Freight continues to slump

7971 views
255 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,559 posts
Posted by zardoz on Friday, November 1, 2019 12:48 PM

CMStPnP
The sales pitch of Indian firms was hire 1 Indian locally and you get 5 back in India to assist him.  Employers in the United States started to upgrade Indian college degrees to be equal to U.S. College degrees when in fact they lagged behind quite a bit.   So they even softened the College Degree requirement substantially in some cases to get the cheaper labor.

Yeah, and we have to put with them each time we call a "customer service" number. 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,709 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Saturday, November 2, 2019 12:27 PM

zugmann
The Galaxy Railways is an anime about space railraods.  Featured a big boy engine that was well-drawn.   I couldn't get into it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Galaxy_Railways 

From that article: "The Sirius Platoon's train is headed up by a steam locomotive dubbed Big One.[2] The locomotive itself is based on the Union Pacific Big Boy steam trains (4-8-8-4 wheel arrangement) that were built by the American Locomotive Co. of Schenectady, New York, and are widely considered to be the largest steam trains ever built (although this is incorrect)[3]. The Sirius Platoon is the primary focus of the Galaxy Railways, though the Spica and Vega platoons also make appearances and become more involved towards the end of the series."

Fn3 about the "largest steam train" leads to this, which is actually quite informative (assuming it's all correct): http://www.steamlocomotive.com/misc/largest.php 

(Work with me, people - I'm doing my best here, but can't do it all by myself to keep this on topic!  Overmod, perhaps you'll have some comments on that last webpage?)

- PDN. 

 

 

 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 18,063 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, November 2, 2019 1:01 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr
 
zugmann
The Galaxy Railways is an anime about space railraods.  Featured a big boy engine that was well-drawn.   I couldn't get into it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Galaxy_Railways  

From that article: "The Sirius Platoon's train is headed up by a steam locomotive dubbed Big One.[2] The locomotive itself is based on the Union Pacific Big Boy steam trains (4-8-8-4 wheel arrangement) that were built by the American Locomotive Co. of Schenectady, New York, and are widely considered to be the largest steam trains ever built (although this is incorrect)[3]. The Sirius Platoon is the primary focus of the Galaxy Railways, though the Spica and Vega platoons also make appearances and become more involved towards the end of the series."

Fn3 about the "largest steam train" leads to this, which is actually quite informative (assuming it's all correct): http://www.steamlocomotive.com/misc/largest.php 

(Work with me, people - I'm doing my best here, but can't do it all by myself to keep this on topic!  Overmod, perhaps you'll have some comments on that last webpage?)

- PDN. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAgVFlupEZs

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,444 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, November 2, 2019 1:46 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr
Overmod, perhaps you'll have some comments on that last webpage?)

Only to note that, as with similar Web pages on the 'fastest steam locomotive' or 'first locomotive to reach 100mph' there really isn't that much point, except for fanboi argument, in asking the question that way in the first place.  In a sense it's not really different from assessing 'fairness in elections' when reading about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem: the answer you get depends on the initial conditions you specify much more than some objective measure founded in natural law or whatever.

The 'better' question to ask is the technical ability of the designs themselves to produce stated or agreed performance, and even there you find that the 'theoretical' test train or service will affect a ranking of results most of the time.

I'm far less concerned with 'best' than with 'well-designed' ... or the historical accidents that made head-to-head contests impossible or unlikely.  Were a "Big Boy" with the same basic engine design (68" with given cylinder dimensions) given a deep firebox comparable to an Allegheny, the argument could be made that higher output would be observable under a wide range of circumstances; a further relatively slight redesign to 'use the available steam generation' more effectively (probably by increasing the stroke and using lighter rodwork to compensate) would have easily produced nominal (and likely achievable!) peak hp on dynamometric test well in excess not only of an Allegheny's but of a Q2's as well.  The water rate on such a thing, of course, would reduce it to little more than an operational curiosity ... but it would certainly "win" more votes in a 'biggest' competition.  (See also Chapelon's proposal to rebuild a Big Boy according to his 'best practices' in these regards.)

I fall back, as I usually do, to that sage deduction by the WOPR.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: ShelbyTwp., Michigan
  • 495 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Saturday, November 2, 2019 6:39 PM
 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/treasuries-yields-lower-ahead-expected-145103957.html

World recession coming.. Expect freight to slump for some years it seems.. 

 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,559 posts
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, November 3, 2019 12:00 PM

BaltACD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAgVFlupEZs

In space, no one can hear you scream whistle.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,444 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 3, 2019 1:47 PM

While we're on the subject of music videos for Big Girls, whether or not we call them after boys, there's this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8q7KjgvXvQ

For those of us who find Wootten fireboxes a bit callipygean?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,444 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 3, 2019 1:48 PM

While we're on the subject of music videos for Big Girls, whether or not we call them after boys, there's this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8q7KjgvXvQ

For those of us who find Wootten fireboxes a bit callipygean?

