As if we didn't have enough to worry about. Now a rail strike.

[K Frame]

Nationalizing the railroads is probably the right thing to do at this point anyway.

 

[Angel Eyes]

Nationalizing the railroads is probably the right thing to do at this point anyway.

... because it worked so well in the U.K. ...

[zahc]

... because it worked so well in the U.K. ...

Didn't it? And private railroads are working so well in the US?

European railroads were nationalized for specific historical reasons that don't apply in the US.

[Angel Eyes]

Didn't it?

No.  It didn't.  https://theconversation.com/britains-railways-were-nationalised-70-years-ago-lets-not-do-it-again-89545

And private railroads are working so well in the US?

By and large, yes, they are:

https://ajot.com/news/railroads-are-usas-most-profitable-industry-with-a-50-profit-margin

[K Frame]

Didn't it? And private railroads are working so well in the US?

European railroads were nationalized for specific historical reasons that don't apply in the US.

America's private rail services are working one hell of a lot better than America's government rail service -- AMTRAK.

[French G.]

My mom got all agitated about having to wait while on Amtrak. She said the freight should wait so the passenger traffic is non stop. I explained that it was because Amtrak is asking nicely and paying to use track owned by the freight rail. I can only imagine how bad it would be if Amtrak owned everything. If nationalization is the answer then it sure must have been a dumb question.

[K Frame]

I've traveled a lot by rail over the years. I LOVE traveling by rail. Traveling by rail in Europe is a lot nicer, no doubt about it. But given my druthers, I'll continue to travel by rail, even if it's via Amtrak.

[RoadKingLarry]

Nationalizing the railroads is probably the right thing to do at this point anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

[sumpnz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

I really hope that actor made a shitload of money from that line.

[kgbsquirrel]

Only the easements should be nationalized, and they should have been from the very beginning.

Any infrastructure that is inherently monopolistic should be held by the public as monopolies are themselves inherently abusive.  The trains that travel the rails, however, should remain private, just as private ships use the waterways and private land vehicles use the roads.  Speaking of roads, transportation infrastructure is one of the few enumerated powers of the federal government: "to provide for the creation and maintenance of postal roads," paraphrased.

[zahc]

Amtrak sucks precisely because the railroads are private. The railroads have monopolies on the lines and only let amtrak use them at extortionate rates and criminal levels of service.

Just about everything is broken about the US rail system. I'm trying to think of one single thing that isn't. They are the reason we can't build pipelines, and the reason we are the only developed country without passenger rail. They use their monopolies to do nothing for the country that doesn't line their pockets and do everything else that does. The idea of defending them is pure Stockholm syndrome.

[zahc]

By and large, yes, they are:

https://ajot.com/news/railroads-are-usas-most-profitable-industry-with-a-50-profit-margin

You prove my point better than I could have. Your metric for success is how much profit they can extract from their rent seeking at the expense of the American public, without regard for what they actually provide or contribute. How very 21st-century American.

That profit margin is being sucked directly from the rest of the US economy due to their abuse of their monopolies, lack of competition, lack of any spending on infrastructure or service improvements, and so on.

Profit is great but the very fact that a capital heavy Industry like railroad is making Pharmaceutical-level profit margins is all but proof that it's rotten. If they earned their profit fairly, I would say great! God bless America. But they are parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket.

[cordex]

If they earned their profit fairly, I would say great! God bless America. But they are parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket.

So just to be clear, you'd like to take the railways away from "parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket" and give them to ... politicians?

Could you please ponder that for a moment for me?

[zahc]

if nationalization is the answer then it sure must have been a dumb question.

Very cute. Do you feel the same about the post office? Interstate highway system? Or are you one of those people who say that while actually complaining for the government to build you more free roads? There's a reason anarcho-capitalist literature is dystopian.

I don't know of any developed country with private roads. Maybe it's possible, it's just never been done. I do know a country with private railroads. And it's a laughingstock even compared to twobit impoverished hellholes.

Most people don't know or care about the state of US rail, but I think it's bigger than just rail itself, bigger than just transportation. It's so bad it might be an early symptom of the complete downfall of our country. I know people here, myself included, have opined that the US government has already fallen, and we are just watching it fall. When I look at US rail, I think not only is the US falling, it already has. Stick a fork in her boys, she's done. Americans invented the transistor, and can't build electronics anymore. Invented flight, and can't build airplanes anymore (Boeing/737Max). Invented the automobile, and can't build cars anymore (Detroit). Can't provide safe drinking water anymore (Flint). Invented atomic energy (slight exaggeration), and can't build power plants anymore. Our grandparents were the last generation that actually did anything. Do you ever go to other countries and realize they didn't stop... everything... like the US did?

