[myself248]

In the usage I'm familiar with (in the US), the entire rail network is considered "transportation infrastructure", from a national perspective.

But from the perspective of just the rail network, the track and other infrastructure is considered separate from the rolling stock.

I wonder: If the rolling stock becomes immobilized, does it now count as immovable stuff?

[reactordev]

If that were true, Amtrak wouldn't be leasing railways as it's nationally run. Railroad companies like Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, CSX, own their rails. They own their rolling stock. They own their locomotives. They lend you, the business person, a rolling stock to load and ship to where you need it to go. There it will be unloaded and sold/shipped by truck to final destination.

Rail companies own the right-of-way AND the rails. They control what runs on their rails, who runs on their rails, when they run, etc.

It's quite something to think that 97% of the rail tracks in the USA are privately owned.

https://public.railinc.com/about-railinc/blog/who-owns-railr...

[Retric]

What’s really interesting to me is how much of that 97% was built using public funds.

[reactordev]

Yeah, it was a much more symbiotic relationship until the 1970s. During WW2, the rail companies would ship war goods and troops to and from, part of the deal to get those public funds for rail expansion. In the 1970s the rail companies were struggling due to interstate trucking and so they were deregulated in 1980 and privatized (reasoning: only the free market will determine if they should fall). The privatization of the US rail system then made it easier for companies such as Conrail at the time, to raise their rates and increase profits. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staggers_Rail_Act

[redeeman]

and sadly, if it was owned by the public, it would have cost 197% to obtain the same effect in society. Doesnt mean its okay though

[soco]

Also sadly, some US commenters cannot (or don't want to) look over their fence to see how stuff can work in other countries. Of course this can still mean stuff can't work, but I'm positive many perspectives can get changed.

[TomaszZielinski]

Ah, that's a very good distinction between the national perspective and the rail perspective!

> I wonder: If the rolling stock becomes immobilized, does it now count as immovable stuff?

Assuming it's a philosophical question, and not a legal one, how about: - A runner that's currently running is obviously a runner - A runner that finished running for today is still a runner - A runner with serious knee problems is a former runner ?

[TeMPOraL]

Also practical question: how much of the rolling stock has to become immobilized before the immovable parts of the infrastructure become useless? At which point you can start throwing the book at whoever's responsible?

[p_l]

Locking up (or causing possibility of doing so) a non-siding line sounds like Denial-of-Service on rail line.

[jacquesm]

We routinely call servers and such 'infrastructure' when they are in fact much easier to move (if not by themselves) than your average rail road car or locomotive. A kid could do it, all by themselves.

[TomaszZielinski]

Yes, I agree, but AFAICT we have two questions in this subthread:

- about common usage of the word - and here it _seems to me_ it's context- and domain-specific, because for instance we don't call cars a road infrastructure

- whether Polish penal code treats trains as rail infrastructure - and here I don't know, but I found a railway transport bill that lists what's considered infrastructure, and trains are not there

[jacquesm]

In NL I know for a fact the locs wouldn't be infrastructure, the term used is 'rolling stock' and they are usually owned by different companies from the infra.

[comex]

Reminds me of the recent Supreme Court case about whether a train is "in use" while parked at a railyard:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/justices-search-for-the-l...

[TomaszZielinski]

Thanks for the link! It's fascinating for a laymen like me how they considered all those different angles.

And also:

> For Breyer, however, the prospect of a “tractive power” test

> confirmed that the concept of “use” is so inherently context-dependent

> that the court would be better off taking the “common law approach”

> of resolving just this particular case,

> rather than attempting to determine the word’s meaning for all time.