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 CSXrules4eva Originally posted by spbed We have to find some way to become self sufficent otherwise the middle east guys will always control our destiny. Years ago there was something call gasohol which was made out of corn & methane or alcohol I think. Maybe something like that has to be used by power plants & manufactuers so we reach the goal of only using our own oil. Of we can reach that goal besides of no longer being controlled by the middle east the present minus in or imports to exports would drop like a rock does in water which would also be very benefical to the USA [:o)] This is real interesting spbed. I've always though that ever since the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that since they had most of the black gold that at any given time they could say. Ok US or any other country we're not going to sell you any oil. It seems to me that OPEC can gain control since I'm sure we'd be beaging them for some oil. This was evident in the 1970's when their was an oil shortage. However, I don't think this is going to happen espually since a majority of OPEC's bussness comes from the states. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:24 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by wncrails QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt Many of the people who drive SUV's or trucks have need of them part of the time. It would not be efficient to them, to society, or good for the environment for them to own an additional vehicle just to be politically correct. Listen, I didn't say anything about owning an additional vehicle or being POLITICALLY CORRECT. The last thing on my mind is to be PC [}:)]. I just think it's ridiculous when every 3rd car on the road is a soccer mom or some kid with a SUV. Every auto company has an SUV now. Why is that? Do we need a Porsche SUV? Is the Cadialac Escalade the name you think of when some says utility? SO it is about need when you buy an 4x4 SUV and put 24" rims on it rendering off-road useless? SO it is about need when you buy an SUV and lowwer it to a 3" clearence making it useless except for on pavement? SO it is about need when you buy an SUV becuase all your friends have one? Come on!![soapbox] I don't have a problem if you really need it. I'll agree that a Porche SUV is a silly thing. And, I don't get the Escalades with the large rims, either. I laugh when I see them! But, if that's what people want to spend their money on, why shouldn't they. And, why does it make you angry? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt Many of the people who drive SUV's or trucks have need of them part of the time. It would not be efficient to them, to society, or good for the environment for them to own an additional vehicle just to be politically correct. Listen, I didn't say anything about owning an additional vehicle or being POLITICALLY CORRECT. The last thing on my mind is to be PC [}:)]. I just think it's ridiculous when every 3rd car on the road is a soccer mom or some kid with a SUV. Every auto company has an SUV now. Why is that? Do we need a Porsche SUV? Is the Cadialac Escalade the name you think of when some says utility? SO it is about need when you buy an 4x4 SUV and put 24" rims on it rendering off-road useless? SO it is about need when you buy an SUV and lowwer it to a 3" clearence making it useless except for on pavement? SO it is about need when you buy an SUV becuase all your friends have one? Come on!![soapbox] I don't have a problem if you really need it. My stepfather uses his Trailblazer for everthing from hauling hay to making deliveries for his company, so I know about need. But he really needs it all the time, not occasionally. When I bought my new car, need was the firsrt thing I considered, next was gas mileage and yes I looked at 3 different SUV's. Besides, it's that other 65% you failed to mention that sets me off. The don't even need an SUV ocassionally. They could get a something like a Subaru wagon and be able to fill all their needs. Oh and I don't live in the city, don't use public transportation but still think its a good idea, even it is subsidized (from more than just highway use taxes, usually property and sales taxes depending on the size of the city). If I want to catch atrain, I have to drive 2 to 3 hours to the closest station. North Carolina was going to extend passenger service to Asheville which would have put me within an hour of a train station. They ran out of money, so plans are suspended, but that's another story.[:(] Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 3:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd We live in large single family homes. Heat'em and cool'em like crazy. Drive everywhere - for everything - all the time. Consume manufactured products that are packaged to the hilt like there's no tomorrow. Eat up way up the food chain. All of this is built on cheap energy, particularly petroleum. Then, we sell the rest of the world on our values. They buy in and join the party. Which causes energy prices to rise. The problem isn't the oil companies gouging us. It isn' t our government. It isn't foreign governments. Its US! Its how we live and what we value! So, no whining allowed! No pity parties. No righteous indignation. Nobody forced us to live an American, suburban, consumer livestyle. We chose it with our own free will. Heck, we actually got our government to subsidized it along the way! Now oil costs more because of demand. So, we have to pay. The good news is there is plenty of energy to be had, it just costs more to get it and convert than traditional petroleum. There are also more ways to conserve energy that will be economically viable as prices rise. No need to panic, just plan to pay a bit more for our lifestyle. Don, there is a lot of truth to what you say, but I think there are other forces at work here. This didn't happen over night, this is a result of 60 years worth of moving down this path. Contributing factors are things like the interstate highway system, and the television. Now the interstate highway system is a direct result of the government, and is almost single-handedly responsible for urban sprawl. Just add another exit a few miles beyond the city limits, and instant burbs. The American dream is to own a home and some land, not pay rent to a landlord, and have your neighbors on the other side of a thin wall. So what does the television have to do with all this? It is the voice that urges us to buy. Think about what television was in it's early days. Who were the first advertisers? All of the same ones that were on the radio, tobacco, automobiles, soap and household products, foods and soft drinks, beer, etc. Suddenly, everyone has to have a car and a television. The road to ruin is now paved, but with cheap oil, no problem, yet. Now the rest of the world sees this and wants it too. Personally, I am sickened by the consumption in our society, and do everything within my power to reject and resist it. Last year I drove less than 5000 miles. I live in an energy efficient home. I don't buy much of anything beyond food. The problem is that if everyone did that a lot of Americans would be unemployed. Of course a lot more Chineese and Indonesians would be unemployeed. But there is really no need to worry, we are hooked. I agree with your assessment of the "Consumption mentality", it's most worrisome the amount of debt some people wrack up just getting more stuff. The mindset of Americans after WWII was one where they fell in love with driving. That the interstate network promoted sprawl was not even a blip on the radar screen. Nobody argued against it. But sprawl was already off and running before Eisenhower's roads - and everyone was cheering. Road building didn't wait for Eisenhower. I'd also say that we still have "cheap oil" -- gasoline is about the same price as in the 1960s, ajusted for inflation, and cars, in general get better mileage. Add in that income has grown faster than inflation and you have a gallon of gas that takes fewer minutes of work to buy than in the 1960s. