Should we continue to stick to one gauge for rail transit in the US?

[Anonymous]

With a Marine standerd gauge railway you have access to the worlds largest waterway system the Mississippi river. A barge railway could afford year round access to Alberta and parts of Alaska. It could provide a bridge between the Great Lakes and the Ohio Valley.

[Anonymous]

If you were to build a railroad, why use a differnet guage than the norm? and, if it has outside connections, and youare not standard guage, think of all those steam locomotive you couldnt run....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Peterson6868
[As for freight and wider gauges I got that idea from visiting my local marina on Lake Michigan were they use a "Marine Railway" to move boats around the yard.
They use a 8 foot gauge track. So I came up with the vision of barges being floated on huge flatcars and being tuged around by deisal engines. There would be 20 foot wide track for the barges and standerd track for the standerd gauge in the middle.

That's actually not a bad observation. Such a gauge could fit well with retrofitted LASH-ship concept..

http://www.waterman-steamship.com/specs.htm

...., but rather than the 30' x 60' specs of the current LASH system, maybe something more in the line of 20' x 60'. One of the drawbacks of the current LASH system is that it is entirely predicated toward barge transport, so it is completely dependent on non-time sensitive commodities. With a rail based LASH system, you could move the more time sensitive commodities as well as standard bulk commodities.

[Anonymous]

Narrow gauge could play a role in Light Rail systems were a center meduim strip is required. Some state DOT planners are blocking busways and light rail projects in the planning stages because they take lanes away from cars.
As for freight and wider gauges I got that idea from visiting my local marina on Lake Michigan were they use a "Marine Railway" to move boats around the yard.
They use a 8 foot gauge track. So I came up with the vision of barges being floated on huge flatcars and being tuged around by deisal engines. There would be 20 foot wide track for the barges and standerd track for the standerd gauge in the middle.

[TH&B]

Well I've just checked out some stuff known about gauges. Of course the use of newer technoligy can facilitate any gauge one chooses. It seems like 13 or 14 foot wide cars could be run on standard gauge at a smaller cost then laying for example 7 foot track, at least at train speeds used today in USA . That is still probably just shy of runnig side by side containrs though.

The main issue of costs is realy the loading gauge dimesions and axle weight regarless of gauge.

So it seems to me that unless you want to build 10 foot gauge or bigger for something realy huge whatever it is that needs those dimesions then stick to what we got 4' 8.5".

I still say that for passenger trains a narrow gauge with coaches that have 1+1 seating wich would give everyone a window and ilse seat at once wouldn't be too bad. But again, apparently the conditions would need to be pretty special for any cost savings if train travel was to be as fast as fast standard gauge trains. For maximizing costs run double decker or longer trains just like the railways already do.

For some heavy duty narrow gauge (3'-6") opperations check out the South African railways !!!

[dldance]

there might be an argument for using meter gauge (the other standard gauge) for urban transit projects in the US. At about 17 inches narrower in gauge, the track would intrude less on the street ROW. Equipment is readily available for meter gauge as well. However, if the cars are 17 inches narrower, that would eliminate 2+2 seating. The alternative would be side mounted center facing seats with a larger standee area. That arrangement is not as popular with commuters.

dd

[Anonymous]

It all comes down to cost when we consider any change from standard. Just look at the work and costs going into the unit trains with electronic brakes. They are not readily interchangable with the tried and true air brake system that was first espoused by Westinghouse. Look at Europe with its link and pin couplers. They want to convert to knuckle but have not done it because of cost. And Europe's rails are government owned and we all know that government seems to have bottomless pockets of money. Some of the newer passenger train sets in Europe are now equiped with knuckle couplers which tells me they are superior to the link and pin (really hook and come along). All it takes is money.