BTW, the chuo shinkansen should be online in a few more years...50 f'in years since the first shinkansen train, they are building a new line maglev line between Tokyo and Osaka. 50 years! And in the US we are still pretending that trains are something out of our grasp. Do you know how poor Japan is? They live in tin houses and have no lumber or oil. But they manage to put down railroads like we did in 1850. It's a really big problem, guys. Who is going to take over when the US falls? My money is on Texas being the last remnant. They are even working on a rail line between Dallas and Houston, but the current DC administration hates Texas so much they will have to do it without any federal funding, and I wish they would, just to flip the bird to California. Texas is already on track to surpass California in wind and solar, while making money doing it. It would warm the corners of my heart; I'd be in line to be the first one to concealed carry a 1911 on the first and only highspeed rail line in America.

[zahc]

So just to be clear, you'd like to take the railways away from "parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket" and give them to ... politicians?

Could you please ponder that for a moment for me?

Yes. I would bring it directly under the Department of Transportation, NHS, and other existing transportation administration. It should be fairly synergistic with the interstate highway system network already in place.

[cordex]

Yes. I would bring it directly under the Department of Transportation, NHS, and other existing transportation administration. It should be fairly synergistic with the interstate highway system network already in place.

Maybe it would be as utopian as you imagine, but I just can't get over how much your derisive description of the current owners fits perfectly with your proposed owners.

[zahc]

Maybe it would be as utopian as you imagine, but I just can't get over how much your derisive description of the current owners fits perfectly with your proposed owners.

I'm not sensing much actual argument aside from vague statements. Can you answer these questions?

Do you think the interstate highway system should be privatized?

If it were privatized, do you think it would improve? In what ways?

If it were privatized, how profitable would it be? (Usually people don't even consider the idea of roads being profitable. Roads are so unprofitable, the idea of them being profitable seems almost a joke).

If the interstate highway system were private from the beginning, would it exist at all? Would our country be better?

I will answer these ones for you:

Is administration of the current interstate highway system perfect? No.

 Do we nevertheless have highways? Yes

 Is the administration of the US rail network perfect? No.

Do we have a functional rail network?
Essentially no, for freight rail included, but certainly for passenger rail.

[MechAg94]

Amtrak sucks precisely because the railroads are private. The railroads have monopolies on the lines and only let amtrak use them at extortionate rates and criminal levels of service.

Just about everything is broken about the US rail system. I'm trying to think of one single thing that isn't. They are the reason we can't build pipelines, and the reason we are the only developed country without passenger rail. They use their monopolies to do nothing for the country that doesn't line their pockets and do everything else that does. The idea of defending them is pure Stockholm syndrome.

We build pipelines all the time.  I think there are a few cases where stuff was held up at the national level. 

The biggest reason passenger rail often sucks as a solution is the cost of it is huge compared to the number of people who actually use it.  For cities, a well run bus system is the most efficient way to go.

[zahc]

The biggest reason passenger rail often sucks as a solution is the cost of it is huge compared to the number of people who actually use it. 

Huge compared to what? If you compared to roads, did you include the cost of all the cars? When you compared to busses, did you include the cost of the roads or just the cost of the busses?

 Interestingly, most of the world (literally the entire world besides the US) have passenger rail, despite your "huge cost" argument. In terms of finished cost to the rider, there is never any contest...rail is usually easily the cheapest, even in places where tickets are expensive.

For cities, a well run bus system is the most efficient way to go.

Bikes, buses, cars, trains, and airplanes all do different things. None of them precisely replace any of the others. It is not an either/or question, rather a question about how much of each. The answer is not zero for any of them, unless something is very wrong.

[Boomhauer]

The airplane is the reason why passenger rail largely evaporated in the US. Local cities have bus and rail*, regional travel is airplanes. Traveling across the country by rail sounds romantic until it takes a week and costs a lot more than a flight. Also a major downside of mass transit is having to acquire local transportation when you arrive.

*note many of these systems are run by their localities and SUCK. There is not a chance in HELL I’m getting on a city bus or many subways. Say what you will about air travel at least you don’t have bums pissing in the seats, raping women, or shoving passengers into jet engines.

[sumpnz]

I’m hardly a connoisseur of rail travel.  But I’ve either used or picked up/dropped off folks using rail service a number of times.  My experience with rail travel outside the USA was generally good.  Decent-ish ticket prices, comfortable and reasonably on time service, and used by lots of normal people.  In the USA while the trains themselves I’ve used had mostly normal people, when they transferred to busses (which was quite common) the weirdos were a very high proportion of passengers. 

