High Speed Rail proponents take note: THIS is the right way to develop a HSR project

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Question for Tom and LC: When the original transcons were built, did they indeed put their own money where their stated ambitions lay, or did they utilize some form of corporate welfare to incentivize the construction?

Much lies hidden beneath those words, Why infect what is basicly a civil engineering question with economic and political opportunities with economic and political drivel to an engineering thread. I think you might not have enough to do with your time - PL

PL, do you know of any railroad projects that aren't being aided by the feds?

The question posed was why someone doesn't build a new railroad into an area where current profit margins suggest a supply/demand disequilibrium. Give me (or anyone else with vision and ambition) an equivalent package of federal aid analagous to the original land grants and lack of frivoulous lawsuits, and I (or anyone else with vision and ambition) would gladly build a new rail line into any area that shows profit potential.

Without that federal incentive package, nothing will get built by anyone anytime, no matter how much ca***hey are sitting on.

I will hold with my original statement on on the matter of engineering and its challenges. If however you would also consider such things as the geography, allignment, grades, service possibilities, and the peacable effect of commerce between nations that otherwise may be fighting as a good discussion topics I feel that the forum may just be a more informed as well as a more interesting place from the point of view of railroad possibilities and not politics as usual. But again this is just an idea that I would hope you would find worthy of opinion not just of yourself but of others that read and participate here. For what its worth - PL

Finally, my key phrase shows up "area that shows profit potential." If the profit potential is large enough, why would a government subsidy be needed? And if it weren't large enough, why would a second line be interested in building into an area, even with a subsidy, unless they were mandated by the government. This is where it starts to sound Socialistic to me.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Question for Tom and LC: When the original transcons were built, did they indeed put their own money where their stated ambitions lay, or did they utilize some form of corporate welfare to incentivize the construction?

Much lies hidden beneath those words, Why infect what is basicly a civil engineering question with economic and political opportunities with economic and political drivel to an engineering thread. I think you might not have enough to do with your time - PL

PL, do you know of any railroad projects that aren't being aided by the feds?

The question posed was why someone doesn't build a new railroad into an area where current profit margins suggest a supply/demand disequilibrium. Give me (or anyone else with vision and ambition) an equivalent package of federal aid analagous to the original land grants and lack of frivoulous lawsuits, and I (or anyone else with vision and ambition) would gladly build a new rail line into any area that shows profit potential.

Without that federal incentive package, nothing will get built by anyone anytime, no matter how much ca***hey are sitting on.

I will hold with my original statement on on the matter of engineering and its challenges. If however you would also consider such things as the geography, allignment, grades, service possibilities, and the peacable effect of commerce between nations that otherwise may be fighting as a good discussion topics I feel that the forum may just be a more informed as well as a more interesting place from the point of view of railroad possibilities and not politics as usual. But again this is just an idea that I would hope you would find worthy of opinion not just of yourself but of others that read and participate here. For what its worth - PL

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Question for Tom and LC: When the original transcons were built, did they indeed put their own money where their stated ambitions lay, or did they utilize some form of corporate welfare to incentivize the construction?

Much lies hidden beneath those words, Why infect what is basicly a civil engineering question with economic and political opportunities with economic and political drivel to an engineering thread. I think you might not have enough to do with your time - PL

PL, do you know of any railroad projects that aren't being aided by the feds?

The question posed was why someone doesn't build a new railroad into an area where current profit margins suggest a supply/demand disequilibrium. Give me (or anyone else with vision and ambition) an equivalent package of federal aid analagous to the original land grants and lack of frivoulous lawsuits, and I (or anyone else with vision and ambition) would gladly build a new rail line into any area that shows profit potential.

Without that federal incentive package, nothing will get built by anyone anytime, no matter how much ca***hey are sitting on.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Question for Tom and LC: When the original transcons were built, did they indeed put their own money where their stated ambitions lay, or did they utilize some form of corporate welfare to incentivize the construction?

Much lies hidden beneath those words, Why infect what is basicly a civil engineering question with economic and political opportunities with economic and political drivel to an engineering thread. I think you might not have enough to do with your time - PL

[Anonymous]

Question for Tom and LC: When the original transcons were built, did they indeed put their own money where their stated ambitions lay, or did they utilize some form of corporate welfare to incentivize the construction?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, since you won't start a new topic on some of your *ideas*, I guess I'll start them for you.......