I believe the reason that Montreal went with the rubber tire system is that it is a French product and we know how the residents of Quebec want to be Frenchmen. To my knowledge only Paris and Montreal have the rubber tire metros. By the end of the day the subways in both cities smell of overheated rubber. They had to go to a non steel belted tire as when a steel belted tire would disintegrate the steel bands would short out the electrical system. All I can suggest is to buy Michelin stock, the French tire company. They certainly go through a lot of tires.

[jeaton]

Have you ever heard of the business practice of risk analysis? Apparently not.
My reaction remains the same. Now if I may be excused, I am going out on the deck to smoke a cigarette.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal



3. Businesses do not knowingly engage in activities that would obviously result in litigation liabilities. To say that a business would simply engage in cost cutting to the point of knowingly risking safety (and the subsequent liabilities) is nonsensical.

FOFLMAO

Do you even know the meaning of the word "knowingly"? Apparently not.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal



3. Businesses do not knowingly engage in activities that would obviously result in litigation liabilities. To say that a business would simply engage in cost cutting to the point of knowingly risking safety (and the subsequent liabilities) is nonsensical.

FOFLMAO

[Anonymous]

1. Again, I never said regulators are "worthless", rather that too much oversight and committeethink can really gum up the works, severely reducing the ability of the risk takers to recoup their investment. Who's to say that even the allowances of the regulators won't come back to haunt the risk takers? Take the whole MTBE snafu, the feds were the ones that encouraged the production and use of MTBE in fuel, then when it's found to be contaminating groundwater, it's the makers of MTBE who stand to be sued to death while the feds wa***heir hands of the whole thing.

2. Again, someone brings up the whole "build it and prove me wrong" hypothetical, which of course can never be proven or disproven within the confines of this forum. An easy statement to make when there's nothing on the line for the statement maker. However, it can be stated with a certain degree of confidence that the increase in the revenue producing load factors tend to more than offset the cost and tare increases in the equipment, that's the nature of transportation technologies. If the load factor is tripled while the equipment cost factor is doubled, you come out ahead. The custom made equipment cost differentials are in theory temporary, and as the newer technologies become instituted the assembly line cost savings come into play.

3. Businesses do not knowingly engage in activities that would obviously result in litigation liabilities. To say that a business would simply engage in cost cutting to the point of knowingly risking safety (and the subsequent liabilities) is nonsensical. Businesses tend to have more inside knowledge of safety factors than beauracrats sitting in some office somewhere far away. There's always a gray area in which no one can know for certain what might or might not happen with new technologies and innovations. Who's to say the decision of the regulators may end up being more wrong than the decision of the business?

4. If anything wide can be loaded onto standard gauge track (simply widening the clearances), then why don't we go back to narrow gauge? Think of the cost savings in lower tare weight, after all it doesn't matter how wide the commodity is, it'll balance just fine on the tracks in defiance of the laws of physics. Gee, it works for the monorail concept (never mind that monorails envelop the supporting rail, not just sit upon it)!

In general, gauge width will determine commodity width.

5. A double wide gauge can result in shorter trains, which can aid in terminal operations. It is easier and faster to work a double width of containers from both sides rather than singly. Also, the trend toward wider commodities is increasing, and having a surface transportation system that can handle these wider commodities would be beneficial.

[TH&B]

If one was to build a new line with any gauge you want regardless of FRA, then I would sugest 4 foot gauge and save 8.5" of axle and bolster width to reduce weight (including rotating weights!) . Or meter gauge.

250km/h (approx 150mph) locmotives are available for 1076mm gauge (or meter gauge) in South Africa. 20,000+ ton trains are also normal on this gauge and even a record weight of 70,000 ton train on narrow gauge. It is cheaper $$ to build especialy when building spur tracks with sharp curves. Wheel assemblies and trucks are lighter with the same strength as standard gauge. Axle weight can be the same, that depends on rail and ties and roadbed.

What is the point in carrying lumber or containers width wise? Or beside each other in doube width when it is so much easier to load length wise? It would be like widening all your doors and hallways in your house just so you can move your couch around sideways instead of length wise.

