QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal In your estimation, would the concept of the land grant work to expand the rail infrastructure in South America? If my idea was implemented (e.g. not a land grant per se but a granting of a "sustainable endowment" of forest reserves in which the proceeds from the sale of timber is used to pay interest and/or dividends on the equity used to finance the project), would that be possible?
QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C Pedro, Here in Australia we have just built a new railway connecting our North coast with the South. It may not be justified commercially, but it will contribute to development in remote areas. Already, two new mines are being discussed because the existence of the railway makes them possible. Passengers are very happy to travel the new line. There is only one train to Darwin at the North end per week, but the trains run with FORTY cars (four dining cars, four lounge cars and four double deck automobile carriers) each week. The train can't be run more than once a week because it turns around and runs to Alice Springs (in the centre of Australia) for the other days. The passenger operator, Great Southern, will need to buy more cars to run more trains. I've been to Argentina, and it is quite like Australia (although they have less desert than we do). I think that linking South America by rail could work effectively, as long as a common gauge could be decided. Metre gauge is fairly common, certainly in Argentina and Brazil, and could be used in Chili as it is in Bolivia and Peru. But it would have to be a Government project, and getting agreement might not be easy (even if the Argentinians agreed to speak Portuguese at the meetings). Peter
Originally posted by Junctionfan Big companies like CVRD (that owns EFVM and EFC rr) replanted all area with local trees after mining exploration. But there are a lot of small ones that don´t do this. Some guys thinking only on money; they don´t care about people, animals and forest. They think that money can be eat, drink and breathe. Pedro Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 11:51 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by pedrop QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal It is possible therefore to construct such projects without transfering a dime from the many to the few. I agree with you. Railroads pay itself in a few time. A line linking Americas could cost a lot of money today, but it can be a great solution for future problens that will come. For how long petroleum will remain? A railroad can be electrified, a plane not. South america has a great electric potencial and can be electrify all its railroads. EFVM is one of the brazilian railroads that have prepared itself for electrification when petroleum starts to finish around the world. Pedro Pedro, In your estimation, would the concept of the land grant work to expand the rail infrastructure in South America? If my idea was implemented (e.g. not a land grant per se but a granting of a "sustainable endowment" of forest reserves in which the proceeds from the sale of timber is used to pay interest and/or dividends on the equity used to finance the project), would that be possible? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C Pedro, Here in Australia we have just built a new railway connecting our North coast with the South. It may not be justified commercially, but it will contribute to development in remote areas. Already, two new mines are being discussed because the existence of the railway makes them possible. Passengers are very happy to travel the new line. There is only one train to Darwin at the North end per week, but the trains run with FORTY cars (four dining cars, four lounge cars and four double deck automobile carriers) each week. The train can't be run more than once a week because it turns around and runs to Alice Springs (in the centre of Australia) for the other days. The passenger operator, Great Southern, will need to buy more cars to run more trains. I've been to Argentina, and it is quite like Australia (although they have less desert than we do). I think that linking South America by rail could work effectively, as long as a common gauge could be decided. Metre gauge is fairly common, certainly in Argentina and Brazil, and could be used in Chili as it is in Bolivia and Peru. But it would have to be a Government project, and getting agreement might not be easy (even if the Argentinians agreed to speak Portuguese at the meetings). Peter Peter, Brazil and Australia have a lot of things in common. Speaking on railroads, both of them have good iron ore companies. BHP and CVRD are the world biggest mining companies. CVRD have two mais railroads here: EFVM and EFC. The first is metric gauge and has 700 km long. The second is broad gauge (1,600mm) and run 900 km. EFVM run 34 cars on its passenger train 10 years ago. Nowadays, it run only 17 cars. EFC also run only 14 or 17 cars. My brother lived in Australia for 17 years and he said me that the trains there are similar to those here. The question of a new line for passenger train in Australia shows us that the governments have to do politics not only for economics reasons, but for social reasons too. After all, that´s why people live in society: to get better way to life. And better way to life not necessary means to be profitable to the country. Somebody have to pay for that part of population who needs a dependable transportation. When I visit Amapá rr in 1999 (at Amazon land) I perceived that a lot of small villages have the train as its only way to link with civilization, specially the indians. There are no other way to get some places there. In spite of the line was open for manganese exploration in the 50´s it is doing a good social job there, giving those communities the change of a better life. If somebody here wants to see some photos of Amapá rr, send me a email. Pedro Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Monday, September 6, 2004 9:53 AM It wouldn't be so bad if from the get go they replanted the trees after the lumber mills got to it and even than be selective and don't clear-cut. Alot of the times they only cut them down to get rid of them and burn them up. I wi***he governments would stop them as they are puting the lives of endangered species and native tribes living in the rain forest in jeapordy. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 9:35 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 Sorry Pedro, Brazil may indeed have nice railroads, but they are for domestic use, and interchange with Argentina only. That is where practicality ends in that part of the world. Sad but True. Most of brazilian rr are for domestic use, but the interchange happens not only with Argentina. Uruguai, Paraguai and Bolivia are linked by rail. Ferronorte is buiding a line to connect with Peru through Bolivia. Mercosul politics intend to link most of South America countries by rail in the future. Pedro Pedro Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 9:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 As much as I love railroads, and think this would be a glorious ride to be able to take, I have to say that I think the world would be a much poorer place if it ever did get done.