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 3:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd We live in large single family homes. Heat'em and cool'em like crazy. Drive everywhere - for everything - all the time. Consume manufactured products that are packaged to the hilt like there's no tomorrow. Eat up way up the food chain. All of this is built on cheap energy, particularly petroleum. Then, we sell the rest of the world on our values. They buy in and join the party. Which causes energy prices to rise. The problem isn't the oil companies gouging us. It isn' t our government. It isn't foreign governments. Its US! Its how we live and what we value! So, no whining allowed! No pity parties. No righteous indignation. Nobody forced us to live an American, suburban, consumer livestyle. We chose it with our own free will. Heck, we actually got our government to subsidized it along the way! Now oil costs more because of demand. So, we have to pay. The good news is there is plenty of energy to be had, it just costs more to get it and convert than traditional petroleum. There are also more ways to conserve energy that will be economically viable as prices rise. No need to panic, just plan to pay a bit more for our lifestyle. Don, there is a lot of truth to what you say, but I think there are other forces at work here. This didn't happen over night, this is a result of 60 years worth of moving down this path. Contributing factors are things like the interstate highway system, and the television. Now the interstate highway system is a direct result of the government, and is almost single-handedly responsible for urban sprawl. Just add another exit a few miles beyond the city limits, and instant burbs. The American dream is to own a home and some land, not pay rent to a landlord, and have your neighbors on the other side of a thin wall. So what does the television have to do with all this? It is the voice that urges us to buy. Think about what television was in it's early days. Who were the first advertisers? All of the same ones that were on the radio, tobacco, automobiles, soap and household products, foods and soft drinks, beer, etc. Suddenly, everyone has to have a car and a television. The road to ruin is now paved, but with cheap oil, no problem, yet. Now the rest of the world sees this and wants it too. Personally, I am sickened by the consumption in our society, and do everything within my power to reject and resist it. Last year I drove less than 5000 miles. I live in an energy efficient home. I don't buy much of anything beyond food. The problem is that if everyone did that a lot of Americans would be unemployed. Of course a lot more Chineese and Indonesians would be unemployeed. But there is really no need to worry, we are hooked. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply CSXrules4eva Member sinceAugust 2004 From: Louisville, KY 1,345 posts Posted by CSXrules4eva on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 1:50 PM Originally posted by spbed We have to find some way to become self sufficent otherwise the middle east guys will always control our destiny. Years ago there was something call gasohol which was made out of corn & methane or alcohol I think. Maybe something like that has to be used by power plants & manufactuers so we reach the goal of only using our own oil. Of we can reach that goal besides of no longer being controlled by the middle east the present minus in or imports to exports would drop like a rock does in water which would also be very benefical to the USA [:o)] This is real interesting spbed. I've always though that ever since the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that since they had most of the black gold that at any given time they could say. Ok US or any other country we're not going to sell you any oil. It seems to me that OPEC can gain control since I'm sure we'd be beaging them for some oil. This was evident in the 1970's when their was an oil shortage. However, I don't think this is going to happen espually since a majority of OPEC's bussness comes from the states. LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 1:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Dunkirkeriestation There are only a handfull of Citys in the US were there is viable transit system. Buses are too slow and dont go were people need to go. transit servcei often stops at the city line at night and wont let low income city dwleers out tio the suberbs were the malls are(and the jobs). White Flight has taken not only the whites but there department stores and there jobs out to Office parks and suberban shopping malls. In order for me to get grocerys it is a 4 hour all day adventure. You're missing the point! Live in the city! Work in the city! Shop in the city! Here's a list right off the top of my head where you can have a perfectly good middle class lifestyle in a city without a car. All these cities have decent middle class and better neighborhoods, lots of shopping and entertainment all in the city and within walking or short transit ride. I'm sure there are more places - these are just the ones I personally know of. Boston Montreal Toronto New York Philadelphia Baltimore DC Atlanta Charleston SC Chicago Cleveland Pittsburgh Seattle Portland SanFran LA SanDiego On top of that , there are many large, new "mixed use" developments going in around the country where you can live, work and shop in the same place. I think being from NY state has left you with a skewed perspective. NY is not like the rest of the country. I used to live there - went to college there, too. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 12:55 PM There are only a handfull of Citys in the US were there is viable transit system. Buses are too slow and dont go were people need to go. transit servcei often stops at the city line at night and wont let low income city dwleers out tio the suberbs were the malls are(and the jobs). White Flight has taken not only the whites but there department stores and there jobs out to Office parks and suberban shopping malls. In order for me to get grocerys it is a 4 hour all day adventure. Reply Edit wallyworld Member sinceJuly 2002 From: A State of Humidity 2,441 posts Posted by wallyworld on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:16 AM The short answer is yes. The more serious issue is both China and Japan holding the credit for our national debt in terms of bonds. At the same time we as a nation buy more goods than we sell. The balance of trade worsens every year. If our lendors return on investment continues to dwindle in comparison to that offered by other countries, our creditors could seek a higher yield. If they transfer their investments away from the U.S , it will seriously devalue the dollar. Your dollar will purchase less. They are happy to finance our credit card in order that we buy their goods, but what is the tipping point? Another potential problem is our own government's bipartisan fiscal irresponsibility, This is a major potential issue whilr pork barrel politics conducts it's business as usual. Regardless of how one views the current debate over social security, the problem that no politician on either side of the aisle is willing to take responsibility for, is that despite having installed a "lock box" on social security funds, they have defeated the purpose of their own legislation and are using our supposedly secure savings to finance daily government operations. They are all stuffing IOU's in our retirement accounts while bemoaning the situation. Meanwhile if you look at the rise of the cost of living over the past several decades and compare this to the growth in both income and the purchase power of a dollar, your answer is seen in that most families now have to have both parents working full time just to make ends meet. So in effect the cost of living ie; commodities has been increasing all along. The escalating price of oil is just another bit of bad news in this larger dynamic. Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:02 AM We live in large single family homes. Heat'em and cool'em like crazy. Drive everywhere - for everything - all the time. Consume manufactured products that are packaged to the hilt like there's no tomorrow. Eat up way up the food chain. All of this is built on cheap energy, particularly petroleum. Then, we sell the rest of the world on our values. They buy in and join the party. Which causes energy prices to rise. The problem isn't the oil companies gouging us. It isn' t our government. It isn't foreign governments. Its US! Its how we live and what we value! So, no whining allowed! No pity parties. No righteous indignation. Nobody forced us to live an American, suburban, consumer livestyle. We chose it with our own free will. Heck, we actually got our government to subsidized it along the way! Now oil costs more because of demand. So, we have to pay. The good news is there is plenty of energy to be had, it just costs more to get it and convert than traditional petroleum. There are also more ways to conserve energy that will be economically viable as prices rise. No need to panic, just plan to pay a bit more for our lifestyle. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:00 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....! Neo-conservatives(Bush etc.) like high oil prices because it makes them and their campaign contributors much wealthier. Why do what we did in Iraq and then make them a member of OPEC and hand it all back over to the Sh'ites??? Liberals like high oil prices because it encourages conservation, smaller cars, mass-transit, and all the social-engineering they favor. Some would tax gas even more. An excellent observation, and support for my theory that unless we vote them all out and start fresh, nothing will change. I don't worry about the liberals as much, at least their hearts are in a better place. As for going in and using leverage against the sheiks, guess what, we did. What do you think Iraq is? The political agenda is a pretty thin veil, Sadam was an easy mark. Our current mission is to install a friendly regiem, under the guise of democracy and freedom for the people, stableize the infrastructure, and make the oil flow freely. When we are done, it's on to Iran, to put the fear of God into the Saudis, as in "you're next" unless you cooperate. The thing that boggles my mind is, there are technologies out there that we can use to reduce our dependance on oil, but because it is not politically or economicly advantageous, we can't. Hello, Washington? ***, line's busy, must be talking to Detroit.[swg] I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:20 AM We have to find some way to become self sufficent otherwise the middle east guys will always control our destiny. Years ago there was something call gasohol which was made out of corn & methane or alcohol I think. Maybe something like that has to be used by power plants & manufactuers so we reach the goal of only using our own oil. Of we can reach that goal besides of no longer being controlled by the middle east the present minus in or imports to exports would drop like a rock does in water which would also be very benefical to the USA [:o)] QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....! Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:08 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....! Neo-conservatives(Bush etc.) like high oil prices because it makes them and their campaign contributors much wealthier. Why do what we did in Iraq and then make them a member of OPEC and hand it all back over to the Sh'ites??? Liberals like high oil prices because it encourages conservation, smaller cars, mass-transit, and all the social-engineering they favor. Some would tax gas even more. Reply Edit Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 7:49 AM ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....! Quentin Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 7:06 AM CNBC said that the expecation is that 2 or 3 years from now oil is suppose to be selling at $80.00 per BRL. That would be a 50% increase so all of us better get ready to break open our piggy banks. If gas in your area dropped better buy today because tomorrow or the next day it will be higher. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 7:01 AM Another big factor is the 'quiet' devaluation of the dollar. Since China's currency is pegged to ours, increased imports from China make the inflation numbers look lower than they really are. But many commodity prices have increased as a result - the Saudi oil shieks aren't stupid(and they don't buy Chinese cars). If this keeps up, pretty soon the Treasury department will have to start printing million dollar bills. Reply Edit Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Monday, March 7, 2005 9:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....Hmmmm, kinda rough on the Washington boys but I have to agree with you the big oil boys are the ones we need to keep a sharp eye on. We're {Washington}, concerned about all the mid eastern structure of government and our economic structure might need some attention right here at home....and soon...! Yes, I was rough on the Washington boys, but somebody needs to hold their feet to the fire. We send them there to represent us on matters both foreign and domestic, yet many of them seem to think that once they get there, they need to answer to whomever pays them the most. We have been sucked into an oil based economy, for which no cure is anywhere in sight. We need Washington to make some clear and difficult decisions, but they are too busy taking money from lobbyists and fundraising for the next election. This is just one big game for them, they have no worries, other than re election. Now the system is whichever candidate has the most money to campaign, usually wins. I fear our future is bleak. They are so dug in, it will take a miracle to get anything done. This is what happens when big business gets too big. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, March 7, 2005 7:31 PM ....Our gasoline price dropped 2 cents today....big deal....It's now $2.06. If this trend continues, we'll really be shelling out this summer when demand is high and with help from China needing more oil from a bulging economy it will really have the potential of higher highs..... Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 7, 2005 7:23 PM All I know is......The summer season "is NOT" looking so Hot with the current Price of Gas right now! BNSFrailfan. Reply Edit Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, March 7, 2005 7:22 PM ....Hmmmm, kinda rough on the Washington boys but I have to agree with you the big oil boys are the ones we need to keep a sharp eye on. We're {Washington}, concerned about all the mid eastern structure of government and our economic structure might need some attention right here at home....and soon...! Quentin Reply Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Monday, March 7, 2005 6:43 PM [soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox] The answer is that ultimately, the price of everything will go up. No amount of economic hocus pocus can stop this round of inflation. So go ask for a raise now, and pray you get it, cause if you don't, sacrifices will have to be made. Gotta love Washington, hope we survive the next 3 years. It ain't the Islamic terrorists I'm worried about, it's the oil companies and all their friends digging in my pocket. Personally, I think we've allowed our country to be hijacked, and it's only a matter of time before we crash. Out of curiosity, what did our "fearless leader" do for a living before he entered politics? I smell a rat, I've always smelled a rat. Hopefully now the voters will smell the stink and do something. [banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead] I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, March 7, 2005 6:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by wncrails OPEC loves Hemi's, SUVs, Sports Cars, Trucks and anyone who drives without any passengers (I'm guilty of that one). The more big cars we buy the worse this will get. Trains and trucks are effected too, but there aren't 150 million of them that pump gas!!!! If you want to save $$$ and not use so much oil, you could use synthetic oil, carpool, convert your car to hydrogen (for some $$$$), use public transportation, walk, OR YOU COULD RIDE A TRAIN! Many of the people who drive SUV's or trucks have need of them part of the time. It would not be efficient to them, to society, or good for the environment for them to own an additional vehicle just to be politically correct. Public transportation (buses and trains), outside of specific corridoors in areas of high population density, is less efficient than the automobile. They cannot provide adequate service and the service they do provide in fact costs more and uses more resources than autos do. Public owned transportation appears cheaper to the users because of high subsidies from highway user fees. 