Some comodities would benefit from a wider LOADING gauge like plate steel and transformers or generators and mobile units, but that doesn't realy need a wider track gauge.

Broad track gauge is silly, and more expensive, but go ahead and prove that wrong. Build it and go broke.

[Overmod]

I don't think that was a consideration for BART per se -- I remember the argument being that the larger gauge gave better interior room and a bit more stability, with no 'legacy' restrictions imposed by the old standard gauge, etc. (Of course, what went on behind the scenes, I don't know... ;-})

On the other hand, I distinctly remember that this WAS a consideration in the Pennsylvania gauge (or whatever its formal name is), and in other gauge determinations for street railways, made both by state and local recommendations. The idea was to make the handling of freight cars over street-railway lines effectively impossible -- note I say 'effectively', meaning that the use of adapters, retrucking, etc. would be largely considered 'not worth the effort'.

In partial amplification of my post above, I've just been reviewing the Canadian TSB report on the 1997 Iron Highway accident, at

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/rail/1997/r97h0008/r97h0008.asp#A

which is VERY useful reading -- both in the sense of how a sensible government agency goes about its business, and in the sense of the ways there can be problems with new, innovative, experimental intermodal technology that are DEFINITELY (imnsho) the province of an agency outside the railroad, its suppliers, and its workers or unions. The part about the disconnected vertical snubbers on low-tare-weight articulated equipment is particularly telling -- as is, reading between the lines, the subsequent engineering CYA changes. (I would comment, btw, that requiring the landing gear to be lowered on the trailers for each hostling move essentially destroys the usefulness of the hinge design as implemented, and might itself be the reason the Iron Highway experiment was not continued on CPR lines...)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

Many of the odd gauges for commuter/trolley lines in the US were built that way to stop the steam roads from operating freight trains on the trolley lines. Other than that there isn't really any significnt savings to going to a different gauge and considerable expense in custom made equipment.

Dave H.

I wouldn't be surprised if THAT wasn't part of Bart's consideration procress as well.

One way to make sure that the freight RR's never manipulated theit way onto the commuter system would be to build at a guage that they found unuseable

[Overmod]

My personal opinion is that the present FRA is NOT a bunch of worthless bureaucrats, and they would be quite effective at producing a modern set of regulations for wide-gauge developments. They certainly wouldn't be the same as for the 'nationwide rail network' which by definition is standard gauge and, I believe, AAR loading-gauge limits. (Mudchicken, lawyers, et al., can we have some opinions on where the truth lies?)

Be interesting to find out where the 'overlap' between FRA and AAR (et al.) on the issue of clearances and weights for broad-gauge would be: I'd think that none of the current 'law' on either plate limits or axle weight would apply to new construction in a negative sense. Likewise, establishing "wider" tolerances for 'double-track trains' and the like wouldn't be a significant difficulty legally, because rather obviously the double-track equipment isn't going to be operating in interchange service, and clearance variances for particular routes have been a practical reality as long as I can remember...

You certainly wouldn't need 'raw operational data' to construct initial safety envelopes for rail service... any more than you'd need to fly long-fuselage triple-deck jet transports to figure out when they "pu***he envelope"! You computer-model the technology, run the interactions, develop a set of likely failure modes and scenarii, apply sensible or customary margins of safety, solicit and consider input from experts, stakeholders, and the public and incorporate the results, and then develop the initial proposed regulations from the process. I feel quite confident in stating that two things that would not necessarily result from that process would be mandatory clearance limits OR maximum wheel loads for new services, UNLESS the general consensus of the folks actually doing or paying for the thing wanted them. (Which I doubt)

I think past experiences with 'regulation' are coloring more than a little of this discussion. One might note the ridiculously-long 'freedom of development' that characterized implementation of air brakes in the 19th Century -- and I see little indication that this would happen all over again with the implementation of EP braking (passive antenna links replacing through-car hoses, for example, for non-EP cars).