[B)][:(] You are right. Railroads can cause detruction of some wild lands, but it´s impossible to stop them. Each nation looks for its own welfare. If one of them needs mineral resouces and don´t have it on its own land, it´s necessary to buy them in a foreing country. The way how that country use to get the mineral don´t care to the nation that buy it. " If a poor country destroy a forest to get the iron ore I need it ins´t a problen of mine" - it is the manner how some governments think. Amazon resouces aren´t used by Brazil; they go to rich countries that pay for them. So it´s necessary to change that wrong manner to think. Before to buy a mineral resouce it´s necessary to know how it was obtained. If the company country obtained it preseving the natural resouces it can be buy without guilt. Pedro Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, September 6, 2004 9:11 AM During WWII it was possible to go to Northern South America, Nicaragua, by rail. TRAINS even had an article on the new bridge built at the southern Mexican Border, and the interchange between standard and narrow gauge at the southern end of the bridge. There was important wartime freight handled at this connection (remember that U-boats, not the GE variety, were sharply reducing coastal shipping which moved in guaqrded convoys), including petorleum. If I remember, quite prophetic, one picture in the article hsowed a CP or CN boxocar being unloaded. Today, possibly Mr. Hemplhill's abalysis is correct. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 8:47 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal It is possible therefore to construct such projects without transfering a dime from the many to the few. I agree with you. Railroads pay itself in a few time. A line linking Americas could cost a lot of money today, but it can be a great solution for future problens that will come. For how long petroleum will remain? A railroad can be electrified, a plane not. South america has a great electric potencial and can be electrify all its railroads. EFVM is one of the brazilian railroads that have prepared itself for electrification when petroleum starts to finish around the world. Pedro Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Monday, September 6, 2004 8:25 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by pedrop QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan You are right. Even than when I dreamed of such a superline, I didn't expect anything other than tourist trains and the odd intermodal. I am not to sure how used it would be. It would likely be a waste of land that could be use for better things. I´d like to remember that Amazon land have all sort of minerals in huge quantity. At Carajás hills there is iron ore to be explored for more than 600 years! The mines are bigger that some countries in Europe. So, in a distante future, US and other countries will need to open railroads to get minerals from amazon land. Not direct to US, but to some harbor in south or entral America. It will depend on the localization of the mines. Pedrop If it means removing the rainforest, forget it. The air we breath comes from trees and the pollutant in the air are absorbed by trees. Although I like the woods from their, we got to stop destroying the forests. If they can mine under it fine, but they shouldn't remove the trees if possible. Andrew Reply M636C Member sinceJanuary 2002 4,612 posts Posted by M636C on Monday, September 6, 2004 7:01 AM Pedro, Here in Australia we have just built a new railway connecting our North coast with the South. It may not be justified commercially, but it will contribute to development in remote areas. Already, two new mines are being discussed because the existence of the railway makes them possible. Passengers are very happy to travel the new line. There is only one train to Darwin at the North end per week, but the trains run with FORTY cars (four dining cars, four lounge cars and four double deck automobile carriers) each week. The train can't be run more than once a week because it turns around and runs to Alice Springs (in the centre of Australia) for the other days. The passenger operator, Great Southern, will need to buy more cars to run more trains. I've been to Argentina, and it is quite like Australia (although they have less desert than we do). I think that linking South America by rail could work effectively, as long as a common gauge could be decided. Metre gauge is fairly common, certainly in Argentina and Brazil, and could be used in Chili as it is in Bolivia and Peru. But it would have to be a Government project, and getting agreement might not be easy (even if the Argentinians agreed to speak Portuguese at the meetings). Peter Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 6:56 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan You are right. Even than when I dreamed of such a superline, I didn't expect anything other than tourist trains and the odd intermodal. I am not to sure how used it would be. It would likely be a waste of land that could be use for better things. I´d like to remember that Amazon land have all sort of minerals in huge quantity. At Carajás hills there is iron ore to be explored for more than 600 years! The mines are bigger that some countries in Europe. So, in a distante future, US and other countries will need to open railroads to get minerals from amazon land. Not direct to US, but to some harbor in south or entral America. It will depend on the localization of the mines. Pedrop Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 6:43 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 Railroads go where people go. I think railroads go where is a mineral potencial. Here in Brazil we have four railroads in amazon land: EFC - for iron ore transportation in Pará State - broad gauge (1,600 mm); MRN - for bauxite transportation in Amazon State - meter gauge; EFA - for manganese transportation in Amapa State - the only standad gauge in the country (it´s belongs to Bethleen Steelof US); Jari rr - for bauxite and wood transportation - in Amazon State - broad gauge. All them run on uninhabited lands when they were built (today there are some small towns close them). Pedro Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 6:26 AM Originally posted by Muddy Creek In another thread, some one asked about train travel from China to Russia. When the Trans-Mongolian Railway train enters Russia and the Trans-Siberian trackage, the trucks on the cars are changed to accomodate the change in gauge. It's an old solution that is still in use today. Brazil found a better solution using a third rail that allows two gauge on the same line. Broad gauge (1,600 mm) accept meter gauge inside it very well. Using an special wagon called "maromba" it´s possible to move a narrow train using a large gauge locomotive and vice versa. Pedro Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 6:20 AM [i]I wonder if more or less of the trip could be accomplished by rail today than was possible when he wrote the book in 1979. The most long distance passenger trains in Brazil was abandoned a few years ago. But they stiil running on Argentina land. Reply Edit Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Saturday, September 4, 2004 3:07 PM