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51849

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51851

...perhaps more later, like the question as to why an average Joe such as FM doens't just build his own railroad!

Yes, I believe that would be interesting, especially since you think there's enough profit in it to yield such a large return on investment. Why else would real railroads want to do such building if there were no such profit potential?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, since you won't start a new topic on some of your *ideas*, I guess I'll start them for you.......

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51849

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51851

...perhaps more later, like the question as to why an average Joe such as FM doens't just build his own railroad!

Yeah, why is that FM. You just can't put your money where your mouth is, can you?! It would be just too much risk for you to actually try some of your ridiculous ideas. Even you know just how unrealistic and stupid they are...

Railroads conduct business to make money. There are plenty of situations where commodities are orighined from the same shipper and shiped to wholly different destinationos or even the same destination for prices that are not materially different. In other words, competition is not a guarantee of lower rates.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

So you have no opinions on HSR? Well, I guess we should all be thankful for that!

In the meantime, wanna put YOUR notions up for independent topic analysis?(insert chicken smilie here)

UP to your old tricks again, eh FM. You can't win on the facts so change the subject...

[sigh]...

Some people never change...

LC

[Anonymous]

Well, since you won't start a new topic on some of your *ideas*, I guess I'll start them for you.......

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51849

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51851

...perhaps more later, like the question as to why an average Joe such as FM doens't just build his own railroad!

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

So you have no opinions on HSR? Well, I guess we should all be thankful for that!

In the meantime, wanna put YOUR notions up for independent topic analysis?(insert chicken smilie here)

I hope other readers are getting as big a laugh out of your "arguments" as I am. And how would you suggest YOUR notions be put up for the same independent analysis?

What's there to say? High speed rail works and is cost effective in some situations.

[Anonymous]

So you have no opinions on HSR? Well, I guess we should all be thankful for that!

In the meantime, wanna put YOUR notions up for independent topic analysis?(insert chicken smilie here)

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Hmmmm. So many new topic ideas.....

1. "Does head to head competition force railroads to operate at a loss?"
2. "Do grain cars just 'sit around' at any time of the year?"
3. "Is head to head competition for railroads really socialism in disguise?"
4. "Is it realistic to suggest that brand new railroads can be built in this day and age?"
5. "Is market based pricing via competition really just a 'fantasy'?"
6. "Will captive rates force coal-fired power plants to shut down, or convert to NG?"

........so little time. I would suggest you start some new threads if you feel you have some expertise or at least some piquie in these various issues.

In the meantime, do you have any opinions on "HSR: Freight or Passenger?"?

1. If head-to-head competition caused ANY industry to operate at a loss, they would drop out of it or go out of business. If there is a competative advantage, why aren't trucking companies bidding on the business?
2. Since you seem to be the "expert" how much of the time IS a grain car in operation as compared to say, a coal hopper?
3. Forcing a railroad to charge a rate on ANY type freight outside the free market condition, as you have been suggesting, IS Socialism. If it were possible to be profitable, more railroads would build lines into an area. I used the Powder River Basin as an example that you have yet to dispute or disprove. There IS competition in that area because there is a profit to be made. I believe that's called the Capitalist system.
4. They are when it's profitable. See the example in #3.
5. The "fantasy" is yours in suggesting that any company build access into an area that wouldn't give a return on investment to the company doing the building. Why doesn't Futuremodal build a line into these areas he thinks should have access to more than one railroad? Easy answer. All talk and no action. Or you're smart enough to know you're all talk.
6. Captive rates aren't always a problem for the power plants, to use that example. Many of them own the hoppers in full or in partnership with the railroad, so the overhead for the railroad is lower, yielding what seems to be lower rates for the shipper. You also need to take into account the amount that the power plant is contributing to the haulage besides the simple rate. To take your example further, the Philadelphia Electric Plant in Phoenixville, PA can 1. be converted to run on oil or coal, whichever is cheaper and 2. has the capability of receiving either commodity from rail or truck, again whichever is cheaper. Sounds pretty "open access" to me.

As far as topics, you're the one with the tunnel-visioned notion that having competing rail lines serving the same small shipper will result in lower shipping rates for all. I think it's time to retire your rose-colored glasses and see the world as it really is. Without profit potential, no company will want to come in and compete.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN

What high speed rail? I read nothing that represents high speed, perhaps for the
people of China thats high speed, not to me.