Railroads are businesses, and I'm afraid there are many, many places that 'freedom to develop' would involve cost-cutting in quite dubious ways in the absence of mandatory safety regulations. Preventing legitimate problems with safety is, as far as I'm concerned, a very different thing than implementing arbitrary political imperatives -- and, while I'd like to see AREMA, AAR et al. get valid self-policing in place, I think there needs to be some effective means of mandating safety, and I don't see any agency other than a Government one adequately capable of doing that long-term.

There is little doubt that DOT would have jurisdiction over maglev, although whether or not FRA developed the new staff and line positions to regulate it would be a decision for DOT staff to make. A considerable amount of the tech involved in maglev vehicles and operations is much more within the 'skill set' of folks in agencies like FAA or NASA, and many of the concerns that steel-wheel railroading is involved with are only analogies in magnetic technology...

[Anonymous]

Overmod,

Thanks (?) for confirming my suspicion of the 79 mph max being an arbitrarily construed relic from the 1920's, although I do get the critisism. Understand that I was using it as an example of why FRA control over a stand alone double wide gauge may not be in the best interests of the new technology or the nation's economy. Think of it in this vein, perhaps as the same reasons why federal regulation of the internet would stiffle it's "natural" growth. Frankly, if the FRA used the same rules and regs for broad gauge as standard gauge, it would take away all the advantages of using the wider gauge. What good is the wider gauge if the FRA limits clearances to 20'2" or limits gross car weight to 286k? How would the FRA go about developing new regs for broad gauge without raw operational data to go by in the first place? Trust me, new technologies need the freedom to develop for at least a few decades before the regulators step in, if indeed their "participation" is warranted in the first place.

As an aside, would the FRA have juristiction over mag-lev?

[Overmod]

Oh, for God's sake! (not being sacrilegious...)

That 79 mph max is one of the easiest things to understand, once you set your mind to actually trying to understand it by looking at the facts.

It's "79 mph" because the law says that 80 mph and above requires some form of automatic train control. What speed is the maximum if it isn't legal to go 80? (Hint: Arithmetic will provide the answer... ;-})

And yes, the decision to use 80 mph as the cutoff was a bit arbitrary -- but I think quite sensibly thought out: one might remember that stopping distance from 80 to 60 mph is the same as the subsequent stopping distance from 60 all the way down to zero... with proportionate increase in stopping distance above that 80 mph point. We might remember that much of the study leading up to the original imposition of ATC requirements (in 1920-1921) involved a recognition of the increase in momentum, and hence criticality of early warning and prompt braking alike, as 'routine' train speeds often reached well over 60 mph at the same time that much heavier steel cars and longer consists were becoming common...

As another note: the ATC speed rule was rather obviously written with passenger equipment in mind, with the joys of disc or EP braking, tightlock couplers, tight draft gear, and relatively short consists all adding to the mix. My opinion is that PTC should be required on freight trains at a SIGNIFICANTLY lower speed. In fact, I would require PTC in a consistent and coherent implementation on any route or service for which single-man crews were contemplated.

I find it extremely unlikely that a broad-gauge network, whether comprised of parallel narrow mains or 'new' track structure, would be subject to a lower level of safety standards or Federal oversight... provided that it ran between states. Which, to me, would almost seem laughably necessary for any kind of financial success in the United States or Canadian markets. The place I was expecting to see broad-gauge lateral stack designs was in the Tehuantepec container-bridge service in Mexico, but I suspect that it's stretching even Hitler's gauge to run 53s that way!

BTW, I firmly believe that quad-stack is an imbecility for reasons of part-load stability and load balance. Anyone remember the animal limitations on the Listowel and Ballybunion? What happens if you have stack on one side, and nothing on the other? (Sure, you can rebalance the *** train with additional lifts, but this removes much of the supposed "advantage" of the quad's width). Add to that the fun involved in reaching both sides of the stack at each terminal, and the need to lift more than two containers in height if you want to offload a 'right-side' container to the 'left-hand' side of a full adjacent stack (or vice versa).