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 corwinda Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 389 posts Posted by corwinda on Monday, March 7, 2005 5:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal That's why a single 160,000 lb GVW riding on 10 axles and 36 wheels doesn't cause any more road damage than two 80,000 lb trucks riding on 5 axles and 18 wheels, and in terms of road damage per ton of revenue cargo, the 160,000 lb truck has a greater load factor so road damage per revenue ton is less. The biggest hole in your argument is bridges. Your hypothetical 160,000 GVW trucks would put considerably more concentrated dynamic loads on the structural members of bridges resulting in accellerated wear . Not to mention that many bridges would have to be replaced before such trucks could safely cross them at all.. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, March 7, 2005 7:04 AM The people who own those type vehicles mentioned in your post probably do not even realize they are going broke slowly. 6 /8 months ago gas was here 146.9 now it is just around $2.00 poised to go higher. So if the owners were to do some math & take a guess of how many miles they drove in that period of time & then figure out how many miles per gal their vehicle gets then figure ehat it was 6 months ago they will see how much more they are now paying for the gas guzzler. My cars are in the mid 20s MPG & I wish it was even higher[:o)] QUOTE: Originally posted by wncrails OPEC loves Hemi's, SUVs, Sports Cars, Trucks and anyone who drives without any passengers (I'm guilty of that one). The more big cars we buy the worse this will get. Trains and trucks are effected too, but there aren't 150 million of them that pump gas!!!! If you want to save $$$ and not use so much oil, you could use synthetic oil, carpool, convert your car to hydrogen (for some $$$$), use public transportation, walk, OR YOU COULD RIDE A TRAIN! Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 7, 2005 4:58 AM OPEC loves Hemi's, SUVs, Sports Cars, Trucks and anyone who drives without any passengers (I'm guilty of that one). The more big cars we buy the worse this will get. Trains and trucks are effected too, but there aren't 150 million of them that pump gas!!!! If you want to save $$$ and not use so much oil, you could use synthetic oil, carpool, convert your car to hydrogen (for some $$$$), use public transportation, walk, OR YOU COULD RIDE A TRAIN! Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 7, 2005 12:50 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Interesting idea about the 50% increase in tare tonnage allowed in trucks. I assume that the rear wheels will be steerable so a rig with a 75 foot trailer can navigate the street corners that now almost to tight for a 50 footer. I suppose either that or wider lanes or lower radius on the corners would cover the problem. Sounds real cost effective to me. For the record, tare is the non-cargo weight of a loaded rig e.g. the cab, the trailer, and additional supporting axles, so you can have a 50% increase in revenue tonnage with only a nominal increase in tare. The only real tare increase would come from the added wheelsets. You also don't have to drive LCV's around tight street corners. Most LCV's are limited to the highways and truck stops, wherein the consists are broken up and the trailers delivered locally in one or two units per rig. Right now it would be rather easy to allow trailer combos of 4 or 5 trailers on the Interstates for the sake of increased efficiency, while still limiting street running to one or two trailers. So yes, it is much more cost effective, and not in the way you ostensibly envision. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Sunday, March 6, 2005 11:47 PM Interesting idea about the 50% increase in tare tonnage allowed in trucks. I assume that the rear wheels will be steerable so a rig with a 75 foot trailer can navigate the street corners that now almost to tight for a 50 footer. I suppose either that or wider lanes or lower radius on the corners would cover the problem. Sounds real cost effective to me. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, March 6, 2005 8:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER Unfortunately, raising the weight limits for trucks increases road maintenance exponentially. There are safety issues as well. Actually, increasing the GVW would tend to reduce road maintenance costs, since you are allowing each cab unit to haul more cargo, e.g. increasing the load factor. Consider the following: You have 1,000 tons that need to be trucked. If the GVW limits the cargo lading to 40 tons per truck, it will take 25 truckloads. If the GVW limit is raised to allow 60 tons per truck, it will only take 17 truckloads. SInce you have to included the tare of the cab unit at roughly 19,000 lbs, the 8 extra trips for the 40 ton cargo max will result in an extra 76 tons plying the roads for the same amout of aggregate tonnage. There will be some adjustment for higher tare resulting from increased capacity trailers, but you still come out ahead on the total amount of tonnage over the roads. The key of course is to spread the extra weight over more axles to keep the damage exerted per wheel the same. That's why a single 160,000 lb GVW riding on 10 axles and 36 wheels doesn't cause any more road damage than two 80,000 lb trucks riding on 5 axles and 18 wheels, and in terms of road damage per ton of revenue cargo, the 160,000 lb truck has a greater load factor so road damage per revenue ton is less. As for safety issues, having less trucks hauling more cargo each is safer than having more trucks hauling less cargo. If the equipment meets mechanical specs, the safety issue is then more correlated to the per capita of trucks on the highways. That's the trucking industry argument. Unfortunately weight and safety problems are not straight line with respect to weight. They increase faster than the weight increases. Doubling the number of axles does not make the 160,000lb truck equivalent to two 80,000lb trucks. From safety and road cost points of view, we should decrease the weight and speed limits for trucks. Enjoy Paul Paul, If you're going to claim a counter-argument, at least provide some examples. If the amount of revenue tonnage moving over roads is done so with a greater load factor, then the efficiency of the movement is enhanced. In case you haven't noticed, our economy is totally dependent on trucks to get the goods from point of origin to the railhead, and from the railhead to the retail markets. This is the "last mile" that determines the real transporation cost component of what you buy in the stores. Fuel price flucuations have less effect on railroads than trucks since railroads are more fuel efficient. Fuel price increases have their greatest effect on the trucking segment of the supply chain. By improving the trucker's load factor, we can offset the effects of fuel price increases on the price of consumer goods. Conversely, if we don't allow greater efficiencies in trucking, it may very well plunge this nation into a recession. Reply Edit 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
Originally posted by spbed We have to find some way to become self sufficent otherwise the middle east guys will always control our destiny. Years ago there was something call gasohol which was made out of corn & methane or alcohol I think. Maybe something like that has to be used by power plants & manufactuers so we reach the goal of only using our own oil. Of we can reach that goal besides of no longer being controlled by the middle east the present minus in or imports to exports would drop like a rock does in water which would also be very benefical to the USA [:o)] This is real interesting spbed. I've always though that ever since the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that since they had most of the black gold that at any given time they could say. Ok US or any other country we're not going to sell you any oil. It seems to me that OPEC can gain control since I'm sure we'd be beaging them for some oil. This was evident in the 1970's when their was an oil shortage. However, I don't think this is going to happen espually since a majority of OPEC's bussness comes from the states.
