• Would we ever have just one Class 1 railroad?

  • General discussion about railroad operations, related facilities, maps, and other resources.
General discussion about railroad operations, related facilities, maps, and other resources.

Moderator: Robert Paniagua

  by QB 52.32
 
Cowford, perhaps it's all relative, lol?

Here's what is written in the Trains article:

"He (Rose, BNSF CEO) adds that so far, the debate over regulation has been "a thoughtful process". He says the industry can't forget that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat leading the move toward regulatory change, is "a huge advocate for rail". The Rockefeller bill should not make changes that could damage the rail industry".
  by Cowford
 
Wow! Rose must be sucking up. There's no other explanation.

From Railway Age in 2008: "Over the longer term, however, several issues that may come up are the role Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va, a long-time vocal opponent of the rail industry) may play on the Commerce Committee..."

I'm waiting for my copy to show up - I hope he didn't also sing the praises on NITL... the anti-rail rhetoric I've heard spewed by NITL's officers would make Lenin smile.
  by 2nd trick op
 
QB 52.32 wrote
2nd Trick and UPRR, how do you square your pessimism about our nation, its politics and railroading with Warren Buffett's $44 billion investment and complete purchase of BNSF?

Doesn't that give you some optimism about the future of our country, how it will be governed and its railroads?QB 52.32
That's a fair question, and I'll try to answer it without resorting to simplistic ideology; I'm bullish about the third, regardless, and about the first, over the long run; it's the second that leaves me a little uneasy.

My personal politics are Libertarian -- socially liberal with a free market conservative underpinning. But while many people who subscribe to that philosophy like to point out that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shugged was written around a fictional railroad, they neglect to recognize that Rand herself had a flawed understanding of the evolution of capitalism from sole proprietorships to outside-financed corporate entities which tend to succumb to the oxymoronic concept of "state capitalism".

What's more, technological progress, as evidenced particularly in the development of the Internet, sometimes tends to favor the development of new industrial sectors along monopolistic or oligopolistic models. A sudden swing between monopoly and instense competition, as evidenced by the trucking industry in the wake of deregulation, can have disastrous consequences for many players large and small. And I need only point out that the air industry, which shows a loss if the financial records of all domestic carriers are aggregated, is the most vunerable of all due to the necessity of cooperation with the state.

Back in 1965, Trains editor David P. Morgan observed that only one major industry (gas) had ever recovered after falling from a dominant position in the economy; the railroads have now been added to that list, but the industry has become intensely concentrated at a time when public opinion seems to be swinging back toward both a suspicious view of the private sector and a misguided faith in greater concentration of authority at the Federal level.

And finally, it's worth noting that the industry itself is far, far removed from a day when the average American male could name a few major railroads without much effort. A glance at a passing freight provides a very distorted view of the industry's players, and the convoluted story of the decline and rebirth of that industry 1945-2000 --- a rare instance in which limited and temporary public-sector participation paid off.

I believe that an expansion of the number of players within a field of enterprise, as opposed to the nuturing of a handful of corporate dinosaurs operating on a bureucratic, rather than a competitive model, is the surest path toward prosperity. Within that framework, preservation of the asset base, as in the case of both the AT&T breakup and the metamorphasis of a few of the remaining mega-truckers, should be the next consideration, and that can be reconciled with some moderation on the open-access issue.

To summarize, the nation appears to be on the verge of a transportation/infrastructural restructuring on a par with the "information revolution" whch began around 1975. And while all but the most strident free-marketers should acknowledge that some degree of public/private-sector partnership is necessary, the extreme concentration of the rail industry continues to make it a target for a misguided faction of the present Administration's clientele, which has been gaining influence and power. With the possible exception of Union Pacific, I don't see much evidence of an overly defensive stance or "bunker mentality ", but a strategy of open communication and a willingness to innovate might pay even bigger dividends.
Last edited by 2nd trick op on Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
  by toolmaker
 
Rockefeller is a US Senator, not a congressman.
  by Cowford
 
technically speaking, a senator IS a congressman.

