How America Saved Its Failing Freight Trains

Links:

[HTV-_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

Man I wish he explained how the interstate highway system got better, it required taking a large sum from the railroad funding for that project.

[jeremiahreilly]

Living in Switzerland here. I take rail and high speed rail everywhere. Amsterdam to Palermo (Sicily). London to Vienna. Long distance public transportation (high speed or otherwise) won't work without a robust regional and local network, including last mile. If you have to rent a car at the terminus to get to your final destination, most people will fly or drive.

[hikarikaguraenjoyer]

The last chapter misses the fact that Safety has gone down significantly, Class I railroads are also operating skeleton crews which has caused a massive uptick in accidents, derailments have skyrocketed. Not to mention the insane conditions they are working in right now. Majority of the big railroad companies refuse to invest into upgrading existing infrastructure, the infrastructure in question wasn't built for "monster trains" their running these days, which are way heavier and incredibly long.

EDIT:

Derailments have not skyrocketed, incidents have but derailments have only increased above pre-pandemic levels, they are nowhere near as bad as the 1970’s. Making this edit cause I do not like spreading misinformation

[Cptn.Viridian]

The problem with American railroads isnt nessisarly the problem. The main issue was the double whammy of over regulation in response to 1800's railroad tomfoolery, and the simultaneous gross underregulation and outright subsidization of the Automobile and trucking industry.

Quite frankly, the railroads got their just deserts for their gross profiteering in the 1800s. However, the Automobile and Oil industries, despite at this point making the 1800's railroad baron look like John Charity himself, have avoided any such just deserts.

[es]

Excellent video. US rail history is a fascinating topic and I hope to see you do more videos on them.

Three points:
(1) Part of the overreliance on debt came from the major railroads constantly overexpanding to lock out competition on track/geo coverage and rolling stock efficiency/capacity. These geo-monopolies mostly carried to today's freight rail networks, which have a very real negative impact on domestic passenger rail performance and expansion.

(2) The Pennsylvania Railroad considered themselves untouchable. They depended heavily on passenger rail and overextended their available capital. By the time they were forced to realize their dire financial situation, it was too late. In contrast, New York Central's last leaders saw the shift towards freight/intermodal and began taking aggressive action towards it. Unfortunately, the merger foolishly let the Pennsy's ignorant Mainline-mentality management win control, guaranteeing its death. It is an excellent example of competing cultures and management.

(3) Regarding your last chapter, yes, revenue has risen but at the cost of maintenance and safety. As we have seen in recent years, on-time performance is all that matters even if that means skeleton crews, overworked engineers, and a length some claim are unsafe, ultimately leading to derailments.

[RC]

Old regulation is just like legacy code. It should be revisited periodically. What enabled something in the past may be holding things back in the future. Great wrap up on how US railways got sandwiched in between new developments in transport and old regulation. And a spot on remark on that rail transport tends to get billed for use of track whereas trucks can mostly travel on roads for free.

[rok]

Buffet’s railroad takes advantage of a legal loophole that gives it a monopoly on last mile delivery of coal to the power generating stations. They make as much money on a short haul as the rail company that delivers coal thousands of miles from the mines to Buffet’s rail company territory.

[ImperatorZor]

This is of course leaving aside the various shortcomings of this policy for US railways such as...
*Reducing maintenance on track infrastructure
*Reduced maintenance on locomotives and rolling stock, which is more intensively used.
*Longer trains causing traffic jams as they can't fit into sidings.
*Overworked crews, which leads to an increase in mistakes.
*Ignored safety procedures.
*Blocked crossing.
*Increased risks of derailment.
*Trains unable to pass each other due to passing sidings being too short.

[rdormer]

@17:20 so the hedge fund manager prefers trucks because they hate actual capital investment, hate unions, think that trucks are more fuel efficient than trains (which they are demonstrably not, it's basic physics), doesn't realize that trains also run on Diesel, and that public roads are "free." Yeah, that about says it all about the supposed genius of the capitalist investor

[cva]

Buffett likes to invest in companies with a competitive moat. BNSF and the other Class I rail companies have massive moats - it seems extremely unlikely there will ever be competitors to them, is someone going to lay down thousands of miles of new track across the US? Almost certainly not. So BNSF, UP, CSX, etc - they all now have modern monopolies and they are again ruthlessly leveraging them.