I think we have the major issues pretty well discussed here, but just for fun, here is a population density map of half of the world. I wish I could have gotten the rest of the world on, but for this discussion this should do. Unfortunately the key was on the page with the other half of the world, but that pale yellow that covers most of the interior of South America, and northern Canada, and Utah and Nevada equates to under 2 people per square mile. The darker the color, the higher the density. This really shows why passenger rail works in some places and not in others. Look at Europe, almost no yellow. India, Japan, Korea, and eastern China are similarly dense. Look at the northeastern US. This is why Amtrak clings to life. By this standard Austrailia should have no passenger railroads at all. The criteria for freight is different, but seeing where the people live in South America, near the coasts, ports handle all comodities. Ships may be slower, but the fact that they don't have to cross borders makes them much simpler and ultimately safer than land travel. Sorry Pedro, Brazil may indeed have nice railroads, but they are for domestic use, and interchange with Argentina only. That is where practicality ends in that part of the world. Sad but True. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,292 posts Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:27 PM & Big Boy - Between the two of you, you have defined the situation. Of course the creation of railroads in the US was a venture of dubious economic success when they were undertaken in the early 19th Century....and we all know that outcome. While a Pan-American rail system would appear of dubious economic vitaltiy today, open up the 'uncharted' wildernesses of South and Central America could lead to explosive economic development within those wildernesses. That could either benefit or hurt mankind as we presently know it. Of course the same statements could have been voiced 175 years ago, and the propably were. The vision of the founders of the US rail system was truly of heroic proportions, well beyond the vision of their comtemporaries. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill A Pan-American rail link would be almost as economically dubious as a rail link to Alaska. The latter is a project whose true purpose is to transfer wealth from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few. Railroads are a form of inland transportation -- see Stuart Daggett's book Principals of Inland Transportation. They rarely provide lower cost freight transportation than littoral or bluewater shipping. Faster, yes -- if that matters. (If the Jones Act was repealed, a great deal of rail freight in this country would immediately shift to water.) Since there's an excellent direct-water route between Tacoma-Seattle-Vancouver-Prince Rupert and Anchorage, where 75% of the Alaskan population is clustered, the rail link's only value would be inland transportation to the Alaskan and Canadian frontier. I have no idea what it would haul -- the mineral deposits are unexciting and the timber stand in the dry, cold interior varies from marginal to worthless. Oil and gas are more efficiently pipelined. A Pan-American link is made even more fatuous by water transportation, since for the most part it would virtually be in view of the ocean. Passenger travel, maybe, but the urban concentrations that justify high-speed rail of the Japanese variety, as opposed to highway or air, do not yet exist and probably never will. Overmod and Elliot are dead on. Has there ever been a rail project anywhere that CANNOT be defined as "economically dubious" in some form or fashion? Hasn't the Alameda Corridor been economically dubious so far? Isn't Boston's "Big Dig" economically dubious? And how is it that the Alaska rail link would "transfer wealth from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few."? When was that last time ANY pork barrel project did not fall under that statement? It is the nature of the beast, although there is an alternative funding method that harkens back to early U.S. rail financing schemes..... I assume the "transfer" comment is somehow related to the assumption that the Alaska rail link will require a massive taxpayer subsidy, which it seems are only appropriate for places like LA and Boston. God forbid that Alaska be compensated for having half its land locked up by the federales, which is preventing Alaska and most of the Intermountain West states from truly realizing their economic potential. The obvious answer for funding the Alaska rail link is of course a land grant. Whether that could be done for a Pan American rail link I don't know but is is certainly doable for most of the Western U.S. As to whether such projects would fall under the acceptable terms of current (read: shortsighted) "economic justifiability" standards, it is doubtful since those caveats basically eliminate Jim Hill's concept of "build for the future". The vast mineral and timber wealth of Alaska's interior, the Yukon, and upper BC are assets we just may need in a decade or two, so if we build the heavy haul connection now, it will be ready when we need it. "Dry" timber is harvestable and replantable, you know! It makes more sense to build a single transporation mode with comprehensive commodity coverage than to end up having to build many single use modes. An oil pipeline can only haul oil (and maybe some refined petroleum products), a natural gas pipeline only natural gas, a coal slurry pipeline only coal. A railroad can handle all these commodities and then some: raw timber, processed timber, mineral aggregates, trailers, containers, pulp, paper, etc., etc. The people who are supporting these concepts do so because they realize the value of having heavy haul/time sensitive responsiveness is essential for long term economic sustainability and security. Such things trump the regression into the rubber stamp acceptance of "economically dubious" labels for such projects. Don't knock time sensitivity either. A Pan American railroad could speed up the trip for perishables from Brazil, Chile, Argentina. Fresher perishables means greater satisfaction for the consumer and greater economic stability for producers. The oft criticized railroad land grants that opened up the West to development were a stroke of genius, even if some lefties back East still regret that action to this day. We could always modernize the concept to placate the doubters. Give the land grant to the states with the caveat that the land remains in the public domain, let the states establish a revenue stream from sustainable resource extraction, and use that revenue to cover interest or dividend payments for the investors of the project. It is possible therefore to construct such projects without transfering a dime from the many to the few. Reply Edit Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:42 AM Junctionfan, look at a map of the area between the two systems. Then superimpose a mapping of precipitation and temperature. Then tell me what you'd gain by running through trains between Alaska and the lower 48 (or connecting via CN to inland Canadian points). I looked at the possibility of both inland and coastal routings of an Alaskan rail link back in the early '70s. It did not make much operational sense. Can't say much has changed about it since then. Tell me what the carloadings will be, how long it will take for that traffic to pay back the line's survey and construction costs, and then repeat your question about 'why wouldn't such a line extension be unprofitable?' -- that's the same question I'd ask, but I wouldn't have made a Freudian slip... ;-} Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:36 AM I believe that The BC/ Alaska rail connection is in the planning stages by CN. Why wouldn't such a line extension be unprofitable? I don't see your reasoning for this. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:01 AM With the popularity and efficiency of other forms of transportation the days are gone when railroad builders would lay their tracks into wilderness and then build the destinations such as luxury hotels that only the railroad could serve. Mountainous, unpopulated areas with no significant, bulky product to export will likely never see a railroad. Added: My first thought in this thread was that such a Pan American route would have to be a "Water Level" route, ala The NYC route up the Hudson River. My second thought, as Mark said, was "why bother?" Wayne Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Friday, September 3, 2004 11:28 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly. Right. There is a Highway route, hiowever. The Pan-American Highway http://www.fact-index.com/p/pa/pan_american_highway_1.html I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 3, 2004 10:40 PM Not really a waste of land... in fact, I'd be willing to say it would almost never be a waste of land... very, very little land needed for single-track, and not much more for double. There's an opportunity cost for some of the land, perhaps (where it goes through cities, etc.) but there are railroad lines through some pretty upscale places (Main Line Philadelphia, Hudson Highlands, San Clemente to name three) that have very little impact on real-estate values. It's the construction cost, and the ongoing maintenance cost, that would be the problem, and to build it to 'super-railroad' standards... let alone TGV-class high-speed main... would be adding astronomical percentages onto already-astronomical first-construction-cost numbers. And you have to earn enough not just to pay it back, but to make it attractive for people to lend it to you in the first place... Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, September 3, 2004 10:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly. You are right. Even than when I dreamed of such a superline, I didn't expect anything other than tourist trains and the odd intermodal. I am not to sure how used it would be. It would likely be a waste of land that could be use for better things. Andrew Reply Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Friday, September 3, 2004 9:44 PM As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 3, 2004 9:05 PM Brasil have goog railroad and brand new locos, like Dash 8 and 9. I think it isn´t necessary the same train run from canada to Argentina, but one from Canada to Mexico, then other from mexico to Panama, then other from panama to Brazil and son on. I think roads like this shoud be built for human reasons, not for money interest. Banks around the world are growing up every they, and the people around they are more and more poor each day. The problem is that we don´t have railroads connection on this route. And this is the question: why not built those lines? Pedro QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan It should; but alot of money whould be involved. I have also thought about a Trans Continental Route between Canada to Brazil but I am not sure that all the railroads along the way even use standard gauge. Venezuela and Brazil have a few SD70 and SD70Ms running around somewhere so at least those countries should use standard gauge. Reply Edit Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 3, 2004 5:29 PM I suggest you get a good contour map and look at it when you consider an "all-rail" solution. To be meaningful, a rail route would have to offer something that an equivalent road, or air, stretch doesn't. For one thing, it had better not have extensive curvature, or operation next to... or above... rock- or mudslide-prone slopes. Freight service would involve severely limited grades as well. There are numerous stretches along a 'trans-American' route where these conditions could not be met without civil engineering of a magnitude, let alone at a cost, achievable with any effective syndicate or organization of governments credibly capable of the undertaking. The question is not really 'is it possible' but 'is it desirable'... and 'would the effort pay for itself in benefits'. Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by pedrop QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal It is possible therefore to construct such projects without transfering a dime from the many to the few. I agree with you. Railroads pay itself in a few time. A line linking Americas could cost a lot of money today, but it can be a great solution for future problens that will come. For how long petroleum will remain? A railroad can be electrified, a plane not. South america has a great electric potencial and can be electrify all its railroads. EFVM is one of the brazilian railroads that have prepared itself for electrification when petroleum starts to finish around the world. Pedro
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal It is possible therefore to construct such projects without transfering a dime from the many to the few.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 Sorry Pedro, Brazil may indeed have nice railroads, but they are for domestic use, and interchange with Argentina only. That is where practicality ends in that part of the world. Sad but True.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 As much as I love railroads, and think this would be a glorious ride to be able to take, I have to say that I think the world would be a much poorer place if it ever did get done.[B)][:(]
QUOTE: Originally posted by pedrop QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan You are right. Even than when I dreamed of such a superline, I didn't expect anything other than tourist trains and the odd intermodal. I am not to sure how used it would be. It would likely be a waste of land that could be use for better things. I´d like to remember that Amazon land have all sort of minerals in huge quantity. At Carajás hills there is iron ore to be explored for more than 600 years! The mines are bigger that some countries in Europe. So, in a distante future, US and other countries will need to open railroads to get minerals from amazon land. Not direct to US, but to some harbor in south or entral America. It will depend on the localization of the mines. Pedrop
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan You are right. Even than when I dreamed of such a superline, I didn't expect anything other than tourist trains and the odd intermodal. I am not to sure how used it would be. It would likely be a waste of land that could be use for better things.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 Railroads go where people go.
