:
I read, that a large amount of the US cargo, such as containers and coal, is shipped by trains. Giant container ships, that are loaded with containers, make calls at US ports, and most of these containers are transferred to stack trains, and moved coast to coast and north to south. Now in the US, there is only four large national rail roads, UP, BNSF NS and CSX. These four RR, are making money, and it seems like a decent ideal, for a new company, to lay new tracks and take advantage of the growth of cargo in the US, so why nobody else is trying to start a national rail road?
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3237 posts, RR: 38 Reply 1, posted (4 months 9 hours ago) and read 1352 times:
The Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) handles the overwhelming majority of cargo and goods railed through South Florida versus CSX, and it will only get better for them when the current projects resurrecting direct rail service to the Port of Miami, and a closer intermodal terminal inside Port Everglades (Fort Lauderdale), are completed in the next few years.
This is to coincide with the completion of the expansion of the Panama Canal.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
redflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4078 posts, RR: 32 Reply 2, posted (4 months 9 hours ago) and read 1320 times:
I'm no expert, but it would appear that "laying new track" would be an extremely expensive proposition. Laying the track itself wouldn't necessarily be cost-prohibitive, but purchasing easements/rights-of-way on land that the tracks would have to pass through would be too costly. And I don't think a railroad could invoke imminent domain the way land developers do in cahoots with local governments to take over property for an alternative use.
But I don't think laying new track would be necessary as I believe RR's use each other's tracks regularly and just pay a user fee, or something like that.
As redflyer posted railroads sure are expensive to build. All the land rights which would need to be purchased for the risk of maybe being able to do better than the other companies already there. Honestly 4 large competing companies in a rail system which you really had to get yours hands on by the 1950s is not too bad. At least there are four large companies.
I just think starting a railroad would be very very expensive to start. May not be worth the risk. It would also be very difficult to start with getting cities, towns and states to OK the projects.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9177 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (4 months 7 hours ago) and read 1271 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): Now in the US, there is only four large national rail roads, UP, BNSF NS and CSX.
Define a 'National' Railroad....??? UP and BNSF have no rail east of the Mississippi. CSX and NS have no rail west of the Mississippi. That hardly makes them national.
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): and it seems like a decent ideal, for a new company, to lay new tracks and take advantage of the growth of cargo in the US
The upstart would cost trillions of dollars to buy the land and right aways to lay new track.
[Edited 2012-01-25 17:31:59]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8202 posts, RR: 48 Reply 6, posted (4 months 7 hours ago) and read 1233 times:
According to someone I met from NS, laying down tracks costs about $2 million a mile.
Other than that, the network is mostly built, so there is little need to lay more tracks. All four main companies (and the smaller ones) operate on each other's tracks through agreements and even swap tracks between themselves.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
flymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5674 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (4 months 6 hours ago) and read 1211 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 6): According to someone I met from NS, laying down tracks costs about $2 million a mile.
Wow, if that number is true just 500 miles of track which would be nothing for a large railroad carrying frieght cost
$1,000,000,000. So One billion dollars. That pretty much sums it up, not many people/companies want to spend billions on a brand new business.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4871 posts, RR: 21 Reply 11, posted (4 months 4 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): most of these containers are transferred to stack trains, and moved coast to coast and north to south.
Most containers don't move extremely long distances. They move a few hundred miles.
Quoting redflyer (Reply 2): Laying the track itself wouldn't necessarily be cost-prohibitive, but purchasing easements/rights-of-way on land that the tracks would have to pass through would be too costly.
Quoting flymia (Reply 7): Quoting PPVRA (Reply 6):According to someone I met from NS, laying down tracks costs about $2 million a mile.
Wow, if that number is true just 500 miles of track which would be nothing for a large railroad carrying frieght cost
$1,000,000,000. So One billion dollars. That
That $2 million per mile is laying new track on existing right of way the railroad already owns. It can cost 2 or 3 times that to lay new track, from right of way purchase to sub-roadbed work, etc.
Think of this also.
There are only a very few rail bridges across the Mississippi River south of St Louis
2 in St Louis - Terminal Rail Road Company of St Louis
1 at Thebes, Ill - UP
2 at Memphis (3 tracks - 2 UP, 1 BNSF)
1 at Vicksburg, MS - KCS
1 at Baton Rouge - KCS
1 at New Orleans - New Orleans Public Belt Railroad
The latest of these completed was in Baton Rouge in 1940
Several like the bridge in New Orleans also carries road traffic. Completed in 1935, a modernization of the vehicle lanes is underway at a budgeted cost of $1.2 billion.