There might be times and places for quad-stack, perhaps in services like bulk transfers from congested port facilities to distributed intermodal reload/redistribution facilities, but I would strongly suspect the necessary market needed to make the technology and capitalization 'pervasive' enough is Just Not Going To Be There...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Regarding the FRA and STB, don't they have a different degree of oversight for those rail lines that do not connect with the interstate rail network? The White Pass & Yukon comes to mind. It may be that separate legislation would be needed to allow the broad gauge network to be free of some of the FRA rules that constrain the standard gauge network.

I can't see what,, the legislation is there to ensure safety, so removing some of this legislation would make them more dangerous. What specifically are you referring to?

Sometimes federal agencies tend to exist more for continual rule making rather than massaging better efficiencies. So many of the FRA regs seem to be based on arbitrary inputs, such as the 79 mph max. Why 79? Why not 85 mph? What was (is) the reason for settling for 79 mph? Was there some peer reviewed study that showed it would be more dangerous for trains to travel 85 mph rather than 79 mph over CTC controlled trackage? Is there any hard evidence of this difference in the safety factor?

It may be that classifying a stand alone broad gauge rail network as a completely separate transportation mode will allow for a more natural evolution of the technology, free of constraining regulations. Perhaps it can be shown that modern technology can produce it's own safety parameters, which would be based on hard current data, not 1940's data.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Regarding the FRA and STB, don't they have a different degree of oversight for those rail lines that do not connect with the interstate rail network? The White Pass & Yukon comes to mind. It may be that separate legislation would be needed to allow the broad gauge network to be free of some of the FRA rules that constrain the standard gauge network.

I can't see what,, the legislation is there to ensure safety, so removing some of this legislation would make them more dangerous. What specifically are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Spreading the weight over more axles adds complexity and cost. If you want to stay with conventional four-wheel three-piece trucks, span bolsters would be required. Six-wheel trucks would probably be a Buckeye-type design, with the complexities and additional maintenance required.

It is also difficult to imagine that a complete interstate broad-gauge system separate from the existing standard-gauge network would remain beyond the purview of the FRA and STB.

Your comment on the cost difference between four wheel and six wheel trucks is duly noted. However, if we are comparing the cost of using heavier rail (and subsequent larger wheels and journals) for heavier loads vs the cost of using standard issue rails and wheels in triple or quad axle formations, the former would be much more expensive than the latter simply due to the amount of material required. A broad gauge is already requiring custom designed and manufactured rolling stock, so why add the addtional expense of using heavier rails and larger wheels?

If we stick with standard issue materials as much as possible, the only difference between standard gauge freight trucks and broad gauge freight trucks (aside from using triple and quad axle designs for the latter) would be in those materials that must span the distance between the rails, e.g. thicker axles, larger bolsters, et al. We can still use standard issue 33", 36", and 38" wheels, the same side frames, springs, et al. A broad gauge bogie may also need a larger diameter center plate.

Regarding the FRA and STB, don't they have a different degree of oversight for those rail lines that do not connect with the interstate rail network? The White Pass & Yukon comes to mind. It may be that separate legislation would be needed to allow the broad gauge network to be free of some of the FRA rules that constrain the standard gauge network.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Spreading the weight over more axles adds complexity and cost. If you want to stay with conventional four-wheel three-piece trucks, span bolsters would be required. Six-wheel trucks would probably be a Buckeye-type design, with the complexities and additional maintenance required.

It is also difficult to imagine that a complete interstate broad-gauge system separate from the existing standard-gauge network would remain beyond the purview of the FRA and STB.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher
There is one other thing that you must consider when designing and engineering a wide-guage railroad for freight or long-distance passenger service -- the weight of the larger cars and the heavier loads they will carry.

I assume you are refering to the tare weight of the cars, which would be roughly double their standard gauge counterparts. This would have no impact on the amount of gross weight to be supported.

