> The industry didn't do jack squat *because* of Kneiling. The situation is the reverse;
> Kneiling (tinhorn though he was) saw the writing on the wall on a lot of things. He was the
> Theodore Judah of the modern railroad age.


You all make some interesting points. But then you wreak it all by equating Kneiling with Theodore Judah - breathtaking! Though Theodore Judah did not live to see his vision come to full fruition, what he set in motion was both good for the business and good for the country; a neat accomplishment - actually. To equate John Kneiling's supposed lack of accomplishment with that, is a grand contradiction!

The fact remains, what Theodore Judah helped put together, Kneiling and his ilk put asunder. So what, if he was a tin-horn journalist merely reflecting modern thinking in the industry. My point was that this line of thinking has now been proven wrong! It may seem counter-intuitive to you, but for an industry as a whole to scrap its "gateway" infrastructure, is no way to grow a business, even if the public gateway to your business is less profitable or even an unprofitable part.

Imagine UPS or FedEx dumping their pickup and delivery services, or GM closing its showrooms, just because those activities are indeed unprofitable. UPS and FedEx would quickly go the way of REA, the and for the same reasons. We know where GM is headed! It is often, only an unprofitable part of a business, that makes the profitable parts even possible. Severing them is then deadly to that business. But I guess everybody slept through that MBA lecture; or do they not teach MBA's to pay attention to the obvious anymore.

Indeed, it took almost twenty years after Staggers, before we saw any rail industry growth. Being that it took so long, it is not reasonable to credit the Staggers Act for any part of it. In fact, almost all of that growth (even coal) was caused by the efforts of others, not the railroads, to assemble very large units, and then very literally cram them down the railroads throats.

Yes indeed, the only apparent growth areas have been where customers, such as J B hunt, APL, or UPS, are big enough to bully the railroads into the customer getting his way. Not so big? - then you go whistling up a stump. Is this any way to treat the part of the business, that trade journals even now, claim to be the most renumerative; just because that "renumeration" comes in tiny lots? Is any of this really growth?

Meanwhile, market share has actually continued to shrink; on a banana peel after Staggers! Go look at the long range stats for yourself. Is that the growth you point too? What about the fact that the little guys, which are spread all across the country, up every holler, and in every podunk town in America, can no longer get useful access to railroad service - Does that reflect growth? Is that a good idea for the country?

The real fact is that, Americans have bucked up, and spent a lot more than is prudent, to get their stuff to market using trucks, mostly because railroad service was so poor, and is now completely unusable for most. So what else could they do. This is not growth - it is slow death for the industry!

But worse yet, it ultimately will destroy America's once universal economy, as fuel costs rise. Three times in my lifetime now, that necessary alternative (trucking) has literally collapsed due to unstable fuel costs; and each time now, this was the very last straw bringing the whole national economy down. Over dependence on trucking is not good for the country or the economy - not to even mention, the ecology.

My ultimate point, is that the Staggers Act needs to be "adjusted somewhat". Regulation must be both practical and moderate. But the Staggers Act went too far in many respects, but not far enough in others. It was a mere band-aid on a festering sore!

For the good of the industry and for the good of the country, "Common Carriage" by rail must be restored, even if that requires a cross-subsidy between profitable parts and unprofitable parts of the job. That's how businesses are supposed make money anyhow - the old fashioned way - by actually earning it! Earning it by doing the whole job society needs done.

The good of the country requires that this be universally available, at least nearby every holler and every podunk town. Subsidization was necessary even when the first Republican President, Abe Lincoln, chartered the transcontinentals - it is still necessary now. But there is no need to suppose that we must revert to old cross-subsidization models. New ones may work better, such as universal access to all trackage to anyone with a train - paid for by gross ton-mile, and time on track fees (similar to the highway cross-subsidization model, which has worked fairly well). There are other outside of the box possibilities also.

Of course, along with any form of subsidy, must come the requirement to do the whole job, not just the easier less expensive parts; harvest the whole tree, not just the low hanging fruit. Besides, as any farm boy will tell you, the high, harder to get at fruit, is always sweeter.

Sadly though, the loss of railroad retail infrastructure has been extreme, and those "Ma & Pa" operations are almost all dead now, and those remaining are mostly dying. I doubt it can be put back.

So perhaps you are right to criticize the mere thanking of John Kneiling for all this. I should have also thanked all those of his ilk that also contributed their myopia ! ----

Including the Congress and President of the time - and apparently some since! The defacto total deregulation of several industries, beginning with Pres Carter, has been an unmitigated disaster for this country, and well as for those deregulated businesses.


OPB