THE ECONOMIST HSR article July 22

In usual form, The Economist has a concise, insightful discussion on the HSR issue in the US... more intellectually honest than you'll see in Trains or Railway Age, exposing the pitfalls of US HSR development and other challenges facing the US freight roads.

High-speed railroading: America’s system of rail freight is the world’s best. High-speed passenger trains could ruin it

...But the problem with America’s plans for high-speed rail is not their modesty. It is that even this limited ambition risks messing up the successful freight railways.

I believe the online edition may be subscriber-only... worth a read though if you can get at it.

i respect the Economists pov and reporting , but i suspect more of a quote may give us some balance .
update :
Here is the link
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101
quite bizzarre , the article , suppossedly on hsr , mainly talks about freight . the only real hsr discussion is on the negative impact it will have on freight railways .
Seems pretty clear who they talked too . 1 out of 10 for balance .

David Benton wrote:i respect the Economists pov and reporting , but i suspect more of a quote may give us some balance .
update :
Here is the link
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101
quite bizzarre , the article , suppossedly on hsr , mainly talks about freight . the only real hsr discussion is on the negative impact it will have on freight railways .
Seems pretty clear who they talked too . 1 out of 10 for balance .

It does seem to be a typical Economist article. And it does ignore the benefits of high speed passenger and freight. And what are the criteria for the initial back patting "US rail is the best in the world". That isn't how I see it.

The graphs are from the AAR , (american association of railroads ), and i suspect thats where the rest of the information and opinions came from too .Though they do have a brief quote from Don Philips , but its not clear if it is in context with the rest of the article or not . i suspect he would have qualified it , given the chance .

David Benton wrote:The graphs are from the AAR , (american association of railroads ), and i suspect thats where the rest of the information and opinions came from too .Though they do have a brief quote from Don Philips , but its not clear if it is in context with the rest of the article or not . i suspect he would have qualified it , given the chance .

I don't read the Economist a lot (can't afford it). Its philosophy is the "free market" will solve all our problems. I don't agree with that.

It would have been better to investigate why other industrialised countries, including China, think it is worth investing in high speed rail. One economic factor that should be taken into account is social benefits that cannot be captured at the fare box, and therefore need to be supplied in other ways. In general people and politicians there refuse to accept that there are economic benefits that don't fit the simplistic economic model.

As it is partly a press release for the Association of American Railroads it accepts far too easily their story that non-timetabled trains are a good thing. So, everyone else, outside third world countries, is wrong in insisting on timetables? Ho hum.

I find that The Economist usually offers an extremely sober view of the usually hyper-polarized US political landscape; but when reading past issues of The Economist, I'm surprised at how often they mis-read the tea leaves. This article is clearly an AAR soapbox piece fretting about re-regulation and government involvement in the freight business (PTC--oh no!). At the same time, the AAR is expecting to get multiple billions of dollars from government entities to upgrade their freight infrastructure by the year 2035. That money isn't going to come without trade-offs and buy-ins.

Strange that Amtrak and the various State DOTs that will be building the HSR networks aren't quoted in the article.

Good points Vincent. The Economist's value is that it offers a more sober, purely business oriented British POV of US affairs, though it is rumored most of the articles are written by fresh grads from Uni, so you have a point there with missing the mark sometimes. As for HSR, I have mentioned it before, but US RR's should not be involved in HSR in any way or form- they don't know anything about it, are not capable of running it, and in fact, run a completely different business. The only thing they share with HSR is that they both run on steel rails 4 ft 8.5 in apart. Complete segregation is the answer, that's how you run a first class HSR system (meaning over 150mph, not this "emerging" stuff), and that's how you run a safe operation that generates profits and beats the airlines.

For those of you that think the article was off-mark, perhaps you could expand on how HSR, or any type of expanded passenger network for that matter, would benefit the nation's freight railroads...

I fully agree that any true HSR will have to be built mostly outside of the freight rail infrastructure, the two modes just can't successfully co-exist and prosper. But it is possible to build some effective higher speed passenger rail services on freight line ROWs and not destroy freight mobility. When a state asks for access to the privately owned freight lines for passenger trains, the freight railroad usually requires that its lines be upgraded with new sidings, extra main lines and new signalling systems that benefit both the freight trains and the passenger trains. One of the biggest obstacles for higher speed passenger trains is freight train interference. If the rail infrastructure is built correctly, the freight trains and the passenger trains will be able to move along the corridor without interfering with one another. I live in the Cascades Corridor (Eugene OR-Portland-Tacoma-Seattle-Bellingham-Vancouver BC) and the public investments in the corridor have created a corridor that is more fluid and reliable for the freight movements and allows for quicker transit times for the passenger trains.

Cowford wrote:For those of you that think the article was off-mark, perhaps you could expand on how HSR, or any type of expanded passenger network for that matter, would benefit the nation's freight railroads...

Well, if the HSR requires significant upgrades to the track and maintenance, and perhaps electrification then the freight railroads benefit. I could envision setting aside a few corridors between the most densely populated regions as something akin to a "railway interstate system" where the USDOT owns an electrified ROW that would be shared by freight and HSR. The freight companies would save on maintenance and fuel costs while HS passenger trains finally realize their potential. All the while cars AND trucks are taken off the road, less dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gases are reduced.
If this sounds like socialism then I suggest you stay off the Interstate!

I've been aware of The Economist for many years, but it's only in the last two or three that I've been paying more attention to it.