Building a new Mississippi River bridge could easily exceed $2 billion.
Unlike airlines, railroads have to build their own infrastructure.
If airlines had to build their own airports, we would see a lot fewer startup airlines.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2494 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (4 months 3 hours ago) and read 1118 times:
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 8): Canadian Pacific and Canadian National are also big players in the US. Then there are tons of regionals and short lines.
CN's US presence is almost as big as its Canadian presence. They are slowly growing what will eventually be a huge container flow that starts at a new (and rapidly expanding) container port at Prince Rupert and carries Asian cargo to Chicago and down to Memphis. Prince Rupert is three days sailing closer to Shanghai than LA/Long Beach and has no congestion at all.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 6512 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (4 months 2 hours ago) and read 1109 times:
There's another class 1 RR - kansas City Southern whoich owns also a large Mexican operation as well as a RR in Panama.
The existing carriers upgrade their mainlines to double tracking, new sidings, or even triple track like UP in nebraska. Or NS has enlarged tunnels so that stack trains can operate on more routes in their network.
dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11372 posts, RR: 88 Reply 14, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1033 times:
The infrastructure present supports the business available. When more is required, and the risk of building more/spending more outweighs the risk of not doing so then more will be built. After the massive consolidations of the last 30 years of the 20th century for rail I'm surprised that we still have 5 class 1 railroads. The room for growth in this industry is in regional companies that will have to lease space on trackage owned by the big companies.
NoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 498 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1028 times:
The other thing to keep in mind is that there used to be quite a few large regional railroads, but the number has dropped due to mergers. Old classics like B&O or Pennsylvania no longer exist as separate roads -- they are part of larger systems now.
There are places where existing track is close to capacity -- for example, the mid-Atlantic region -- where new capacity would be welcome. Acquiring the land is the problem. In the early days of railroad, the government gave away huge tracts of land as an incentive to build -- not really an option now.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4871 posts, RR: 21 Reply 16, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 994 times:
The house I grew up in was just 500 feet from the original Louisiana & Arkansas route, which was KCS by then. I used to see the Shreveporter and Hustler daily. My dad made sure we made a short trip on the Shreveporter just a few days before that ended.
I still remember all the red, yellow and dark green paint schemes.
Today, I live about five miles from the KCS Wylie Yard and it makes me so happy to see the new engines painted in the historic colors.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8202 posts, RR: 48 Reply 17, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 986 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 11): That $2 million per mile is laying new track on existing right of way the railroad already owns. It can cost 2 or 3 times that to lay new track, from right of way purchase to sub-roadbed work, etc.
That could be.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 11): If airlines had to build their own airports, we would see a lot fewer startup airlines.
On the positive side, perhaps they would be as financially stable as the railroads today. Also, my understanding is that people who work at these railroads are very happy employees.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
Northwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 475 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 935 times:
I think you mean Class I railroads, although there are more than 8 that exist (including the 4 you mentioned).
The number one reason why there are only eight Class I railroads left, is that the interstate highway system, personal cars, trucking and airlines have ended the railroads as a choice for transportation in the USA. That's it.
The former all offer on demand, near-on demand, or faster travel vs. the railroads, which are now viewed as irrelevant dinosaurs of a bygone era (despite their efficiency and promises). Just look at how much controversy is generated over high speed rail.
Just like the airlines today, whoever remained merged in order to stay profitable, and in the case of PC and the NH, the US government had to step in and form Conrail in order to save the industry (on the east coast at least).
On an interesting note, between the 1930s and 1980s, when the railroad was in a deep decline, the USA lost 2/3 of its trackage through abandonments.
redflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4078 posts, RR: 32 Reply 19, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 894 times:
Quoting Northwest727 (Reply 18): The former all offer on demand, near-on demand, or faster travel vs. the railroads, which are now viewed as irrelevant dinosaurs of a bygone era (despite their efficiency and promises).