[bekkayya]

Efficiency measured in Okay I guess subsidies are efficiency now.
Just dump money on it, wow so efficient!!!

[ataricom]

Free public roads? You should look into intermodal hubs like the one built outside of Chicago in Joliet, it already had a rich rail infrastructure due to, well, Chicago and the history of rail in the country. Roads, on the other hand, were NOT meant to handle the sudden surge in truck traffic: roads are wearing out faster, bridges are aging more rapidly than they should, and none of these shipping companies contribute a penny more than they have to for upkeep and upgrades.

[poofygoof]

there's no "market" when the class Is have regional monopolies. the existing network has become more concentrated, brittle, and less robust, and is optimized for container movement and unit trains. the only companies moving non-unit freight (boxcars and the like) frequently don't have any other options. the regional monopolies know this, and statements from the privatization of BNSF are tacit admissions of a desire to extract maximum profit from captive customers.

If the US really wanted private trucking-level or airline-level competition over rail, the core rail network would need to be nationalized, with centralized dispatch (like air traffic control), and system-wide standardized signaling. The railroad companies would remain in charge of individual trains and terminals, similar to airports. I'm not holding my breath.

Trains remain the most energy-efficient method of land transportation; it's ironic that the least-efficient methods in the form of air and road are the ones that are socialized.

[dmac]

Public roads are not "free". The interstate highway system was built and is maintained with billions of dollars collected in taxes by the government. All public roads are built with tax dollars for that matter. This is a classic example of an industry succeeding in the marketplace by being able to externalize major costs that the railroads couldn't (or were not willing to). Its also a case study on the unintentional breakup of a monopoly by publicly indirectly financing an industry that competes with it.
2nd point, although deregulation has led to market success of the freight companies, that has come at the expense of passenger rail. Amtrak is wholly dependent outside of the NE Corridor, on the freight companies for the rights of way for its routes. This is disastrous for maintaining punctuality as trains are routinely delayed for hours due to the freight companies not prioritizing passenger traffic as they are mandated under law. Plus it has no ability to invest in infrastructure to improve service. And it is hamstrung by Congress by being forced to maintain routes that lose a lot of money. Passenger rail can make money is the US if Amtrak were allowed to operate in the same manner that private freight companies operate. (The NE Corridor is still profitable) And it should have received more track previously owned by the PRR as ConRail did. Amtrak would be operating on a much smaller footprint but it would be profitable.
Last point, HSR in the United States can work. It will have to be short haul travel though. Connectors between major cities like San Diego to LA, San Francisco to Sacramento, Portland, Seattle to Vancouver, BC, Chicago, Detroit to Toronto, and Houston to Dallas are good candidates for HSR service Brightline may yet prove that private passenger rail service can work when the Las Vegas to LA route to opened. Once those routes are operating, then perhaps longer routes out to 500-700 miles should be considered

[johnkeller]

Implying the rail companies are investing in the infrastructure is asinine

[dziban]

you say how great deregulation is? so great that railroads are only too happy to use absurdly out of date safety equipment, check it rarely, and dodge most liability when things go wrong.

[kreek]

American freight rail companies had been held to 1935 productivity levels all the way to 1980 by labor-owned regulators. Ten years after regulatory escape in 1980, they've reached 1990 productivity levels. Then, oddly, after this huge 150% leap, productivity increases stop cold.

[vgstb]

There are about 3 U.S. train derailments per day.

In 2022, there were at least 1, 164 train derailments across the country last year, according to data from the Federal Railroad Administration.

[kellymoses]

To this day there is absolutely no limit to how long a train can block a road. States or cities can't even pass laws to enforce a limit.

[michaelmellinger]

There are dozens of routes where HSR would work in the US. “Too far” is someone telling you NYC to LA wouldn’t work.