Originally posted by Muddy Creek In another thread, some one asked about train travel from China to Russia. When the Trans-Mongolian Railway train enters Russia and the Trans-Siberian trackage, the trucks on the cars are changed to accomodate the change in gauge. It's an old solution that is still in use today. Brazil found a better solution using a third rail that allows two gauge on the same line. Broad gauge (1,600 mm) accept meter gauge inside it very well. Using an special wagon called "maromba" it´s possible to move a narrow train using a large gauge locomotive and vice versa. Pedro Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 6, 2004 6:20 AM [i]I wonder if more or less of the trip could be accomplished by rail today than was possible when he wrote the book in 1979. The most long distance passenger trains in Brazil was abandoned a few years ago. But they stiil running on Argentina land. Reply Edit Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Saturday, September 4, 2004 3:07 PM I think we have the major issues pretty well discussed here, but just for fun, here is a population density map of half of the world. I wish I could have gotten the rest of the world on, but for this discussion this should do. Unfortunately the key was on the page with the other half of the world, but that pale yellow that covers most of the interior of South America, and northern Canada, and Utah and Nevada equates to under 2 people per square mile. The darker the color, the higher the density. This really shows why passenger rail works in some places and not in others. Look at Europe, almost no yellow. India, Japan, Korea, and eastern China are similarly dense. Look at the northeastern US. This is why Amtrak clings to life. By this standard Austrailia should have no passenger railroads at all. The criteria for freight is different, but seeing where the people live in South America, near the coasts, ports handle all comodities. Ships may be slower, but the fact that they don't have to cross borders makes them much simpler and ultimately safer than land travel. Sorry Pedro, Brazil may indeed have nice railroads, but they are for domestic use, and interchange with Argentina only. That is where practicality ends in that part of the world. Sad but True. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,292 posts Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:27 PM & Big Boy - Between the two of you, you have defined the situation. Of course the creation of railroads in the US was a venture of dubious economic success when they were undertaken in the early 19th Century....and we all know that outcome. While a Pan-American rail system would appear of dubious economic vitaltiy today, open up the 'uncharted' wildernesses of South and Central America could lead to explosive economic development within those wildernesses. That could either benefit or hurt mankind as we presently know it. Of course the same statements could have been voiced 175 years ago, and the propably were. The vision of the founders of the US rail system was truly of heroic proportions, well beyond the vision of their comtemporaries. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill A Pan-American rail link would be almost as economically dubious as a rail link to Alaska. The latter is a project whose true purpose is to transfer wealth from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few. Railroads are a form of inland transportation -- see Stuart Daggett's book Principals of Inland Transportation. They rarely provide lower cost freight transportation than littoral or bluewater shipping. Faster, yes -- if that matters. (If the Jones Act was repealed, a great deal of rail freight in this country would immediately shift to water.) Since there's an excellent direct-water route between Tacoma-Seattle-Vancouver-Prince Rupert and Anchorage, where 75% of the Alaskan population is clustered, the rail link's only value would be inland transportation to the Alaskan and Canadian frontier. I have no idea what it would haul -- the mineral deposits are unexciting and the timber stand in the dry, cold interior varies from marginal to worthless. Oil and gas are more efficiently pipelined. A Pan-American link is made even more fatuous by water transportation, since for the most part it would virtually be in view of the ocean. Passenger travel, maybe, but the urban concentrations that justify high-speed rail of the Japanese variety, as opposed to highway or air, do not yet exist and probably never will. Overmod and Elliot are dead on. Has there ever been a rail project anywhere that CANNOT be defined as "economically dubious" in some form or fashion? Hasn't the Alameda Corridor been economically dubious so far? Isn't Boston's "Big Dig" economically dubious? And how is it that the Alaska rail link would "transfer wealth from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few."? When was that last time ANY pork barrel project did not fall under that statement? It is the nature of the beast, although there is an alternative funding method that harkens back to early U.S. rail financing schemes..... I assume the "transfer" comment is somehow related to the assumption that the Alaska rail link will require a massive taxpayer subsidy, which it seems are only appropriate for places like LA and Boston. God forbid that Alaska be compensated for having half its land locked up by the federales, which is preventing Alaska and most of the Intermountain West states from truly realizing their economic potential. The obvious answer for funding the Alaska rail link is of course a land grant. Whether that could be done for a Pan American rail link I don't know but is is certainly doable for most of the Western U.S. As to whether such projects would fall under the acceptable terms of current (read: shortsighted) "economic justifiability" standards, it is doubtful since those caveats basically eliminate Jim Hill's concept of "build for the future". The vast mineral and timber wealth of Alaska's interior, the Yukon, and upper BC are assets we just may need in a decade or two, so if we build the heavy haul connection now, it will be ready when we need it. "Dry" timber is harvestable and replantable, you know! It makes more sense to build a single transporation mode with comprehensive commodity coverage than to end up having to build many single use modes. An oil pipeline can only haul oil (and maybe some refined petroleum products), a natural gas pipeline only natural gas, a coal slurry pipeline only coal. A railroad can handle all these commodities and then some: raw timber, processed timber, mineral aggregates, trailers, containers, pulp, paper, etc., etc. The people who are supporting these concepts do so because they realize the value of having heavy haul/time sensitive responsiveness is essential for long term economic sustainability and security. Such things trump the regression into the rubber stamp acceptance of "economically dubious" labels