All in the cause of keeping our freight from slumping.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 5,957 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, November 4, 2019 8:15 AM

Shadow the Cats owner
Well guess who BLINKED first and it wasn't the USA in the trade War.  China just folded and from what my husband was told by his classmates in China they folded HARD.  They are agreeing to 100 precent of all our demands in the new trade deal.  No required IT Property transfers required anymore.  All Patents will be protected going forward no tariffs on US made goods going into China.  No restrictions on US Businesses opening in China.  All Tariffs on US Ag products removed.  

This is not a match where one side loses and the other side wins.  But that is the way it is being cheered on.  No matter how you divide the world into individual economies, they are all connected.  Together, they tend to rise on confidence, and fall on worry.  Both confidence and worry are about risk.  

Patents will be protected going forward?  By who?  Anyone who understands patents knows that when you get one, it just sits there.  Then if your product takes off, everyone in the world infringes on it.  At that point, your only option is to take it to court.  You cannot just call the government patent office, report that somebody has stolen your patent, and expect them to get justice for you.  No, your only recourse is to take it to court at your expense.  

Once in court, you argure all of the technical points about whether your idea has been stolen or not.  The outcome of this will depend on peoples' moods as much as objective mechanics of your patent.  The ownership of ideas is guided to a large extent by smoke and mirrors.  And the Patent Office has no skin in the game.  The patent they grant you is only an opinion of the novelty of your invention.  Anybody can challenge it in court and possibly defeat the claims of your patent.

So people say China is infringing on their patent.  Just by the nature of a patent, the assertion of infringment is nothing more than an opinion until it is validated by a court ruling. 

So complaining about people stealing your intellectual propterty is like complaining about the weather.  Also, businesses complain about people infringing on their patents in order to advertise the idea that they are a strong creator of innovation and new thinking. 

The only issue about China is that they have no court system to bring a case angainst their people for infringing on your patent. So you have no remedy.  But with China offering no legal remedy for infringement, there is no way for a charge of infringement to be validated. 

What this all means is that the widely announced greivance that China is stealing everyone's intellectual property is an an airy nothing.   

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,444 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, November 4, 2019 8:22 AM

Euclid
The only issue about China is that they have no court system to bring a case angainst their people for infringing on your patent. So you have no remedy.  But with China offering no legal remedy for infringement, there is no way for a charge of infringement to be validated.  What this all means is that the widely announced grievance that China is stealing everyone's intellectual property is an an airy nothing.

That's pretty dumb.  The actual discussion isn't about 'patent rights', it's about technology transfer demanded by China as part of 'joint ventures' with American companies -- Boeing being a particular case in point that I have firsthand knowledge about.

I have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming that measures taken to reduce or eliminate China's ability to -- steal isn't too harsh a word for it -- intellectual property wouldn't be wasted effort.  

You could argue that it's good old misguided American greed that induces companies to 'agree' to give up the knowledge and trade secrets.  In many, perhaps most cases that's been true.  But that doesn't justify the practice or make it otherwise unthinkable for us to use American state authority to 'induce' China to change it as one of their standards.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 5,957 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, November 4, 2019 10:53 AM

Overmod
 
Euclid
The only issue about China is that they have no court system to bring a case angainst their people for infringing on your patent. So you have no remedy.  But with China offering no legal remedy for infringement, there is no way for a charge of infringement to be validated.  What this all means is that the widely announced grievance that China is stealing everyone's intellectual property is an an airy nothing.

 

That's pretty dumb.  The actual discussion isn't about 'patent rights', it's about technology transfer demanded by China as part of 'joint ventures' with American companies -- Boeing being a particular case in point that I have firsthand knowledge about.

I have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming that measures taken to reduce or eliminate China's ability to -- steal isn't too harsh a word for it -- intellectual property wouldn't be wasted effort.  

You could argue that it's good old misguided American greed that induces companies to 'agree' to give up the knowledge and trade secrets.  In many, perhaps most cases that's been true.  But that doesn't justify the practice or make it otherwise unthinkable for us to use American state authority to 'induce' China to change it as one of their standards.

 

It's about both; stealing intellectual property because their manufacturing gives them access to it, and forcing U.S. manufacturers to give China the rights to it as a condition of doing business with them.

The latter is one of the costs of doing business with them.  I don't see why it would be illegal.  I certainly see no connection to "American greed" as you mention.   

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,559 posts
Posted by zardoz on Monday, November 4, 2019 3:53 PM

Euclid
This is not a match where one side loses and the other side wins.  But that is the way it is being cheered on.  

Yeah, if all one watches is Fox 'news', one might begin to believe it.

Euclid
No matter how you divide the world into individual economies, they are all connected.

Now if we could only get elected officials to realize this, and put the good of the world ahead of personal greed.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 5,957 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, November 4, 2019 4:38 PM

zardoz
 
Euclid
This is not a match where one side loses and the other side wins.  But that is the way it is being cheered on.  