The reasons pax-rail sucks here has more to do with low utilization than anything else.  The train from Seattle to Portland is very small compared to the one I took from Amsterdam to Eindhoven.  And there are way more runs on that Dutch route too plus the Dutch trains were fuller. 

Now, is that the chicken or the egg?  If the service was available at comparable costs to Europe would American rail travel take off?  Color me skeptical.  Once you arrive you need a car or someone to pick you up.  In Europe you hop on a bus (or walk) to get to your final destination.  A large number of Europeans don’t even own a car.  It’s a little unusual for us, but we have 6 cars right now (granted one isn’t running, and another is my mother in laws, and another is a pickup we lucked into for only $2k).  Still, Americans mostly own their own vehicles, and prefer the independence of travel that allows and so they aren’t willing to put up with the imposed schedules of mass transit. 

Besides, commies are so enamored with trains that most patriotic Americans kind of instinctually recoil at the idea of trains.  Partly because ubiquitous rail travel is seen as a ploy to restrict freedom of movement.  Whether it is or not, it’s undeniable that it would be far easier to control a populations movements when rail is a primary mover rather than automobiles.

[zahc]

The airplane is the reason why passenger rail largely evaporated in the US. Local cities have bus and rail*, regional travel is airplanes. Traveling across the country by rail sounds romantic until it takes a week and costs a lot more than a flight.

Rail is handily faster than planes up to about 400 miles. Even past 400 miles, rail can still be faster depending what flight you are comparing to, and how much time you have to allow for security, etc.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of high-demand routes under 400 miles in the US. There are over 100 flights per day just between Dallas and Houston, which is why they are looking for a rail link. There is a similar number of flights just between san Francisco and Phoenix, every day, which is also a prime distance. Repeat that for city pairs across the whole country....we haven't even talked about the East coast yet. And only about 20% of the people who make those trips every day fly. The rest drive. Some of both groups would take a train if there were one.

There is tremendous travel demand in the US. We have enough travel demand in the US over PRIME distances that it would be an enormous tailwind for our passenger rail system, if we had one.

Propagandists say rail doesn't work for the US because of size and population density, but it's just wrong. Take Spain -- a first world country with a high speed rail network. Look at the absolute size of Spain, their population density, and their distance between cities. There are multiple places in the US where you could overlay that map and we actually have HIGHER population density, HIGHER travel demand, and BETTER geography. No, there really is no excuse except corruption.

Also a major downside of mass transit is having to acquire local transportation when you arrive.

I think you mean "a major benefit of mass transit is not having to acquire local transportation when you arrive".   That's the entire point of transit you know. When the transit functions, you take the transit to where you want to go.

Planes are much better for crossing oceans than trains though.

*note many of these systems are run by their localities and SUCK. There is not a chance in HELL I’m getting on a city bus or many subways. Say what you will about air travel at least you don’t have bums pissing in the seats, raping women, or shoving passengers into jet engines.

Because air travel is federally regulated. You may remember that for a big chunk of the 20th century, air travel was completely run by the government, and now it's partially deregulated, and in my opinion, it needs to be slightly more regulated. But notice, we actually have airplanes. We actually established an air travel network, using government regulations, back when America still did things. We are comparing an existing air travel network to a nonexistent train network. If there were no airports, no airlines, and no airplanes, there would be no point in pondering the benefits of air travel. That's where our train network is right now. I honestly wonder if we had zero air network, and the only way to fly being to ship yourself on a cargo plane or something, while everyone else in the world had affordable air travel and in-flight movies, if Americans would somehow claim it's because airplanes don't work in America, too expensive, too dangerous, or whatever lame excuse to avoid admitting we just failed.

[zahc]

Americans mostly own their own vehicles

which costs, by any fair estimate, at least $10,000/year. And when there's no other transport option, and you need it to survive, not really much of a choice is it. Makes the auto industry happy though. Murica.

The independence of travel that allows

You get to independently sit in the same traffic as everyone else.

Also, did you know that they don't confiscate your car when they build a train? They don't force people to ride the trains either (you actually have to go there yourself and even pay a small amount). You can have both car and train, and have more travel options. More options. More freedom of choice. More options.

The imposed schedules of mass transit

For planes yeah, but trains? What schedule? Busy trains usually come every 5 minutes. 2 minutes on some platforms in Japan. Regional trains like the RER, maybe every 15. There's no schedule, you just go whenever you want. 

ubiquitous rail travel is seen as a ploy to restrict freedom of movement. 

Why would having less transportation options create more freedom of movement?

