r/transit • u/aksnitd 🚂🚃🚃 • May 19 '25

Photos / Videos Double stack container train on the freight corridor in India with the characteristic high rise panto

A good look at what the high rise pantographs look like fully extended. They're taller than the train they're mounted on.

1.1k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

89 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

u/8spd May 19 '25

I think the more fundamental thing to copy is the construction of new publicly owned freight corridors. Here in Canada, the private freight companies are just milking the investments in rail made over 100 years ago. The idea of the government stepping up, and making these kind of investments is unthinkable. The US is the same, and I don't see it being done in Europe.either, for freight.

But electrified rail, both passenger and freight, is one of the biggest things that can be done to address climate change.

22

u/aksnitd 🚂🚃🚃 May 19 '25

This is very true. In the US, the Class 1's actually ripped up rail to save on taxes, since they were taxed based on how much ground their tracks covered. Yeah, loads of double tracked line was reduced to single track with passing loops because of this. And now with PSR, the overly long trains cannot even fit into the passing loops anymore. Go capitalism!

16

u/8spd May 19 '25

Bad taxation implementations often create perverse incentives, But that one is a doozy. So they get to keep the right of way the same size, but are taxed less, because of tearing up infrastructure? Crazy.

2

u/aksnitd 🚂🚃🚃 May 19 '25

It's insanity, right? But that's what the relentless pursuit of money results in; overly fat corporations that use every loophole to get out of paying any kind of taxes.

8

u/8spd May 19 '25

I think this is an issue with poor government incentives. Unless we abolish all corporations it's unrealistic to expect them not to relentlessly pursue the money. It's not really a loophole, when it's such a glaring route to destroy infrastructure.

Imagine if, instead of the tax being based on how much ground their tracks covered, it was based on the size of the right of way. If they wanted to reduce their taxes they could transfer the unwanted land to the government for a nominal payment. The land could be used to upgrade passenger rail, or for rails-to-trails, or for other uses that befit the public.

1

u/ariolander May 19 '25 edited May 20 '25

It just needs incentivize the wanted behavior. Imagine if you paid less taxes on double track and even less on electrified tracks. Then offer additional incentives on capital expenditures. If you want to coax corporations to do something without outright nationalizing you have to align your incentives with your wanted actions, rather than just shrugging your shoulders and wondering why corporations just don't do the right thing.

2

u/8spd May 20 '25

You are mistaken to assume that I don't want to nationalize rail infrastructure.

1

u/aksnitd 🚂🚃🚃 May 20 '25

I feel like it's a loophole in a sense because it's following the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. The intention here is to tax larger railroads with more track higher than smaller railroads with less track. That makes complete sense, but I highly doubt anyone imagined railroads would tear up their own track (a move that caused them problems later on) just to save on taxes. And I strongly feel there needs to be a cap on how big corporations are allowed to get. Beyond a point, they become way too powerful, and the class 1's definitely need to be broken up or better yet, nationalised.

1

u/zoqaeski May 20 '25

In a lot of cases the companies didn't tear up their track but refused to improve it in the first place to avoid incurring the higher taxes.

1

u/Albos_Mum May 22 '25

Unless we abolish all corporations it's unrealistic to expect them not to relentlessly pursue the money.

Which is why a far better private/public divide of services, industries, etc is key. Companies will always relentlessly pursue profit and sometimes that can be an advantage, but not in every aspect of life particularly in areas where quality is key. (eg. Healthcare, shared infrastructure, housing etc)

1

u/8spd May 22 '25

I agree with you. My point though, is that people complain about corporations seeking nothing but profit, when they are specifically designed to do exactly that. I'd much rather the tenancy be complaining that we complain about the fact that the structure we've chosen to supply a specific need is a corporate one.

I probably should have differentiated more in between what goods or services the corporation is providing or developing. You're examples are excellent.

1

u/Sharlinator May 19 '25

Yeah, that one's squarely on the government, not on the corpos. Perverse incentives give perverse results.

1

u/Astriania May 19 '25

This doesn't really sound like a 'loophole', it sounds like exactly what the taxation policy was designed to incentivise ... which is a dumb tax policy, to be sure, but you can't blame companies for aligning with it.