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by wncrails QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt Many of the people who drive SUV's or trucks have need of them part of the time. It would not be efficient to them, to society, or good for the environment for them to own an additional vehicle just to be politically correct. Listen, I didn't say anything about owning an additional vehicle or being POLITICALLY CORRECT. The last thing on my mind is to be PC [}:)]. I just think it's ridiculous when every 3rd car on the road is a soccer mom or some kid with a SUV. Every auto company has an SUV now. Why is that? Do we need a Porsche SUV? Is the Cadialac Escalade the name you think of when some says utility? SO it is about need when you buy an 4x4 SUV and put 24" rims on it rendering off-road useless? SO it is about need when you buy an SUV and lowwer it to a 3" clearence making it useless except for on pavement? SO it is about need when you buy an SUV becuase all your friends have one? Come on!![soapbox] I don't have a problem if you really need it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt Many of the people who drive SUV's or trucks have need of them part of the time. It would not be efficient to them, to society, or good for the environment for them to own an additional vehicle just to be politically correct.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd We live in large single family homes. Heat'em and cool'em like crazy. Drive everywhere - for everything - all the time. Consume manufactured products that are packaged to the hilt like there's no tomorrow. Eat up way up the food chain. All of this is built on cheap energy, particularly petroleum. Then, we sell the rest of the world on our values. They buy in and join the party. Which causes energy prices to rise. The problem isn't the oil companies gouging us. It isn' t our government. It isn't foreign governments. Its US! Its how we live and what we value! So, no whining allowed! No pity parties. No righteous indignation. Nobody forced us to live an American, suburban, consumer livestyle. We chose it with our own free will. Heck, we actually got our government to subsidized it along the way! Now oil costs more because of demand. So, we have to pay. The good news is there is plenty of energy to be had, it just costs more to get it and convert than traditional petroleum. There are also more ways to conserve energy that will be economically viable as prices rise. No need to panic, just plan to pay a bit more for our lifestyle. Don, there is a lot of truth to what you say, but I think there are other forces at work here. This didn't happen over night, this is a result of 60 years worth of moving down this path. Contributing factors are things like the interstate highway system, and the television. Now the interstate highway system is a direct result of the government, and is almost single-handedly responsible for urban sprawl. Just add another exit a few miles beyond the city limits, and instant burbs. The American dream is to own a home and some land, not pay rent to a landlord, and have your neighbors on the other side of a thin wall. So what does the television have to do with all this? It is the voice that urges us to buy. Think about what television was in it's early days. Who were the first advertisers? All of the same ones that were on the radio, tobacco, automobiles, soap and household products, foods and soft drinks, beer, etc. Suddenly, everyone has to have a car and a television. The road to ruin is now paved, but with cheap oil, no problem, yet. Now the rest of the world sees this and wants it too. Personally, I am sickened by the consumption in our society, and do everything within my power to reject and resist it. Last year I drove less than 5000 miles. I live in an energy efficient home. I don't buy much of anything beyond food. The problem is that if everyone did that a lot of Americans would be unemployed. Of course a lot more Chineese and Indonesians would be unemployeed. But there is really no need to worry, we are hooked.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd We live in large single family homes. Heat'em and cool'em like crazy. Drive everywhere - for everything - all the time. Consume manufactured products that are packaged to the hilt like there's no tomorrow. Eat up way up the food chain. All of this is built on cheap energy, particularly petroleum. Then, we sell the rest of the world on our values. They buy in and join the party. Which causes energy prices to rise. The problem isn't the oil companies gouging us. It isn' t our government. It isn't foreign governments. Its US! Its how we live and what we value! So, no whining allowed! No pity parties. No righteous indignation. Nobody forced us to live an American, suburban, consumer livestyle. We chose it with our own free will. Heck, we actually got our government to subsidized it along the way! Now oil costs more because of demand. So, we have to pay. The good news is there is plenty of energy to be had, it just costs more to get it and convert than traditional petroleum. There are also more ways to conserve energy that will be economically viable as prices rise. No need to panic, just plan to pay a bit more for our lifestyle.
I'm back!
Follow the progress:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1
Originally posted by spbed We have to find some way to become self sufficent otherwise the middle east guys will always control our destiny. Years ago there was something call gasohol which was made out of corn & methane or alcohol I think. Maybe something like that has to be used by power plants & manufactuers so we reach the goal of only using our own oil. Of we can reach that goal besides of no longer being controlled by the middle east the present minus in or imports to exports would drop like a rock does in water which would also be very benefical to the USA [:o)] This is real interesting spbed. I've always though that ever since the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that since they had most of the black gold that at any given time they could say. Ok US or any other country we're not going to sell you any oil. It seems to me that OPEC can gain control since I'm sure we'd be beaging them for some oil. This was evident in the 1970's when their was an oil shortage. However, I don't think this is going to happen espually since a majority of OPEC's bussness comes from the states. LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 1:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Dunkirkeriestation There are only a handfull of Citys in the US were there is viable transit system. Buses are too slow and dont go were people need to go. transit servcei often stops at the city line at night and wont let low income city dwleers out tio the suberbs were the malls are(and the jobs). White Flight has taken not only the whites but there department stores and there jobs out to Office parks and suberban shopping malls. In order for me to get grocerys it is a 4 hour all day adventure. You're missing the point! Live in the city! Work in the city! Shop in the city! Here's a list right off the top of my head where you can have a perfectly good middle class lifestyle in a city without a car. All these cities have decent middle class and better neighborhoods, lots of shopping and entertainment all in the city and within walking or short transit ride. I'm sure there are more places - these are just the ones I personally know of. Boston Montreal Toronto New York Philadelphia Baltimore DC Atlanta Charleston SC Chicago Cleveland Pittsburgh Seattle Portland SanFran LA SanDiego On top of that , there are many large, new "mixed use" developments going in around the country where you can live, work and shop in the same place. I think being from NY state has left you with a skewed perspective. NY is not like the rest of the country. I used to live there - went to college there, too. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 12:55 PM There are only a handfull of Citys in the US were there is viable transit system. Buses are too slow and dont go were people need to go. transit servcei often stops at the city line at night and wont let low income city dwleers out tio the suberbs were the malls are(and the jobs). White Flight has taken not only the whites but there department stores and there jobs out to Office parks and suberban shopping malls. In order for me to get grocerys it is a 4 hour all day adventure. Reply Edit wallyworld Member sinceJuly 2002 From: A State of Humidity 2,441 posts Posted by wallyworld on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:16 AM The short answer is yes. The more serious issue is both China and Japan holding the credit for our national debt in terms of bonds. At the same time we as a nation buy more goods than we sell. The balance of trade worsens every year. If our lendors return on investment continues to dwindle in comparison to that offered by other countries, our creditors could seek a higher yield. If they transfer their investments away from the U.S , it will seriously devalue the dollar. Your dollar will purchase less. They are happy to finance our credit card in order that we buy their goods, but what is the tipping point? Another potential problem is our own government's bipartisan fiscal irresponsibility, This is a major potential issue whilr pork barrel politics conducts it's business as usual. Regardless of how one views the current debate over social security, the problem that no politician on either side of the aisle is willing to take responsibility for, is that despite having installed a "lock box" on social security funds, they have defeated the purpose of their own legislation and are using our supposedly secure savings to finance daily government operations. They are all stuffing IOU's in our retirement accounts while bemoaning the situation. Meanwhile if you look at the rise of the cost of living over the past several decades and compare this to the growth in both income and the purchase power of a dollar, your answer is seen in that most families now have to have both parents working full time just to make ends meet. So in effect the cost of living ie; commodities has been increasing all along. The escalating price of oil is just another bit of bad news in this larger dynamic. Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:02 AM We live in large single family homes. Heat'em and cool'em like crazy. Drive everywhere - for everything - all the time. Consume manufactured products that are packaged to the hilt like there's no tomorrow. Eat up way up the food chain. All of this is built on cheap energy, particularly petroleum. Then, we sell the rest of the world on our values. They buy in and join the party. Which causes energy prices to rise. The problem isn't the oil companies gouging us. It isn' t our government. It isn't foreign governments. Its US! Its how we live and what we value! So, no whining allowed! No pity parties. No righteous indignation. Nobody forced us to live an American, suburban, consumer livestyle. We chose it with our own free will. Heck, we actually got our government to subsidized it along the way! Now oil costs more because of demand. So, we have to pay. The good news is there is plenty of energy to be had, it just costs more to get it and convert than traditional petroleum. There are also more ways to conserve energy that will be economically viable as prices rise. No need to panic, just plan to pay a bit more for our lifestyle. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:00 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....! Neo-conservatives(Bush etc.) like high oil prices because it makes them and their campaign contributors much wealthier. Why do what we did in Iraq and then make them a member of OPEC and hand it all back over to the Sh'ites??? Liberals like high oil prices because it encourages conservation, smaller cars, mass-transit, and all the social-engineering they favor. Some would tax gas even more. An excellent observation, and support for my theory that unless we vote them all out and start fresh, nothing will change. I don't worry about the liberals as much, at least their hearts are in a better place. As for going in and using leverage against the sheiks, guess what, we did. What do you think Iraq is? The political agenda is a pretty thin veil, Sadam was an easy mark. Our current mission is to install a friendly regiem, under the guise of democracy and freedom for the people, stableize the infrastructure, and make the oil flow freely. When we are done, it's on to Iran, to put the fear of God into the Saudis, as in "you're next" unless you cooperate. The thing that boggles my mind is, there are technologies out there that we can use to reduce our dependance on oil, but because it is not politically or economicly advantageous, we can't. Hello, Washington? ***, line's busy, must be talking to Detroit.[swg] I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:20 AM We have to find some way to become self sufficent otherwise the middle east guys will always control our destiny. Years ago there was something call gasohol which was made out of corn & methane or alcohol I think. Maybe something like that has to be used by power plants & manufactuers so we reach the goal of only using our own oil. Of we can reach that goal besides of no longer being controlled by the middle east the present minus in or imports to exports would drop like a rock does in water which would also be very benefical to the USA [:o)] QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....! Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:08 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....! Neo-conservatives(Bush etc.) like high oil prices because it makes them and their campaign contributors much wealthier. Why do what we did in Iraq and then make them a member of OPEC and hand it all back over to the Sh'ites??? Liberals like high oil prices because it encourages conservation, smaller cars, mass-transit, and all the social-engineering they favor. Some would tax gas even more. Reply Edit Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 7:49 AM ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....! Quentin Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 7:06 AM CNBC said that the expecation is that 2 or 3 years from now oil is suppose to be selling at $80.00 per BRL. That would be a 50% increase so all of us better get ready to break open our piggy banks. If gas in your area dropped better buy today because tomorrow or the next day it will be higher. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 7:01 AM Another big factor is the 'quiet' devaluation of the dollar. Since China's currency is pegged to ours, increased imports from China make the inflation numbers look lower than they really are. But many commodity prices have increased as a result - the Saudi oil shieks aren't stupid(and they don't buy Chinese cars). If this keeps up, pretty soon the Treasury department will have to start printing million dollar bills. Reply Edit Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Monday, March 7, 2005 9:34 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....Hmmmm, kinda rough on the Washington boys but I have to agree with you the big oil boys are the ones we need to keep a sharp eye on. We're {Washington}, concerned about all the mid eastern structure of government and our economic structure might need some attention right here at home....and soon...! Yes, I was rough on the Washington boys, but somebody needs to hold their feet to the fire. We send them there to represent us on matters both foreign and domestic, yet many of them seem to think that once they get there, they need to answer to whomever pays them the most. We have been sucked into an oil based economy, for which no cure is anywhere in sight. We need Washington to make some clear and difficult decisions, but they are too busy taking money from lobbyists and fundraising for the next election. This is just one big game for them, they have no worries, other than re election. Now the system is whichever candidate has the most money to campaign, usually wins. I fear our future is bleak. They are so dug in, it will take a miracle to get anything done. This is what happens when big business gets too big. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, March 7, 2005 7:31 PM ....Our gasoline price dropped 2 cents today....big deal....It's now $2.06. If this trend continues, we'll really be shelling out this summer when demand is high and with help from China needing more oil from a bulging economy it will really have the potential of higher highs..... Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 7, 2005 7:23 PM All I know is......The summer season "is NOT" looking so Hot with the current Price of Gas right now! BNSFrailfan. Reply Edit Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, March 7, 2005 7:22 PM ....Hmmmm, kinda rough on the Washington boys but I have to agree with you the big oil boys are the ones we need to keep a sharp eye on. We're {Washington}, concerned about all the mid eastern structure of government and our economic structure might need some attention right here at home....and soon...! Quentin Reply Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Monday, March 7, 2005 6:43 PM [soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox] The answer is that ultimately, the price of everything will go up. No amount of economic hocus pocus can stop this round of inflation. So go ask for a raise now, and pray you get it, cause if you don't, sacrifices will have to be made. Gotta love Washington, hope we survive the next 3 years. It ain't the Islamic terrorists I'm worried about, it's the oil companies and all their friends digging in my pocket. Personally, I think we've allowed our country to be hijacked, and it's only a matter of time before we crash. Out of curiosity, what did our "fearless leader" do for a living before he entered politics? I smell a rat, I've always smelled a rat. Hopefully now the voters will smell the stink and do something. [banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead] I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, March 7, 2005 6:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by wncrails OPEC loves Hemi's, SUVs, Sports Cars, Trucks and anyone who drives without any passengers (I'm guilty of that one). The more big cars we buy the worse this will get. Trains and trucks are effected too, but there aren't 150 million of them that pump gas!!!! If you want to save $$$ and not use so much oil, you could use synthetic oil, carpool, convert your car to hydrogen (for some $$$$), use public transportation, walk, OR YOU COULD RIDE A TRAIN! Many of the people who drive SUV's or trucks have need of them part of the time. It would not be efficient to them, to society, or good for the environment for them to own an additional vehicle just to be politically correct. Public transportation (buses and trains), outside of specific corridoors in areas of high population density, is less efficient than the automobile. They cannot provide adequate service and the service they do provide in fact costs more and uses more resources than autos do. Public owned transportation appears cheaper to the users because of high subsidies from highway user fees. 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 corwinda Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 389 posts Posted by corwinda on Monday, March 7, 2005 5:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal That's why a single 160,000 lb GVW riding on 10 axles and 36 wheels doesn't cause any more road damage than two 80,000 lb trucks riding on 5 axles and 18 wheels, and in terms of road damage per ton of revenue cargo, the 160,000 lb truck has a greater load factor so road damage per revenue ton is less. The biggest hole in your argument is bridges. Your hypothetical 160,000 GVW trucks would put considerably more concentrated dynamic loads on the structural members of bridges resulting in accellerated wear . Not to mention that many bridges would have to be replaced before such trucks could safely cross them at all.. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, March 7, 2005 7:04 AM The people who own those type vehicles mentioned in your post probably do not even realize they are going broke slowly. 6 /8 months ago gas was here 146.9 now it is just around $2.00 poised to go higher. So if the owners were to do some math & take a guess of how many miles they drove in that period of time & then figure out how many miles per gal their vehicle gets then figure ehat it was 6 months ago they will see how much more they are now paying for the gas guzzler. My cars are in the mid 20s MPG & I wish it was even higher[:o)] QUOTE: Originally posted by wncrails OPEC loves Hemi's, SUVs, Sports Cars, Trucks and anyone who drives without any passengers (I'm guilty of that one). The more big cars we buy the worse this will get. Trains and trucks are effected too, but there aren't 150 million of them that pump gas!!!! If you want to save $$$ and not use so much oil, you could use synthetic oil, carpool, convert your car to hydrogen (for some $$$$), use public transportation, walk, OR YOU COULD RIDE A TRAIN! Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 7, 2005 4:58 AM OPEC loves Hemi's, SUVs, Sports Cars, Trucks and anyone who drives without any passengers (I'm guilty of that one). The more big cars we buy the worse this will get. Trains and trucks are effected too, but there aren't 150 million of them that pump gas!!!! If you want to save $$$ and not use so much oil, you could use synthetic oil, carpool, convert your car to hydrogen (for some $$$$), use public transportation, walk, OR YOU COULD RIDE A TRAIN! Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 7, 2005 12:50 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Interesting idea about the 50% increase in tare tonnage allowed in trucks. I assume that the rear wheels will be steerable so a rig with a 75 foot trailer can navigate the street corners that now almost to tight for a 50 footer. I suppose either that or wider lanes or lower radius on the corners would cover the problem. Sounds real cost effective to me. For the record, tare is the non-cargo weight of a loaded rig e.g. the cab, the trailer, and additional supporting axles, so you can have a 50% increase in revenue tonnage with only a nominal increase in tare. The only real tare increase would come from the added wheelsets. You also don't have to drive LCV's around tight street corners. Most LCV's are limited to the highways and truck stops, wherein the consists are broken up and the trailers delivered locally in one or two units per rig. Right now it would be rather easy to allow trailer combos of 4 or 5 trailers on the Interstates for the sake of increased efficiency, while still limiting street running to one or two trailers. So yes, it is much more cost effective, and not in the way you ostensibly envision. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Sunday, March 6, 2005 11:47 PM Interesting idea about the 50% increase in tare tonnage allowed in trucks. I assume that the rear wheels will be steerable so a rig with a 75 foot trailer can navigate the street corners that now almost to tight for a 50 footer. I suppose either that or wider lanes or lower radius on the corners would cover the problem. Sounds real cost effective to me. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, March 6, 2005 8:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER Unfortunately, raising the weight limits for trucks increases road maintenance exponentially. There are safety issues as well. Actually, increasing the GVW would tend to reduce road maintenance costs, since you are allowing each cab unit to haul more cargo, e.g. increasing the load factor. Consider the following: You have 1,000 tons that need to be trucked. If the GVW limits the cargo lading to 40 tons per truck, it will take 25 truckloads. If the GVW limit is raised to allow 60 tons per truck, it will only take 17 truckloads. SInce you have to included the tare of the cab unit at roughly 19,000 lbs, the 8 extra trips for the 40 ton cargo max will result in an extra 76 tons plying the roads for the same amout of aggregate tonnage. There will be some adjustment for higher tare resulting from increased capacity trailers, but you still come out ahead on the total amount of tonnage over the roads. The key of course is to spread the extra weight over more axles to keep the damage exerted per wheel the same. That's why a single 160,000 lb GVW riding on 10 axles and 36 wheels doesn't cause any more road damage than two 80,000 lb trucks riding on 5 axles and 18 wheels, and in terms of road damage per ton of revenue cargo, the 160,000 lb truck has a greater load factor so road damage per revenue ton is less. As for safety issues, having less trucks hauling more cargo each is safer than having more trucks hauling less cargo. If the equipment meets mechanical specs, the safety issue is then more correlated to the per capita of trucks on the highways. That's the trucking industry argument. Unfortunately weight and safety problems are not straight line with respect to weight. They increase faster than the weight