You can attribute most of that to my agrarian-conservatie-turned-Disciple-of-Rand background. But as one grows older, an understanding of the need for pragmatism develops. And a visit to some of the more grass roots-oriented employment and political/economic sites will confirm that the number of voters drawn to the fringes, from both left and right, is increasing, just as back in the dangerous 1930's.

Clearly, major changes to the structure of our economy, especially with regard to transportation, will have to be allowed to evolve. And historically, the most profound changes have arisen from small, but highly popular concepts which took root due to their own suitability and popularity, rather than haveing been imposed from above, according to a rigid formula.

Still,the public sector can play a major (and proper) role in reducing or getting around some of the major obstacles; if the powers within the Beltway can embrace the concept of "too big to fail" (about which I retain some serious reservations) then the concept of "too big (or just too politically vulnerable) to (directly/privately) finance" would seem easier to understand.

And as Mr. Norman pointed out in another thread, the opportunity for both the financing and technical development of hybridized forms of transport entrepreneurship could be vastly expanded.

http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=137&t=67261

I do have to respond to one of Mssrs. Benton and Matthews points, however:

David Benton wrote:

The graphs are from the AAR , (american association of railroads ), and i suspect thats where the rest of the information and opinions came from too .Though they do have a brief quote from Don Philips , but its not clear if it is in context with the rest of the article or not . i suspect he would have qualified it , given the chance.

I don't read the Economist a lot (can't afford it). Its philosophy is the "free market" will solve all our problems. I don't agree with that.

I have to point out that the overwhelming percentage of the financing for our freight system came from private capital, freely invested,

While the HSR dream is pushed overwhelmingly by those who subscribe to the bureaucratic mentality which continually goes around looking for new and expanded "problems" to "solve",

thereby paving th way for an Albuquerque-Denver-Cheyennne-Billings HSR used exclusively to fish for the support of eight Senators and a handful of Representatives,

And that difference, IMHO, makes the AAR's argument worth more than that of a hundred partisan planners.

Cowford wrote:For those of you that think the article was off-mark, perhaps you could expand on how HSR, or any type of expanded passenger network for that matter, would benefit the nation's freight railroads...

Not really the relevant question. The relevant question is even if HSR hurts the freight railroads, will it be a net benefit to this country? The answer is yes. All other questions are basically immaterial.

Free market people are inherently skittish. They're really a bunch of visionless cowards, if you want the honest truth, because their entire goal is protecting profits in the particular industry for which they have an interest, not increasing the overall profit potential but spreading it around to many industries. Anything that rocks the boat sends them running for the trees. Status quo is their mantra.

The fact is if you want to make an omelet, you've gotta break a few eggs. Just the way it is. Sometimes, short-term disruption is necessary for the long-term common good.

And no, this is not a "fringe" position, inasmuch as every other country in the so-called "first world" subscribes to this idea. We are one of the few countries in this group that does not - although in reality, it's not so much that the *country* doesn't subscribe to this idea (a large majority of Americans are in favor of investing in HSR), as it is a few powerful publications like the Economist and parts of both political parties beholden to the money provided by those whose profits would be disrupted by it.

spacecadet wrote:

Cowford wrote:For those of you that think the article was off-mark, perhaps you could expand on how HSR, or any type of expanded passenger network for that matter, would benefit the nation's freight railroads...

Not really the relevant question. The relevant question is even if HSR hurts the freight railroads, will it be a net benefit to this country? The answer is yes. All other questions are basically immaterial.

Free market people are inherently skittish. They're really a bunch of visionless cowards, if you want the honest truth, because their entire goal is protecting profits in the particular industry for which they have an interest, not increasing the overall profit potential but spreading it around to many industries. Anything that rocks the boat sends them running for the trees. Status quo is their mantra.

The fact is if you want to make an omelet, you've gotta break a few eggs. Just the way it is. Sometimes, short-term disruption is necessary for the long-term common good.

And no, this is not a "fringe" position, inasmuch as every other country in the so-called "first world" subscribes to this idea. We are one of the few countries in this group that does not - although in reality, it's not so much that the *country* doesn't subscribe to this idea (a large majority of Americans are in favor of investing in HSR), as it is a few powerful publications like the Economist and parts of both political parties beholden to the money provided by those whose profits would be disrupted by it.

Wow I have been fumbling around to find those words for a LONG time!!! Well said, spacecadet! Mind if I quote on some other relevant threads?

Wow I have been fumbling around to find those words for a LONG time!!! Well said, spacecadet! Mind if I quote on some other relevant threads?

I have been avoiding political talk but indeed there is an answer to the "Free market" block on any kind of innovations.

Think how the buggy whip industry fared after the arrival of self-propelled vehicles.

My personal belief regarding "free markets" is that "free markets" work best when they are well regulated. When Buffet purchased BNSF he equated it to a regulated utility, like a gas or electric company. That's probably a smart assessment on his part because most of freight railroading is operated partly in the free market and partly in a monopoly market situation. Customers have the choice of trucks or railroads, but if they choose the railroad there usually is only one provider. But the opportunity to operate as a monopoly comes with the acceptance of extensive government oversight of safety rules, for the protection of workers and communities.

While the freight railroads in North America may be the world's best, they are far from perfect and they will still need an incredible amount of capital investment in items like track and stuctures, signal systems and rolling stock before they will be able to provide the streamlined, whiz-bang logistics services that they want us, their customers and their shareholders to believe they can provide. A modern, efficient freight rail system would provide numerous external benefits to society in the form of less road congestion, safer logistics and less pollution, but the public's contribution to the infrastructure financing plans will have to be negotiated with benefits accruing to both the public and the railroads.