Is the staggers act why there's not many trains?

[IndianaRR90]

I am wondering if the staggers act of the late 70s is the cause why there are even lesser trains today and railroads?

[Typhoon]

You might want to take some time and read up on the condition of railroads prior to Staggers.

[SD80MAC]

I am wondering if the staggers act of the late 70s is the cause why there are even lesser trains today and railroads?

The Staggers Act allowed railroads to finally abandon unprofitable and no longer needed rail lines and set their own rates for freight, among many other things. Like Typhoon said, you should read up on it some more.

[IndianaRR90]

Did this just cause for the Class One or regionals & shortlines too?

[GreatLakesRailfan]

Technology is a much reason there aren't as many trains as there were at one tine. The Staggers Act probably saved more railroads (and thus, more trains) than anything else. Like was said above, you need to read up on what the Act was and did, especially from an economic standpoint. While you're at it, check out what deregulation did to the trucking industry as well, and how the industry is stronger today as a result.

[saxman]

I would also recommend that you read "The Men Who Loved Railroading" by Rush Loving. Excellent reporting on the how and why the industry is what it is today.

[railroadchoad]

I don't have the figures handy but I believe tne railroads are moving more ton-miles of freight now than at any time before staggers. If anything, Staggers is the reason the railroads even make money. It was probably one of the most important pieces of legislation ever signed by James E. Carter.

[AARR]

I don't have the figures handy but I believe tne railroads are moving more ton-miles of freight now than at any time before staggers.

Everything I read supports your belief that railroads move more ton-miles than ever before

[Saturnalia]

I don't have the figures handy but I believe tne railroads are moving more ton-miles of freight now than at any time before staggers.

Everything I read supports your belief that railroads move more ton-miles than ever before

Sine the Staggers Act in 1980, ton-miles have gone from about 900 Billion annually to nearly 1800 Billion annually.

Now there are many factors in the rise, but you can certainly argue that the Staggers act helped the railroads peddle their services and compete, thus increasing productivity.

However, there has been a shift to fewer, long trains as apposed to short, numerous trains. Also, the railroads are more consolidated, having been nearly 40 Class Is in 1980, and now of course 7. It is much more of a hub-and-spoke system as well.

Many changes, but hey, now they are profitable, make lots of investments in their physical plant, etc. Staggers was probably the best thing the US Congress did for transportation in the last 40 years, IMO

[bctrainfan]

Well, it seems to me there were a great many more trains running in many more places over thousands of miles of now abandonded tracks before Staggers. Of course, as others have noted, a great portion of that was not profitable and the costs of maintaining it was sucking the life out of the whole system. Certainly, there was also some poor management as well, but there were just fundamental changes in business, economy, and transportation (such as better road systems) that forced the changes upon the railroads. So now you have just a handful of big Class 1's, focusing on big trains and long hauls to major hubs. Fewer trains, fewer places, but much more efficient. Not as much variety for the raifan, but the railroads aren't in business for railfan entertainment.

[Saturnalia]

Not as much variety for the raifan, but the railroads aren't in business for railfan entertainment.

+ a lot

[Robert MacDowell]

What's even more interesting is compare America to Europe from the end of WWII to present. All their railroads were in roughly equal decline until the 1970s. And then America passed the RRRR act and Staggers act... and Europe did not.

And the downward trend in European freight continued on up until today. Meanwhile American numbers turned a corner and have been going up ever since. Humans being humans, of course the Europeans just keep doubling down on their mistake, making their rail systems more and more socialist. It's ILLEGAL for a track owner to operate trains on his own track.

[railroadchoad]

Please elaborate on that last sentence Mr. MacDowell. I am confused. It is my understanding that the vast majority of European railways were nationalised many years ago. Therefore...huh?

[MagnumForce]

I thought the government owned the rail lines in most of those countries and many different companies operated the trains on those lines. Like Semis on the interstate in a sense.

[IndianaRR90]

Well one of my family relatives said that trucking industry blew-off the railroad industry of freight. The reason I think trucks are used more is because the customers want something in less than a week. A freight train could possibly take a week or more than 2 weeks because how slow they still go to the destination. I was confused when he said that you don't make money for freight trains until the freight destination had succeeded??