increases. Doubling the number of axles does not make the 160,000lb truck equivalent to two 80,000lb trucks. From safety and road cost points of view, we should decrease the weight and speed limits for trucks. Enjoy Paul Paul, If you're going to claim a counter-argument, at least provide some examples. If the amount of revenue tonnage moving over roads is done so with a greater load factor, then the efficiency of the movement is enhanced. In case you haven't noticed, our economy is totally dependent on trucks to get the goods from point of origin to the railhead, and from the railhead to the retail markets. This is the "last mile" that determines the real transporation cost component of what you buy in the stores. Fuel price flucuations have less effect on railroads than trucks since railroads are more fuel efficient. Fuel price increases have their greatest effect on the trucking segment of the supply chain. By improving the trucker's load factor, we can offset the effects of fuel price increases on the price of consumer goods. Conversely, if we don't allow greater efficiencies in trucking, it may very well plunge this nation into a recession. Reply Edit 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 Dunkirkeriestation There are only a handfull of Citys in the US were there is viable transit system. Buses are too slow and dont go were people need to go. transit servcei often stops at the city line at night and wont let low income city dwleers out tio the suberbs were the malls are(and the jobs). White Flight has taken not only the whites but there department stores and there jobs out to Office parks and suberban shopping malls. In order for me to get grocerys it is a 4 hour all day adventure.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....! Neo-conservatives(Bush etc.) like high oil prices because it makes them and their campaign contributors much wealthier. Why do what we did in Iraq and then make them a member of OPEC and hand it all back over to the Sh'ites??? Liberals like high oil prices because it encourages conservation, smaller cars, mass-transit, and all the social-engineering they favor. Some would tax gas even more.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ...Fellows, I agree with all of your above posts...and I am really concerned as you fellows are. For sure..! One of my bewilderments is why we can't use some leverage of our own agains the mid east sheiks....They use their oil reserves against the free world all the time to keep oil prices high so there must be ways we could apply some pressure to them to balance this situation....They must not manufacture much of anything on their own and who protects them from the world tyrants that might come in ant take their oil...Of course Uncle Sam with lives and money....We do...! I'm sure we have a bigger stick to use than we're using to lower oil prices and I'm saying it's time to use it....If Demoracy is starting to run over there, fine....let them persue it and lets start thinking of some of OUR needs for a while....!
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....Hmmmm, kinda rough on the Washington boys but I have to agree with you the big oil boys are the ones we need to keep a sharp eye on. We're {Washington}, concerned about all the mid eastern structure of government and our economic structure might need some attention right here at home....and soon...!
QUOTE: Originally posted by wncrails OPEC loves Hemi's, SUVs, Sports Cars, Trucks and anyone who drives without any passengers (I'm guilty of that one). The more big cars we buy the worse this will get. Trains and trucks are effected too, but there aren't 150 million of them that pump gas!!!! If you want to save $$$ and not use so much oil, you could use synthetic oil, carpool, convert your car to hydrogen (for some $$$$), use public transportation, walk, OR YOU COULD RIDE A TRAIN!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal That's why a single 160,000 lb GVW riding on 10 axles and 36 wheels doesn't cause any more road damage than two 80,000 lb trucks riding on 5 axles and 18 wheels, and in terms of road damage per ton of revenue cargo, the 160,000 lb truck has a greater load factor so road damage per revenue ton is less.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Interesting idea about the 50% increase in tare tonnage allowed in trucks. I assume that the rear wheels will be steerable so a rig with a 75 foot trailer can navigate the street corners that now almost to tight for a 50 footer. I suppose either that or wider lanes or lower radius on the corners would cover the problem. Sounds real cost effective to me.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER Unfortunately, raising the weight limits for trucks increases road maintenance exponentially. There are safety issues as well. Actually, increasing the GVW would tend to reduce road maintenance costs, since you are allowing each cab unit to haul more cargo, e.g. increasing the load factor. Consider the following: You have 1,000 tons that need to be trucked. If the GVW limits the cargo lading to 40 tons per truck, it will take 25 truckloads. If the GVW limit is raised to allow 60 tons per truck, it will only take 17 truckloads. SInce you have to included the tare of the cab unit at roughly 19,000 lbs, the 8 extra trips for the 40 ton cargo max will result in an extra 76 tons plying the roads for the same amout of aggregate tonnage. There will be some adjustment for higher tare resulting from increased capacity trailers, but you still come out ahead on the total amount of tonnage over the roads. The key of course is to spread the extra weight over more axles to keep the damage exerted per wheel the same. That's why a single 160,000 lb GVW riding on 10 axles and 36 wheels doesn't cause any more road damage than two 80,000 lb trucks riding on 5 axles and 18 wheels, and in terms of road damage per ton of revenue cargo, the 160,000 lb truck has a greater load factor so road damage per revenue ton is less. As for safety issues, having less trucks hauling more cargo each is safer than having more trucks hauling less cargo. If the equipment meets mechanical specs, the safety issue is then more correlated to the per capita of trucks on the highways. That's the trucking industry argument. Unfortunately weight and safety problems are not straight line with respect to weight. They increase faster than the weight increases. Doubling the number of axles does not make the 160,000lb truck equivalent to two 80,000lb trucks. From safety and road cost points of view, we should decrease the weight and speed limits for trucks. Enjoy Paul
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER Unfortunately, raising the weight limits for trucks increases road maintenance exponentially. There are safety issues as well. Actually, increasing the GVW would tend to reduce road maintenance costs, since you are allowing each cab unit to haul more cargo, e.g. increasing the load factor. Consider the following: You have 1,000 tons that need to be trucked. If the GVW limits the cargo lading to 40 tons per truck, it will take 25 truckloads. If the GVW limit is raised to allow 60 tons per truck, it will only take 17 truckloads. SInce you have to included the tare of the cab unit at roughly 19,000 lbs, the 8 extra trips for the 40 ton cargo max will result in an extra 76 tons plying the roads for the same amout of aggregate tonnage. There will be some adjustment for higher tare resulting from increased capacity trailers, but you still come out ahead on the total amount of tonnage over the roads. The key of course is to spread the extra weight over more axles to keep the damage exerted per wheel the same. That's why a single 160,000 lb GVW riding on 10 axles and 36 wheels doesn't cause any more road damage than two 80,000 lb trucks riding on 5 axles and 18 wheels, and in terms of road damage per ton of revenue cargo, the 160,000 lb truck has a greater load factor so road damage per revenue ton is less. As for safety issues, having less trucks hauling more cargo each is safer than having more trucks hauling less cargo. If the equipment meets mechanical specs, the safety issue is then more correlated to the per capita of trucks on the highways.
QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER Unfortunately, raising the weight limits for trucks increases road maintenance exponentially. There are safety issues as well.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.