The larger point is HSR in the USA. Not going to happen, too expensive for the limited number of passengers it could carry.

California can't afford it, the northeast can't take care of the corridor properly. Nowhere
else is it feasable to to build it. Chicago to New York? Still too expensive.

Amtrak is about to wobble into the sunset because of a shortage of funds, Now you
want HSR? Just where would you find the money?

I would vote to throw money down the black hole of Amtrak than spend it on HSR.

HSR is great in Japan or Europe, it lends itself well to the shorter distances with heavy
populations. Not the USA.

Okay Amtrak / passenger lovers, fire away with your romantic notions or the great high
speed passenger trains of tomorrow. Oh the life!

I prefer to ride the reality train.

KCMOWMAN,

The question being posed is this: Does the idea of HSR become more viable if it is first predicated on moving freight vs passenger-oriented HSR proposals?

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm. So many new topic ideas.....

1. "Does head to head competition force railroads to operate at a loss?"
2. "Do grain cars just 'sit around' at any time of the year?"
3. "Is head to head competition for railroads really socialism in disguise?"
4. "Is it realistic to suggest that brand new railroads can be built in this day and age?"
5. "Is market based pricing via competition really just a 'fantasy'?"
6. "Will captive rates force coal-fired power plants to shut down, or convert to NG?"

........so little time. I would suggest you start some new threads if you feel you have some expertise or at least some piquie in these various issues.

In the meantime, do you have any opinions on "HSR: Freight or Passenger?"?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?

[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company.

Try this for size:

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs.

If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset.

Evolve, please.

Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight?

If I may keep this veering within the veered context aka captivity, I will name more than one area of the country where a single Class I is the only rail service provider for it's rail shipping needs:

Southern Idaho (UP)
Eastern Montana (BNSF)
Northern Montana (BNSF)
Northwestern Montana (BNSF)
Western North Dakota (BNSF)
Western Wyoming (UP)
Southern Nevada (UP)
Southern Arizona (UP)
Northern Arizona (BNSF)
Eastern Oregon (UP)
North Central Washington (BNSF)
Northwestern South Dakota (BNSF)
*Northern Nevada (UP)
*All of Utah (UP)
*Eastern Colorado (UP)

*(Yeah, I know. BNSF supposedly was granted operating rights over the "Central Corridor" through Northern Nevada, Northern Utah, and Eastern Colorado, but from what I understand BNSF isn't too interested in using these rights to provide real time competition to UP for online traffic)

I haven't even mentioned the captive areas east of the Mississippi, nor in Canada. Nor have I mentioned the carload customers who are captive e.g. whose products are predicated on shipment directly from the production facility by rail.

Case closed.

Now, can we please go back to the topic of HSR for freight? Thank you.

So none of these have a truck shipping option? Rail captivity might have been an issue in the 19th century, but you really need to come into the 20th century.

Most of us are in the 21st.

Or would that be some kind of "evolution" thing?

You might be in the 21st ward, but not the 21st century.

What you are suggesting is that certain commodities (whose characteristics make them best suited for bulk transportation modes) can simply be sloughed off onto some other type of transport mode.

The coal fired power plant that takes 10,000 tons of coal every two weeks can simply call up all the trucking companies and have them make 600 collective round trips every month if they don't like the captive rates the one railroad charges. "Help Wanted: 300 CDL certified drivers for twice monthly round trip from Wyoming to Oregon ASAP". Yep, that's realistic.

The power plant is captive in the real world. If the power plant can't get reliable rates and services from it's one rail connection, they will have to shut down. There is no realistic transportation alternative.

Perhaps the 52 car shuttle loader for grain trains out in Smalltown, North Dakota can simply utilize 150 truckloads per cycle if BNSF (the only physical rail connection to the elevator) won't serve them anymore. That's it, that's the ticket! Heck, the population of such towns is probably 100 folks, where are they going to find 100 or so CDL certified drivers?

Smalltown, Montana is captive in the real world. Without reliable rates and services from BNSF, the shuttle loader will be shut down. There is no realistic transportation alternative available.

The cardboard plant in Northwestern Montana needs to move 500,000 cubic feet of cardboard every week to the East Coast. Well, that's only 100 truckloads per week, no problem. Of course, without adequate boxcar service from it's one Class I connection e.g. getting those 30 high cube boxcars in and out per week at a decent rate, the plant will be shut down because it cannot compete with the Canadian plant that is served by two Class I's with more competitive rates and service levels.