[justalurker66]

Perhaps Robert is saying it is illegal for the operators to own track?
[Google Google Google ... ahh]

In Europe, the EU requires its members to split the railway companies into a number of different companies. Usually public owned companies own the track and other public companies (sometimes owned by regional governments) own the train cars. Public service obligations or franchising is then used to determine the right to operate the line for a limited time period, with multiple private companies bidding for the privilege to operate. Other companies offer trackside and rolling stock maintenance.

Source: Wikipedia

I suppose that would cut down on preferential treatment with a track operator potentially giving better access to their own trains than a competitor.

[AARR]

Perhaps Robert is saying it is illegal for the operators to own track?
[Google Google Google ... ahh]

In Europe, the EU requires its members to split the railway companies into a number of different companies. Usually public owned companies own the track and other public companies (sometimes owned by regional governments) own the train cars. Public service obligations or franchising is then used to determine the right to operate the line for a limited time period, with multiple private companies bidding for the privilege to operate. Other companies offer trackside and rolling stock maintenance.

Source: Wikipedia

I suppose that would cut down on preferential treatment with a track operator potentially giving better access to their own trains than a competitor.

Sorta like how airports are run in the USA. As a railfan I'd like to see railroads run like that As a business man not so much

[Robert MacDowell]

Yes, fear of preferential treatment was the notion. They figured train operators owning track is going to interfere with their high-minded utopian ideal of "open access". I'm not quite sure that's true. But they THINK it's true, and it's driven public policy over there at an epic scale, to epic fail.

At least in terms of freight. Their roads are choked with trucks and they have no clue and no plan how to fix that, because government planning hasn't worked, and Dagny Taggert isn't returning their phone calls.

They found out "open access" made it pretty much impossible for a for-profit company to make it in the track business. They tried (e.g. RailTrack - complete disaster.) So it's landed in the lap of government.

Ayn Rand is wrong about a lot of stuff, but you gotta admit, this story of US vs Europe freight railroading could have been one of her novels.

[bn13814]

I am wondering if the staggers act of the late 70s is the cause why there are even lesser trains today and railroads?

It also depends on the region. The northeast and Midwest regions were especially hard hit by abandonments because of duplicate lines as a result of Conrail and other mergers. This was especially true in Indiana. In 1980, Conrail projected profitability would start in 1985. Thanks to the Staggers Act, Big Blue used its new pricing freedom to concentrate as much freight as possible on a few mainlines (with some secondary feeder lines remaining). It also closed excess facilities and de-marketed unprofitable business. Conrail was profitable from 1981 onward. It even made money during the severe 1981-1982 recession - what a contrast to Penn Central!

[MSchwiebert]

The reduction of carriers through mergers & trackage through rationalization also provided something that is extremely important to the industry - pricing discipline. Staggers gave the rails the ability to price properly, the reduction of carriers reduced the possibility of there being a carrier low-balling (the old "we'll lose money - but make it up in volume" school of thought) just to get the business. The reduction in capacity also gave the rails pricing power as they can say "our capacity is limited - so we'll pick and choose which business is most financially sensible" They couldn't do that back in the days of excess capacity. Compare this to the trucking industry, where there's too many participants & too many truckers (especially the independents) that are willing to take a load under the premise that a load regardless of how little is made on it is better than no load at all (which is why you see some truckers with the bumper stickers that say "just say no to cheap freight"). Shippers use this to their advantage to keep rates low.

I am wondering if the staggers act of the late 70s is the cause why there are even lesser trains today and railroads?

It also depends on the region. The northeast and Midwest regions were especially hard hit by abandonments because of duplicate lines as a result of Conrail and other mergers. This was especially true in Indiana. In 1980, Conrail projected profitability would start in 1985. Thanks to the Staggers Act, Big Blue used its new pricing freedom to concentrate as much freight as possible on a few mainlines (with some secondary feeder lines remaining). It also closed excess facilities and de-marketed unprofitable business. Conrail was profitable from 1981 onward. It even made money during the severe 1981-1982 recession - what a contrast to Penn Central!