Remember, the current gross weight limit for North American rail cars is 286,000 lbs, which means each axle carries a max of 71,500 lbs on 36" wheels. It would be relatively simply to keep this 71,500 lbs per axle standard for the wide gauge, or go for the proposed 78,750 standard on 38" wheels, and just increase the number of weight bearing axles under each car to increase the load factor.

For example, say the current tare weight of a stand alone well car is roughly 60,000 lbs, and the load limit is then around 160,000 lbs using 70 ton trucks and 33" wheels. For a wide gauge stand alone well car, if we assume a tare of 120,000 lbs and we want to haul 6 40' containers (triple stacked side by side) at an average of 55,000 lbs each, the wide gauge stand alone well car would have to have a gross limit of 450,000 lbs. If we employ triple axle trucks with 38" wheels designed for 78,750 lbs per axle, then we will be rated for 472,500 lbs gross, so we'd be within specs. Since the standard gauge rail industry is already gearing for the 315,000 limit (at 78,750 lbs per axle), this much weight on the rails would not be outside the norm in terms of costs.

The idea is to take a page from the trucking industry and spread the weight of the load over more axles.

You can play around with the idea of using triple axle or quad axle trucks with corresponding 33", 36", or 38" wheels under these wide gauge cars and come up with some impressive load limits. Bridges would be a consideration for the heavier loads, but the rails, ties, and ROW would be just fine.

[oltmannd]

I suppose the best reason to stay with std. gauge is that you can purchase "standard" equipment.

I was told by a consultant who did some work on the DC Metro that a non standard design decision is still proving costly to them. They decided on a platform height that was about 4" lower than a std high level platform. It allowed them to save a bit on clearances for those big, underground stations and tunnels under the city.

But, it turfed them out from buying any standard undercar equipment. On a transit car, EVERYTHING is under the car - HVAC, propulsion control, braking resistors.... Everything on the DC Metro has to be specially repackaged just for them - and that ain't cheap!

I imagine you'd have similar problems or worse going to wide or narrow gauge. On track maint. equipment, wheel lathes and presses, etc, would all be more costly.

[Anonymous]

Imagine huge slow moving wide gauge barges on rails moving coal and grain across the great plains. Then when they get to water they just slide in the Missipie river and off to New Orleans they go.

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
(...)You can use the same rail size, no need to retool rail making facilities. Concrete tie makers already have the ability to make wide ties for switchouts, they would just have to make more than usual. As has been brought up previously, the only real cost differential is in the equipment. Since the load factor with this new equipment may be enough to offset new equipment design and construction, it is possible the efficiency gains could offset the higher equipment costs.

There is one other thing that you must consider when designing and engineering a wide-guage railroad for freight or long-distance passenger service -- the weight of the larger cars and the heavier loads they will carry.

If cars will now be double the width of standard guage cars, that nearly doubles their weight. And since they can now carry twice what they could before, that doubles the load they carry (be they single- or double-stacks).

The rails, ties and roadbed will all have to take these additional loads into consideration and be designed to carry them. That would probably mean...

• heavier rails (ie: more steel), while it may be possible to use existing heavy-weight rails, these cost more than standard-weight rails ;


• more re-inforcing and a higher grade of concrete for the ties;


• different construction techniques for the roadbed (particularly crucial in areas subject to frost; or areas prone to extreme heat); and


• stronger bridges.

All this will mean increased construction costs.

Operating costs will probably increase as well. More and/or stronger locomotives will likely be needed to pull trains that are now double the weight that they once were. This means additional fuel costs (be it diesel or electricity).

As Futurmodal said, a cost-benefit analysis would be critical to determine if these additional costs can be recovered over the life of the railroad.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

As usual, a major consideration has been ignored in FM's arguments for a stand-alone broad-gauge rail system for the future: WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM TO BUILD IT? The initials costs of building such a system would be mind-boggling, not to mention the initial costs of rolling stock to new operators if FM's concept of "open access" is used. The costs to carload and trainload shippers to rebuild their facilities also need to be considered. The return on investment would have to be virtually guaranteed before anybody would throw their money at such a concept.