 

Yeah, if all one watches is Fox 'news', one might begin to believe it.

 

 
Euclid
No matter how you divide the world into individual economies, they are all connected.

 

Now if we could only get elected officials to realize this, and put the good of the world ahead of personal greed.

 

 

The elected officials in charge of this trade policy definitely see it as a match where we win and China loses.  They assure us that we cannot possibly be hurt.  Yeah right.  Why worry?  It might only be another lost decade.

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • 60 posts
Posted by Psychot on Tuesday, November 5, 2019 3:11 AM

Euclid

 

 
Overmod
 
Euclid
The only issue about China is that they have no court system to bring a case angainst their people for infringing on your patent. So you have no remedy.  But with China offering no legal remedy for infringement, there is no way for a charge of infringement to be validated.  What this all means is that the widely announced grievance that China is stealing everyone's intellectual property is an an airy nothing.

 

That's pretty dumb.  The actual discussion isn't about 'patent rights', it's about technology transfer demanded by China as part of 'joint ventures' with American companies -- Boeing being a particular case in point that I have firsthand knowledge about.

I have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming that measures taken to reduce or eliminate China's ability to -- steal isn't too harsh a word for it -- intellectual property wouldn't be wasted effort.  

You could argue that it's good old misguided American greed that induces companies to 'agree' to give up the knowledge and trade secrets.  In many, perhaps most cases that's been true.  But that doesn't justify the practice or make it otherwise unthinkable for us to use American state authority to 'induce' China to change it as one of their standards.

 

 

 

It's about both; stealing intellectual property because their manufacturing gives them access to it, and forcing U.S. manufacturers to give China the rights to it as a condition of doing business with them.

The latter is one of the costs of doing business with them.  I don't see why it would be illegal.  I certainly see no connection to "American greed" as you mention.   

 

Of course it's every nation's sovereign right to require intellectual property transfers as a condition for doing business on their territory, just as it's every nation's sovereign right to impose tariffs. However, in international trade and commerce, it's also desirable to strive for a level playing field where the same conditions apply to both sides.

The means to that end is where I part ways with the current administration. Tariffs will likely not solve the underlying issues and simply serve to raise costs for everyone. 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 5,957 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, November 5, 2019 7:51 AM

Psychot
 
Euclid

 

 
Overmod
 
Euclid
The only issue about China is that they have no court system to bring a case angainst their people for infringing on your patent. So you have no remedy.  But with China offering no legal remedy for infringement, there is no way for a charge of infringement to be validated.  What this all means is that the widely announced grievance that China is stealing everyone's intellectual property is an an airy nothing.

 

That's pretty dumb.  The actual discussion isn't about 'patent rights', it's about technology transfer demanded by China as part of 'joint ventures' with American companies -- Boeing being a particular case in point that I have firsthand knowledge about.

I have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming that measures taken to reduce or eliminate China's ability to -- steal isn't too harsh a word for it -- intellectual property wouldn't be wasted effort.  

You could argue that it's good old misguided American greed that induces companies to 'agree' to give up the knowledge and trade secrets.  In many, perhaps most cases that's been true.  But that doesn't justify the practice or make it otherwise unthinkable for us to use American state authority to 'induce' China to change it as one of their standards.

 

 

 

It's about both; stealing intellectual property because their manufacturing gives them access to it, and forcing U.S. manufacturers to give China the rights to it as a condition of doing business with them.

The latter is one of the costs of doing business with them.  I don't see why it would be illegal.  I certainly see no connection to "American greed" as you mention.   

 

 

 

Of course it's every nation's sovereign right to require intellectual property transfers as a condition for doing business on their territory, just as it's every nation's sovereign right to impose tariffs. However, in international trade and commerce, it's also desirable to strive for a level playing field where the same conditions apply to both sides.

The means to that end is where I part ways with the current administration. Tariffs will likely not solve the underlying issues and simply serve to raise costs for everyone. 

 

I agree.  A basic assumption of our trade policy is that China stole all of our jobs that moved from here to there.  One of the stated goals of the new tariffs is to bring back all of those stolen jobs.

So once we accomplish that goal, all of those retured jobs will be providing employment here; however all of the products they produce will be sold here at a much higher cost than when they were made in China.  

So it is hard to say how that will play out.  It will be up to our manufacturing sector to suddenly automate and innovate enough to keep the returning product price surge low enough to maintain sales to our consumers.

There will be immense pressure for all those returned jobs to be re-outsourced to other foreign, low cost producers.  Of course this will once again be seen as them stealing our jobs since it will be a repete of history.  So we will need new laws that prohibit offshoring of manufacturing.  Then the whole problem will be solved and life will be good in the U.S.     

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 18,063 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:51 PM

45 weeks of decreasing traffic levels - yep the economy is booming [/sarcasm]

https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/aar-45-straight-weeks-of-u-s-traffic-downturn/

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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