for such projects. Don't knock time sensitivity either. A Pan American railroad could speed up the trip for perishables from Brazil, Chile, Argentina. Fresher perishables means greater satisfaction for the consumer and greater economic stability for producers. The oft criticized railroad land grants that opened up the West to development were a stroke of genius, even if some lefties back East still regret that action to this day. We could always modernize the concept to placate the doubters. Give the land grant to the states with the caveat that the land remains in the public domain, let the states establish a revenue stream from sustainable resource extraction, and use that revenue to cover interest or dividend payments for the investors of the project. It is possible therefore to construct such projects without transfering a dime from the many to the few. Reply Edit Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:42 AM Junctionfan, look at a map of the area between the two systems. Then superimpose a mapping of precipitation and temperature. Then tell me what you'd gain by running through trains between Alaska and the lower 48 (or connecting via CN to inland Canadian points). I looked at the possibility of both inland and coastal routings of an Alaskan rail link back in the early '70s. It did not make much operational sense. Can't say much has changed about it since then. Tell me what the carloadings will be, how long it will take for that traffic to pay back the line's survey and construction costs, and then repeat your question about 'why wouldn't such a line extension be unprofitable?' -- that's the same question I'd ask, but I wouldn't have made a Freudian slip... ;-} Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:36 AM I believe that The BC/ Alaska rail connection is in the planning stages by CN. Why wouldn't such a line extension be unprofitable? I don't see your reasoning for this. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:01 AM With the popularity and efficiency of other forms of transportation the days are gone when railroad builders would lay their tracks into wilderness and then build the destinations such as luxury hotels that only the railroad could serve. Mountainous, unpopulated areas with no significant, bulky product to export will likely never see a railroad. Added: My first thought in this thread was that such a Pan American route would have to be a "Water Level" route, ala The NYC route up the Hudson River. My second thought, as Mark said, was "why bother?" Wayne Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Friday, September 3, 2004 11:28 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly. Right. There is a Highway route, hiowever. The Pan-American Highway http://www.fact-index.com/p/pa/pan_american_highway_1.html I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 3, 2004 10:40 PM Not really a waste of land... in fact, I'd be willing to say it would almost never be a waste of land... very, very little land needed for single-track, and not much more for double. There's an opportunity cost for some of the land, perhaps (where it goes through cities, etc.) but there are railroad lines through some pretty upscale places (Main Line Philadelphia, Hudson Highlands, San Clemente to name three) that have very little impact on real-estate values. It's the construction cost, and the ongoing maintenance cost, that would be the problem, and to build it to 'super-railroad' standards... let alone TGV-class high-speed main... would be adding astronomical percentages onto already-astronomical first-construction-cost numbers. And you have to earn enough not just to pay it back, but to make it attractive for people to lend it to you in the first place... Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, September 3, 2004 10:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly. You are right. Even than when I dreamed of such a superline, I didn't expect anything other than tourist trains and the odd intermodal. I am not to sure how used it would be. It would likely be a waste of land that could be use for better things. Andrew Reply Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Friday, September 3, 2004 9:44 PM As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 3, 2004 9:05 PM Brasil have goog railroad and brand new locos, like Dash 8 and 9. I think it isn´t necessary the same train run from canada to Argentina, but one from Canada to Mexico, then other from mexico to Panama, then other from panama to Brazil and son on. I think roads like this shoud be built for human reasons, not for money interest. Banks around the world are growing up every they, and the people around they are more and more poor each day. The problem is that we don´t have railroads connection on this route. And this is the question: why not built those lines? Pedro QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan It should; but alot of money whould be involved. I have also thought about a Trans Continental Route between Canada to Brazil but I am not sure that all the railroads along the way even use standard gauge. Venezuela and Brazil have a few SD70 and SD70Ms running around somewhere so at least those countries should use standard gauge. Reply Edit Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 3, 2004 5:29 PM I suggest you get a good contour map and look at it when you consider an "all-rail" solution. To be meaningful, a rail route would have to offer something that an equivalent road, or air, stretch doesn't. For one thing, it had better not have extensive curvature, or operation next to... or above... rock- or mudslide-prone slopes. Freight service would involve severely limited grades as well. There are numerous stretches along a 'trans-American' route where these conditions could not be met without civil engineering of a magnitude, let alone at a cost, achievable with any effective syndicate or organization of governments credibly capable of the undertaking. The question is not really 'is it possible' but 'is it desirable'... and 'would the effort pay for itself in benefits'. Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