I think the comment regarding cars, trucks, and airplanes being faster or on-demand is true. However, railroads are not irrelevant or dinosaurs in their current iteration. They are used to move bulk wholesale goods. They can do it more efficiently than any other means of transportation. But as you point out, it's not going to be on-demand and it will only be between large distribution centers. We will never again see the railroads of the past, but the current system serves a very valuable purpose in the economy. (I'm talking freight...forget the B.S. about passenger service as it can't survive as a stand alone without external subsidies.)
seattle From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 60 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 814 times:
Well technically in the U.S. there are no "national' carriers. Amtrak is the only railroad that serves coast to coast and north and south in the United States. But of all the major players in the U.S. that i can think of off hand: Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Norfolk and Southern, CSX, Kansas City Southern - Kansas City Southern de Mexico, Florida East Coast, Ferromex, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific not to mention the huge amount of shortlines that mostly are owend by a few larger companies the probability of starting a whole new coast to coast land bridge container hauling railroad within the states and have it turn a profit would be next to impossible.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 6512 posts, RR: 25 Reply 22, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 806 times:
...especially not with the new Panama canal widening to accomodate larger ships.
Still, there''s plenty of untapped market potential from truckers and UPS/FEDEX intermodal business but not enough to justify an all new carrier. The existing class ones can add additonal rails if market grows. BNSF has just completed the transcon line by double tracking the final miles in New Mexico's Abo canyon. UP is going ahead with double tracking the sunset route. That adds capacity to the speedways.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 6512 posts, RR: 25 Reply 24, posted (3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 753 times:
Los Angeles to El paso which will upgraded to couble track all the way, same the continuation to chicago on the former SP / CRI&P. This will basically a strong competition to the BNSF transcon. .
The Sunset Limited continues to San Antonio on UP , no info on hand right now how far that is double trcked or if they have sidings only.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 6724 posts, RR: 3 Reply 25, posted (3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 745 times:
The competition situation in rail is pretty dismal now. I think they are just charging near-trucking prices and keeping the monopoly rent for themselves. So, yes they can make good money on a permanent basis. Long ago, this was a bigger problem when trucking was less able to compete, and railroads could dominate the economy.
Northwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 475 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (3 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 714 times:
Quoting redflyer (Reply 19): I think the comment regarding cars, trucks, and airplanes being faster or on-demand is true. However, railroads are not irrelevant or dinosaurs in their current iteration. They are used to move bulk wholesale goods. They can do it more efficiently than any other means of transportation. But as you point out, it's not going to be on-demand and it will only be between large distribution centers. We will never again see the railroads of the past, but the current system serves a very valuable purpose in the economy. (I'm talking freight...forget the B.S. about passenger service as it can't survive as a stand alone without external subsidies.)
I agree with you, however I am just taking the stance of the general American public (and politicians, in some way). I do wish the freight railroads well, however. Funny thing is, when oil prices go up, while everyone suffers, railroads actually do well (because rail is far more efficient). I remember in the gas price spike in 2008, while the economy was slowly imploding, the freight railroads were actually having a renaissance and were bursting at the seams with traffic, thanks to the sky high oil prices.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8202 posts, RR: 48 Reply 28, posted (3 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 726 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 25): The competition situation in rail is pretty dismal now. I think they are just charging near-trucking prices and keeping the monopoly rent for themselves. So, yes they can make good money on a permanent basis. Long ago, this was a bigger problem when trucking was less able to compete, and railroads could dominate the economy.
According to my dad, who has worked on some projects in the US, shipping heavy machinery by rail is by far the cheapest method. . . but you never know when the machine will arrive, so they almost never do it. These guys stop everywhere in between to pick up freight and change routes all the time.
[Edited 2012-01-27 12:16:45]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4871 posts, RR: 21 Reply 29, posted (3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 707 times:
Quoting KingairTA (Reply 27): Railroad companies could take a hit if the truck weight limit is raised from 80,000 pounds to 96,000 pounds like congress is thinking of doing.
I hope not. There is enough construction on the Interstates now.
johns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 676 times:
Trucking companies will never be able to get all the drivers that they need. Nobody likes being away from home for 2 or 3 weeks at a time. That's why many are putting their longhauls on flatcars (TOFC) and having most drivers in regional pools, so they get home more often.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3183 posts, RR: 3 Reply 33, posted (3 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 609 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 13): There's another class 1 RR - kansas City Southern whoich owns also a large Mexican operation as well as a RR in Panama.