CSSHEGEWISCH, may I remind you that the topic starter of this thread brought up the hypothetical regarding what is the best gauge for new transit projects, and by expanded inference, an all new rail system. You might want to direct your question and criticism toward him. That being said, where does the money come for any new rail-related project? Some entity somewhere decides they need a new transportation system to take care of a perceived transportation problem. The costs of building a wide gauge railroad wouldn't be much different than the costs of building a new transit system of standard gauge from scratch. There would be no need for terminals to engage in any heavy rebuild of their facilities, other than laying the new track. You can use the same rail size, no need to retool rail making facilities. Concrete tie makers already have the ability to make wide ties for switchouts, they would just have to make more than usual. As has been brought up previously, the only real cost differential is in the equipment. Since the load factor with this new equipment may be enough to offset new equipment design and construction, it is possible the efficiency gains could offset the higher equipment costs. Only a dedicated cost/benefit analysis will give a solid idea one way or the other.

To recap, the people who shell out for new transit projects are the ones who pay for such projects. The determination of the varying gauges for the most part is irrelevent to the initial construction costs, but is relevent to the equipment purchases. The latter factor is then weighed against the efficiency gains to determine whether it is a worthwhile project or not. That's usually how these things work.

Not being connected to the current standard gauge rail network may be more of a blessing than a curse. Being a stand alone system, would the FRA have any say in the matter?

[chateauricher]

Regarding the Montreal Metro and its rubber tires...

As it states in their web site (see my earlier posting), the rubber tires were chosen partly to make going up and down hill easier. As many of you know, Montreal is built on and around a mountain (Mount Royal), so there is a need for some grades that standard steel wheels would not be able to handle.

As for being quieter than steel wheels, that, as someone stated above, is debatable. Often the trains seem just as noisy as their steel-wheeled counterparts in Toronto or NYC.

Each car as 2 pairs of tires. Each tire has a pair of smaller rubber wheels mounted horizontally just ahead and just behind the drive wheel. These smaller wheels run along guide rails (or walls), keeping the train on its tracks, and eliminates the need for the driver to steer. The driver need only control the speed and the doors.

As for Montrealers (and other Quebecers) staying thin despite the abundance of restaurants ... I surmise that is partly due to our custom of eating at more civilised hours (usually 7pm or later), and rates (we will take hours to enjoy a meal). Most Quebecers are of French origins -- a latin culture which has a love for life, living and enjoying all that both have to offer. Savouring what brings us pleasure is what life is all about -- be it food, wine, good company, sex ... or model trains. [;)]

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

As usual, a major consideration has been ignored in FM's arguments for a stand-alone broad-gauge rail system for the future: WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM TO BUILD IT? <SNIP> The return on investment would have to be virtually guaranteed before anybody would throw their money at such a concept.

The ROI just isn't there. The current rail network is, or can be, capable of handling virtually all the traffic that can be thrown at it.

On top of that, just getting the entire route cleared through all of the regulatory and focus groups would probably take years and years, money spent with NO return.

Consider, too, that some of the primary places that would need to be served - those that generate and receive the containers that keep cropping up, for instance - have no real estate that they want to give up for new rails. Unless you want to find someone to come up with the billions it would take to develop new container terminals.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

As usual, a major consideration has been ignored in FM's arguments for a stand-alone broad-gauge rail system for the future: WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM TO BUILD IT? The initials costs of building such a system would be mind-boggling, not to mention the initial costs of rolling stock to new operators if FM's concept of "open access" is used. The costs to carload and trainload shippers to rebuild their facilities also need to be considered. The return on investment would have to be virtually guaranteed before anybody would throw their money at such a concept.