Cowford wrote:"There's no doubt in my mind that if at least half of the expansive network that once existed still did, rail would be the primary option for any business..."
There should be. Today's US rail mileage is down only 45% from its peak in 1916.
Is that route mileage or track mileage? There is a huge amount of capacity (multiple track, interlockings, signal systems, yards and terminals, etc.) that have been removed, even though a line may still be active. And as Mr. Patrick noted, in the Boston metro area, as well as many other cities, existing rail infrastructure has seen a precipitous decline in freight use, yet an enormous increase in passenger use which may well preclude any return of freight traffic to the levels they once were. Take the former B&A main line for example. Route miles from Framingham to Boston is still about 22, but track mileage is halved - it was once 4 tracks, now two. Taking a more contemporary view, just 20 years ago Beacon Park was a very busy place, with a number of locals such as WABP-10 and WABP-11, always several B23-7s or GP15-1s shuffling cars around the full yard, and something like 6 to 8 road freights including hot "TV" intermodals each day to and from. Today, Beacon Park is dead empty, with only one local freight in each direction passing through. Yet there are 50 passenger trains between Boston and Framingham each weekday, up from 35 20 years ago, and more to come if plans to restore Amtrak Inland Route service ever bear fruit, all using the same infrastructure that existed in 1994. Freight on the east end of the B&A has essentially been squeezed out.