[Angel Eyes]

You prove my point better than I could have. Your metric for success is how much profit they can extract from their rent seeking at the expense of the American public, without regard for what they actually provide or contribute. How very 21st-century American.

Actually I disproved your claim that American railroads are doing poorly.  But you already knew that.

"Rent seeking"?  You really don't understand how railroading works.

That profit margin is being sucked directly from the rest of the US economy due to their abuse of their monopolies, lack of competition, lack of any spending on infrastructure or service improvements, and so on.

Wrong again.  They make profits because they provide a service that their customers want.  Transporting freight by rail is a very efficient mode, especially for bulk freight that isn't time-sensitive (coal, grain, sand, gravel, etc.).  Railroads do not "suck" money from the economy; they contribute to the economy.

As for "monopolies" that's also wrong.  The railroads compete with each other (BNSF competes with Union Pacific, CSX competes with Norfolk Southern, short lines and regional RRs compete with each other).  Moreover, railroads compete with trucking companies for customers.

Profit is great but the very fact that a capital heavy Industry like railroad is making Pharmaceutical-level profit margins is all but proof that it's rotten. If they earned their profit fairly, I would say great! God bless America.

Profit is proof that the industry is rotten.  Riiiiiight.

Also: define "fairly."

But they are parasites that cripple our infrastructure, harm our economy, make our country into a laughingstock while impeding any progress that eats into their nice racket.

Once again, you're wrong.  Railroads are a vital part of our transportation infrastructure.  Far from harming our economy, they contribute to it in a very real manner, moving freight from where it is to where it is needed.  They do all this without being run by the government.  In fact, excessive government regulation was strangling the railroads until the Staggers Act was passed.  This freed the railroads to make the necessary decisions to ensure their survival.

Nationalizing the nation's railroads would result in lower quality of service, higher operating costs, and decision-making based on politics rather than business realities.

[zahc]

Actually I disproved your claim that American railroads are doing poorly.  But you already knew that.

The railroad companies are doing well for themselves. That's all you proved. The railroad companies have utterly failed Americans in providing reasonable rail service, arguably for freight and indisputably for passenger rail.

"Rent seeking"?  You really don't understand how railroading works.

Because the railroad companies have pseudo -monopolies, there is a tremendous barrier to new entries that would compete with them, including political barriers like zoning, environment, etc
They monetize this advantage by charging far more, and providing much worse service, than they would in a competitive environment. Textbook rent seeking. You own the bridge, you charge what you want. That's rent seeking.

As for "monopolies" that's also wrong.  The railroads compete with each other (BNSF competes with Union Pacific, CSX competes with Norfolk Southern, short lines and regional RRs compete with each other). 

I said pseudo monopolies. Google technically competes with duckduckgo. And with newspaper ads. But due to network effects, Google is a pseudo monopoly. Look it up.

Profit is proof that the industry is rotten.  Riiiiiight.

Is this controversial? In an efficient market, profits are always driven down. Walmart's profit margin is like 1%. Hard to argue they are like the railroads. The more competitive the market, the lower the profit margins; this is practically an iron law of economics. I work in an extremely capital intensive industry (many billion/year continuing capital investment), but the fact that it's reasonably competitive means profit margins are small, and the most commoditized sectors run on margins of a fraction of a percent. The fact that a very capital intensive and long established industry like railroads would be making 50% profit margins is a glaring indicator somebody is getting screwed. Note: that somebody is the American people.

also: define "fairly."

"Earned legally in a functional, competitive market" (doesn't apply to railroads due to rent seeking behavior; see above)

Railroads are a vital part of our transportation infrastructure.

You said it. That's my whole concern. The US rail is in abject shambles and this is a big problem that isn't popular to talk about, probably because of the rail companies are happy to sit back quietly and rake in their 50% profits.

Excessive government regulation was strangling the railroads until the Staggers Act was passed.  This freed the railroads to make the necessary decisions to ensure their survival.

This probably needs translated to something like "the railroad shareholders weren't getting rich enough fast enough while also providing good service, building for growth, and maintaining infrastructure, so they petitioned the government to let them out of obligations and engage in business practices that maximized their shareholder value by squeezing value out of the railroads at the expense of the American economy and the future health of the US transportation system, and since DC is either corrupt, incompetent, or simply not paying attention, they said "sure why not" and here we are 50 years later with an effectively destroyed rail network and pile of dividend checks for the right people". Broken, fasco-capitalism at it's finest, seemingly the only thing America still does well. Hey, those railroad companies are making money though, and that's one definition of success. Just not success at actually providing rail service.

Nationalizing the nation's railroads would result in lower quality of service, higher operating costs, and decision-making based on politics rather than business realities.

Citation needed.