Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Railroads and forsight I suggest you read BOTH notes-- the
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 04:59:16 -0500
To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:53:15 -0800 From: "John L. King" <king () wang-wei ICS UCI EDU> Richard Solomon wrote:
Eventually the RRs went bankrupt, to be reinvented 60 years later, but with a tiny share of freight, and no share of passenger traffic.
Not true on either count. Rail now accounts for about 1/3 of freight traffic by weight in the US, and it is growing. A significant fraction of small-parcel "2-day express" shippment goes at least part way by rail. Rail is the one sector of land freight movement that has shown dramatic productivity improvement over the past decade. Passenger rail is a marginal player in the long-haul intercity routes, but it is a significant player in the heavily-traveled intercity routes (e.g., Northeast Corridor) and in many intra-regional commuter networks. Note as well that the railroad world played major roles in key developments in telecommunications. For example, developments in radio communications for rail transport were key in the development of the concept of cellular radiotelephony. Also, one of the first major breaks in the armor of the AT&T Bell System's monopolistic hold on long-distance communication, which arguably bootstrapped the telecom deregulations of the 80's and 90's, occurred when a railroad won the right in court (after being sued by the Bells) to run its own long- distance interstate telephony network over its rail right-of-way. This preceeded MCI's microwave end-run of the Bell System by a couple of decades. John King, UCI John King Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:22:32 -0500 To: "John L. King" <king () wang-wei ICS UCI EDU> From: rjs () rpcp mit edu (Richard J. Solomon) I like railways, too. They comprise two chapters of historical perspective in my forthcoming book on telecom re-regulation, "The Gordian Knot" (MIT Press, 1996). However, the facts are simple: railroad corporations as a whole ignored the technological changes and gave up the lion's share of the value-added to freight forwarders, truckers and airlines. Peter Lyons' "To Hell in a Day Coach" (Lippincott, 1969) did a good job documenting how asinine they were about politics -- that was when the National Railroad Passenger Corporation was being debated in Congress. A flock of recent books takes the story up to date. Weight doesn't count; very little coal is shipped on 747s. Even stack trains don't count. The RRs came in so late, that they gave the bulk of the profits over to the shipping industry. Matson Lines revolutionized the American railroads, but mostly to the profit of its Japanese shipowners, since the Japanese needed the land-bridge more than we did. Today, to quote the CEO of CSX in his recent announcement to merge with Conrail, railroads receive a small fraction of the freight value shipped in the U.S., despite their recent growth trends and despite the shift to containerization, especially over the Rockies. And that took 60-70 years to reverse. But value-added is what counts in business, not bulk, and the value-added doesn't go the people who own locomotives. The Santa Fe is the only railroad controlling its own stack train freight forwarding, and they don't have a very large share of the traffic. Who can we blame for this but management excesses and blindness for decades? Sad, but true. As for passenger traffic, Amtrak's figures aren't even on the radar. Cutting out 1/4 of their recent service doesn't exactly count as growth. Another sad story, when you see TGVs, Bullets, ICE trains all making money, and all based on pre-war U.S. technology taken to the extreme. Not that the Europeans or Japanese manage their railroads any better, but the highspeed services have reversed downward trends
From my point of view, the railroads did themselves in, helped, of course,
by their competitors. The telephone companies will do the same, but this time there won't be any rights of way, old steam locomotives on museum trips, or stone arch bridges to remind us that Ma Bell once existed. No one collects old Western Electric Central Office buildings, just W.E. wooden crank telephones. I don't see the relevance of the S.P. disinvestment in microwave towers to form Sprint They surely didn't understand the telecom revolution. If anything, the U.S. Air Force should be given the most credit for pushing the Long Lines microwave growth in the late 1950s, for SAGE and follow-ons. One hell of a giantic subsidy to AT&T. Richard Solomon
Current thread:
- IP: Railroads and forsight I suggest you read BOTH notes-- the Dave Farber (Nov 19)