The existing carriers upgrade their mainlines to double tracking, new sidings, or even triple track like UP in nebraska. Or NS has enlarged tunnels so that stack trains can operate on more routes in their network.
I did not know KCS was that big, I should have known, when I saw that photo of a KCS EMD SD70 ACe in a train magazine.
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4): Define a 'National' Railroad....??? UP and BNSF have no rail east of the Mississippi. CSX and NS have no rail west of the Mississippi. That hardly makes them national.
Pre meger UP and ATSF went to Chicago.
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 8): Canadian Pacific and Canadian National are also big players in the US. Then there are tons of regionals and short lines.
Yes, I was shock at the rate that Canadian Rail Roads have grown in the United States. Well, this a good change to see EMD SD 60F and EMD SD-50Fs here in states.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 11): Most containers don't move extremely long distances. They move a few hundred miles.
Now I see why NS have been using GP locomotives, on there stack trains into port Norfolk, instead C truck locomotives.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4871 posts, RR: 21 Reply 34, posted (3 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 603 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 33): Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 11):Most containers don't move extremely long distances. They move a few hundred miles.
Now I see why NS have been using GP locomotives, on there stack trains into port Norfolk, instead C truck locomotives.
One of the 'growth' industries is inland container ports. UP runs several trains each day from Houston to just south of Dallas where a huge complex is a distribution point.
KCS has one north of Fort Worth near Alliance Airport (AFW) with traffic coming from the Gulf coast. We see them move through Wylie each day. BNSF also has a container operation in that area.
Lately we've been seeing two UP trains per day of about 130 container stacks coming down the KCS line from Greenville through Wylie and into Garland / Dallas. Those are unusual, most of the UP traffic is on their main tracks south of US 80 in Mesquite - might be some work on the line. That UP track is a very heavily used single track mainline - and it also carries Amtrak.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 6512 posts, RR: 25 Reply 35, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 597 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 34): KCS has one north of Fort Worth near Alliance Airport (AFW) with traffic coming from the Gulf coast. We see them move through Wylie each day. BNSF also has a container operation in that area.
I was there about 10 years ago but then it was a BNSF facility. Huge intermodal yard. The BNSF HQ is also at Ft. Worth
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 33): Pre meger UP and ATSF went to Chicago.
UP on C&NW only which was wholly or partly owned then. BNSF always an Santa fe to Chicago, BN always has had extensive operations in illinois etc.
Quoting falstaff (Reply 31): BNSF does have operations in Alabama and Mississippi, both ex-Frisco
...and tennessee (Memphis)
to complete, BNSF is in Wisconsin as well, where UP has larger operations.
57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2548 posts, RR: 2 Reply 36, posted (3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 405 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 28): According to my dad, who has worked on some projects in the US, shipping heavy machinery by rail is by far the cheapest method. . . but you never know when the machine will arrive, so they almost never do it. These guys stop everywhere in between to pick up freight and change routes all the time.
Ummmm. No. Heavy machinery can be shipped very quickly and efficiently as separate trains but it will cost a lot more. Also, there are key railroad companies that are owned by government entities. My hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee is a terminal for two government owned railroads. The main line operated by Norfolk Southern Railway from Chattanooga to Cincinnati, Ohio is the Cincinatti Southern Railway, which was built by and is owned by the City of Cincinatti, Ohio. It is under long term lease to the Cincinatti, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway, a subsidiary of Southern Railway Systems-now Norfolk Southern Railway. It was completed in the 1880s. The other railroad is the Western and Atlantic Railroad of the State of Georgia. It was completed between Chattanooga and Atlanta, Georgia in 1849 and was operated by the State of Georgia until 1870. It was leased to the Western and Atlantic Railroad Company from 1870 to 1890, when it was leased to the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway for a period of 25 years. Under Georgia state law, the lease of the railroad cannot be negotiated at the end of the current lease. It must be awarded by competitive auction to the highest bidder, except when that would permit the winning bidder to create a transportation monopoly in the Atlanta region.
The reason for that is that in the 1960s, the Southern Railway outbid the NC and would have had a stranglehold on rail services in and out of Atlanta. Both railroads are still government owned to this day.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3183 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8202 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1174 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 6512 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4845 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