QB, Trains showed up here today... flip the BNSF article over to page 8, where it states in para. one: "... The bills author, Sen. Jay Rockefeller D-W.Va. is pushing the [STB Reauthorization Act of 2009] bill because another measure he's supported, one that would more sharply curb railroads' ability to set rates, has stalled."
  by QB 52.32
 
Cowford, I concede that Senator Rockefeller is not pro-rail in the greater sense, however, I can't say that from his behavior surrounding re-regulation that he is strictly anti-rail either. He did bring the rail industry to the table along with shippers in crafting his legislation and fought other more-draconian antitrust measures. While I am against rail re-regulation I do believe the industry has entered a period of greater opportunity which naturally brings along some greater challenges, and do believe at this point that Rockefeller, either by nature or nurturing, gets that the long-term health of the railroad industry is important (or at least an important consideration he has to deal with in passing re-regulation). Perhaps that's why Buffett is unphased and Rose is offering praise.
  by UPRR engineer
 
I dont know there dude, Warren has been to Obama's house a few times to "talk" i guess. Thats what they reported on CNBC anyways. Hard to say why he thinks its a good idea, i havent heard enough of both sides to make up my mind.
  by v8interceptor
 
UPRR engineer wrote:I dont know there dude, Warren has been to Obama's house a few times to "talk" i guess. Thats what they reported on CNBC anyways. Hard to say why he thinks its a good idea, i havent heard enough of both sides to make up my mind.
Warren Buffett has been heavily invested in the RR industry for a long time. Berkshire Hathaway has a very succesfull business model of investing it industries it understands and buying well managed companies (and then letting them operate without too much interference from above). Wall Street (hardly a Liberal bastion) generally likes the decisions Buffett makes despite his personal political views...The idea that Berkshire Hathaway is some kind of "commie vanguard" ia laughable to the extreme...
  by UPRR engineer
 
Buffett must not believe that things are gonna get worse, it still isnt looking too good. Like i said i dont know enough about the guy to understand why he bought the BN.
  by Buffalobill
 
How can we compete with the likes of russia and china who have nationlized there railroads...railroads are just one part of the internationa trade game puzzle
  by neroden
 
UPRR engineer wrote: You missed a few key points in what happened, might want to go back and study it again. Ya also might want to look into what made this country different then any other country in the world
You might wanna do some of that research yourself. Hint: it wasn't the "free market system". (Protectionism? Government-sponsored railroards?)
  by neroden
 
UPRR engineer wrote:Buffett must not believe that things are gonna get worse, it still isnt looking too good. Like i said i dont know enough about the guy to understand why he bought the BN.
Look up Clement Atlee. He nationalized the railroads -- and the coal mines. And lots of other stuff in the UK.

*And he paid the former owners off generously*.

If nationalization happens, it is most likely to involve a buyout with a nice large payout for the former owners -- particularly if the former owners are nice and cooperative. If it doesn't happen, Buffett's sitting on a regulated utility (that's how he says he views the railroad, just like a regulated power utility).
  by 2nd trick op
 
Indeed, the central question seems to revolve around exactly what form of organization will develop for core industries in a post-industrial society.

Great Britain nationalized her coal and rail industries at a time when the distribution of wealth was more skewed, and class resentments ran very deep; (As Churchill once observed about Atlee; "There was a lot less to the man than met the eye.") While that rancor has intensified to some degree in America over the past couple of years, the view over the longer term remains more optimistic. Most of us who were on campus during the rebellious years 1964-1973 ended up with responsible jobs in private industry, and filled out our basic economic knowledge along the way.

So I have to believe that while like the electric utilities, the major railroads will be forced to conduct their business under public scrutiny, there should be plenty of opportunities for new forms of entrepreneurship to evolve; as with the internet and communications revolution, present stakeholders will hold an advantage, but can underplay this by developing publicly-held subsidiaries not as directly recognizable in the mindset of the street.

That surely seems a better alternative than completely undoing one of the biggest success stories of the nation's "post-industrialization"
  by neroden
 
2nd trick op wrote:Great Britain nationalized her coal and rail industries at a time when the distribution of wealth was more skewed,
Look up the post-tax Gini coefficient of the US and compare with estimates of Britain just after WWII. I think you're objectively wrong about that. Of course there are plenty of ways to redress an extremely skewed distribution of wealth other than nationalization (estate tax is the oldest, while progressive income tax has a long and honorable record). (Edit:) And the railroads are *not* generally where the modern plutocrats are.
  by 2nd trick op
 
I'm not familiar enough with the statistics suggested in Mr. Neroden's post to comment, but I think it's worth noting that at the close of Wold War II, Great Britain was exhausted, broke, and most of the population was realistic enough it its thinking to recognize that the days of the British Empire were numbered. The Labour Party capitalized upon it at that time, but the pendulum began to swing back as the contradictions and failures of highly-centralized socialism became more apparent, particularly in the last years of Harold Wilson's tenure.

The reduction of the top income tax brackets and the privatization of state-run "enterprises' is a phenomenon which has emerged throughout the "First World", and if the public is skeptical toward the further concentration of both capital and power in a limited number of hands, be they public or private, then the further refinement of the art of entreprenurship would seem to be one answer.