[i]I wonder if more or less of the trip could be accomplished by rail today than was possible when he wrote the book in 1979. The most long distance passenger trains in Brazil was abandoned a few years ago. But they stiil running on Argentina land. Reply Edit Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Saturday, September 4, 2004 3:07 PM I think we have the major issues pretty well discussed here, but just for fun, here is a population density map of half of the world. I wish I could have gotten the rest of the world on, but for this discussion this should do. Unfortunately the key was on the page with the other half of the world, but that pale yellow that covers most of the interior of South America, and northern Canada, and Utah and Nevada equates to under 2 people per square mile. The darker the color, the higher the density. This really shows why passenger rail works in some places and not in others. Look at Europe, almost no yellow. India, Japan, Korea, and eastern China are similarly dense. Look at the northeastern US. This is why Amtrak clings to life. By this standard Austrailia should have no passenger railroads at all. The criteria for freight is different, but seeing where the people live in South America, near the coasts, ports handle all comodities. Ships may be slower, but the fact that they don't have to cross borders makes them much simpler and ultimately safer than land travel. Sorry Pedro, Brazil may indeed have nice railroads, but they are for domestic use, and interchange with Argentina only. That is where practicality ends in that part of the world. Sad but True. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,292 posts Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:27 PM & Big Boy - Between the two of you, you have defined the situation. Of course the creation of railroads in the US was a venture of dubious economic success when they were undertaken in the early 19th Century....and we all know that outcome. While a Pan-American rail system would appear of dubious economic vitaltiy today, open up the 'uncharted' wildernesses of South and Central America could lead to explosive economic development within those wildernesses. That could either benefit or hurt mankind as we presently know it. Of course the same statements could have been voiced 175 years ago, and the propably were. The vision of the founders of the US rail system was truly of heroic proportions, well beyond the vision of their comtemporaries. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill A Pan-American rail link would be almost as economically dubious as a rail link to Alaska. The latter is a project whose true purpose is to transfer wealth from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few. Railroads are a form of inland transportation -- see Stuart Daggett's book Principals of Inland Transportation. They rarely provide lower cost freight transportation than littoral or bluewater shipping. Faster, yes -- if that matters. (If the Jones Act was repealed, a great deal of rail freight in this country would immediately shift to water.) Since there's an excellent direct-water route between Tacoma-Seattle-Vancouver-Prince Rupert and Anchorage, where 75% of the Alaskan population is clustered, the rail link's only value would be inland transportation to the Alaskan and Canadian frontier. I have no idea what it would haul -- the mineral deposits are unexciting and the timber stand in the dry, cold interior varies from marginal to worthless. Oil and gas are more efficiently pipelined. A Pan-American link is made even more fatuous by water transportation, since for the most part it would virtually be in view of the ocean. Passenger travel, maybe, but the urban concentrations that justify high-speed rail of the Japanese variety, as opposed to highway or air, do not yet exist and probably never will. Overmod and Elliot are dead on. Has there ever been a rail project anywhere that CANNOT be defined as "economically dubious" in some form or fashion? Hasn't the Alameda Corridor been economically dubious so far? Isn't Boston's "Big Dig" economically dubious? And how is it that the Alaska rail link would "transfer wealth from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few."? When was that last time ANY pork barrel project did not fall under that statement? It is the nature of the beast, although there is an alternative funding method that harkens back to early U.S. rail financing schemes..... I assume the "transfer" comment is somehow related to the assumption that the Alaska rail link will require a massive taxpayer subsidy, which it seems are only appropriate for places like LA and Boston. God forbid that Alaska be compensated for having half its land locked up by the federales, which is preventing Alaska and most of the Intermountain West states from truly realizing their economic potential. The obvious answer for funding the Alaska rail link is of course a land grant. Whether that could be done for a Pan American rail link I don't know but is is certainly doable for most of the Western U.S. As to whether such projects would fall under the acceptable terms of current (read: shortsighted) "economic justifiability" standards, it is doubtful since those caveats basically eliminate Jim Hill's concept of "build for the future". The vast mineral and timber wealth of Alaska's interior, the Yukon, and upper BC are assets we just may need in a decade or two, so if we build the heavy haul connection now, it will be ready when we need it. "Dry" timber is harvestable and replantable, you know! It makes more sense to build a single transporation mode with comprehensive commodity coverage than to end up having to build many single use modes. An oil pipeline can only haul oil (and maybe some refined petroleum products), a natural gas pipeline only natural gas, a coal slurry pipeline only coal. A railroad can handle all these commodities and then some: raw timber, processed timber, mineral aggregates, trailers, containers, pulp, paper, etc., etc. The people who are supporting these concepts do so because they realize the value of having heavy haul/time sensitive responsiveness is essential for long term economic sustainability and security. Such things trump the regression into the rubber stamp acceptance of "economically dubious" labels for such projects. Don't knock time sensitivity either. A Pan American railroad could speed up the trip for perishables from Brazil, Chile, Argentina. Fresher perishables means greater satisfaction for the consumer and greater economic stability for producers. The oft criticized railroad land grants that opened up the West to development were a stroke of genius, even if some lefties back East still regret that action to this day. We could always modernize the concept to placate the doubters. Give the land grant to the states with the caveat that the land remains in the public domain, let the states establish a revenue stream from sustainable resource extraction, and use that revenue to cover interest or dividend payments for the investors of the project. It is possible therefore to construct such projects without transfering a dime from the many to the few. Reply Edit Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:42 AM Junctionfan, look at a map of the area between the two systems. Then superimpose a mapping of precipitation and temperature. Then tell me what you'd gain by running through trains between Alaska and the lower 48 (or connecting via CN to inland Canadian points). I looked at the possibility of both inland and coastal routings of an Alaskan rail link back in the early '70s. It did not make much operational sense. Can't say much has changed about it since then. Tell me what the carloadings will be, how long it will take for that traffic to pay back the line's survey and construction costs, and then repeat your question about 'why wouldn't such a line extension be unprofitable?' -- that's the same question I'd ask, but I wouldn't have made a Freudian slip... ;-} Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:36 AM I believe that The BC/ Alaska rail connection is in the planning stages by CN. Why wouldn't such a line extension be unprofitable? I don't see your reasoning for this. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 4, 2004 12:01 AM With the popularity and efficiency of other forms of transportation the days are gone when railroad builders would lay their tracks into wilderness and then build the destinations such as luxury hotels that only the railroad could serve. Mountainous, unpopulated areas with no significant, bulky product to export will likely never see a railroad. Added: My first thought in this thread was that such a Pan American route would have to be a "Water Level" route, ala The NYC route up the Hudson River. My second thought, as Mark said, was "why bother?" Wayne Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Friday, September 3, 2004 11:28 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly. Right. There is a Highway route, hiowever. The Pan-American Highway http://www.fact-index.com/p/pa/pan_american_highway_1.html I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 3, 2004 10:40 PM Not really a waste of land... in fact, I'd be willing to say it would almost never be a waste of land... very, very little land needed for single-track, and not much more for double. There's an opportunity cost for some of the land, perhaps (where it goes through cities, etc.) but there are railroad lines through some pretty upscale places (Main Line Philadelphia, Hudson Highlands, San Clemente to name three) that have very little impact on real-estate values. It's the construction cost, and the ongoing maintenance cost, that would be the problem, and to build it to 'super-railroad' standards... let alone TGV-class high-speed main... would be adding astronomical percentages onto already-astronomical first-construction-cost numbers. And you have to earn enough not just to pay it back, but to make it attractive for people to lend it to you in the first place... Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, September 3, 2004 10:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly. You are right. Even than when I dreamed of such a superline, I didn't expect anything other than tourist trains and the odd intermodal. I am not to sure how used it would be. It would likely be a waste of land that could be use for better things. Andrew Reply Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Friday, September 3, 2004 9:44 PM As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 3, 2004 9:05 PM Brasil have goog railroad and brand new locos, like Dash 8 and 9. I think it isn´t necessary the same train run from canada to Argentina, but one from Canada to Mexico, then other from mexico to Panama, then other from panama to Brazil and son on. I think roads like this shoud be built for human reasons, not for money interest. Banks around the world are growing up every they, and the people around they are more and more poor each day. The problem is that we don´t have railroads connection on this route. And this is the question: why not built those lines? Pedro QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan It should; but alot of money whould be involved. I have also thought about a Trans Continental Route between Canada to Brazil but I am not sure that all the railroads along the way even use standard gauge. Venezuela and Brazil have a few SD70 and SD70Ms running around somewhere so at least those countries should use standard gauge. Reply Edit Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 3, 2004 5:29 PM I suggest you get a good contour map and look at it when you consider an "all-rail" solution. To be meaningful, a rail route would have to offer something that an equivalent road, or air, stretch doesn't. For one thing, it had better not have extensive curvature, or operation next to... or above... rock- or mudslide-prone slopes. Freight service would involve severely limited grades as well. There are numerous stretches along a 'trans-American' route where these conditions could not be met without civil engineering of a magnitude, let alone at a cost, achievable with any effective syndicate or organization of governments credibly capable of the undertaking. The question is not really 'is it possible' but 'is it desirable'... and 'would the effort pay for itself in benefits'. Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
I'm back!
Follow the progress:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill A Pan-American rail link would be almost as economically dubious as a rail link to Alaska. The latter is a project whose true purpose is to transfer wealth from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few. Railroads are a form of inland transportation -- see Stuart Daggett's book Principals of Inland Transportation. They rarely provide lower cost freight transportation than littoral or bluewater shipping. Faster, yes -- if that matters. (If the Jones Act was repealed, a great deal of rail freight in this country would immediately shift to water.) Since there's an excellent direct-water route between Tacoma-Seattle-Vancouver-Prince Rupert and Anchorage, where 75% of the Alaskan population is clustered, the rail link's only value would be inland transportation to the Alaskan and Canadian frontier. I have no idea what it would haul -- the mineral deposits are unexciting and the timber stand in the dry, cold interior varies from marginal to worthless. Oil and gas are more efficiently pipelined. A Pan-American link is made even more fatuous by water transportation, since for the most part it would virtually be in view of the ocean. Passenger travel, maybe, but the urban concentrations that justify high-speed rail of the Japanese variety, as opposed to highway or air, do not yet exist and probably never will. Overmod and Elliot are dead on.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 As much as it might be geographicly possible to do this, it is highly impractical. The demand for such transportation deep into virtually uninhabited land is almost nonexistant. The environmental not to mention the economic costs far out weigh the benefits. Railroads go where people go. For these remote locations it is much easier to fly.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan It should; but alot of money whould be involved. I have also thought about a Trans Continental Route between Canada to Brazil but I am not sure that all the railroads along the way even use standard gauge. Venezuela and Brazil have a few SD70 and SD70Ms running around somewhere so at least those countries should use standard gauge.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.