The Montana cardboard plant is captive in the real world. There is no realistic transporation alternative available. The only real alternative is to shut down the plant, which is not a transportation alternative, but an operating alternative.

You live in a fantasy world when you suggest such entities have transportation alternatives. If realistic transportation alternatives were available, such entities would utilize them and be able to stay in business. Since such realistic alternatives do not exist, the meaning of the word alternative moves beyond talk of transportation to the realm of operating parameters.

No, the question comes down to money. If the railroad is so overpriced, why don't they start shipping by truck. Or is the railroad still the cheapest way to ship, even though the industry is served only by one railroad? You're suggesting we go to a Socialist type shipping system where all shippers pay the same fee per ton-mile, regardless of the total quantity or distance of shipment. Your fantasy seems to be that competition will automatically lower rates. In a few cases, maybe.

With the demand for electricity in this country, I seriously doubt we'll see any power plants shutting down. Or is that your second fantasy.

If the grain elevator is served by a railroad, who maintains the track from the mainline to the elevator? Who owns and maintains the cars used for this service? In the off season, those grain hoppers can't be used for hauling coal, so when they're sitting, payments are still due and they're not bringing in any revenue for the owner.

The Powder River Basin Coal region is an excellent example because the development is so recent. Several railroads serve this area because: 1. There is enough quantity of coal to be shipped and 2. There is sufficient demand for the coal due to it's burning characteristics to make it worth the railroads investing in the equipment and right-of-way to serve this region by more than one railroad. Something I believe is called "Return on Investment." If the business potential was there in the other regions you list above, the railroads would build to serve it. In this country, they are private industries and their BOD's expect them to turn a profit, unlike the railroads in Mainland China.

The rates on the commodities you list above are already so low that truckers can't compete with the railroads. Since those "big evil railroads" are making a profit hauling freight (funny, I thought we had a free enterprise system), they must be taking advantage of the poor shippers. So to meet the "operating parameters" of an industry, the railroad is supposed to offer a service at a loss? The shippers would sure like to be paying the same rates they did years ago. Heck, I'D like to pay 35 cents a gallon for gas like I did years ago. Maybe in your fantasy world.

[Anonymous]

What high speed rail? I read nothing that represents high speed, perhaps for the
people of China thats high speed, not to me.

The larger point is HSR in the USA. Not going to happen, too expensive for the limited number of passengers it could carry.

California can't afford it, the northeast can't take care of the corridor properly. Nowhere
else is it feasable to to build it. Chicago to New York? Still too expensive.

Amtrak is about to wobble into the sunset because of a shortage of funds, Now you
want HSR? Just where would you find the money?

I would vote to throw money down the black hole of Amtrak than spend it on HSR.

HSR is great in Japan or Europe, it lends itself well to the shorter distances with heavy
populations. Not the USA.

Okay Amtrak / passenger lovers, fire away with your romantic notions or the great high
speed passenger trains of tomorrow. Oh the life!

I prefer to ride the reality train.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?

[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company.

Try this for size:

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs.

If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset.

Evolve, please.

Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight?

If I may keep this veering within the veered context aka captivity, I will name more than one area of the country where a single Class I is the only rail service provider for it's rail shipping needs:

Southern Idaho (UP)
Eastern Montana (BNSF)
Northern Montana (BNSF)
Northwestern Montana (BNSF)
Western North Dakota (BNSF)
Western Wyoming (UP)
Southern Nevada (UP)
Southern Arizona (UP)
Northern Arizona (BNSF)
Eastern Oregon (UP)
North Central Washington (BNSF)
Northwestern South Dakota (BNSF)
*Northern Nevada (UP)
*All of Utah (UP)
*Eastern Colorado (UP)

*(Yeah, I know. BNSF supposedly was granted operating rights over the "Central Corridor" through Northern Nevada, Northern Utah, and Eastern Colorado, but from what I understand BNSF isn't too interested in using these rights to provide real time competition to UP for online traffic)

I haven't even mentioned the captive areas east of the Mississippi, nor in Canada. Nor have I mentioned the carload customers who are captive e.g. whose products are predicated on shipment directly from the production facility by rail.

Case closed.

Now, can we please go back to the topic of HSR for freight? Thank you.

So none of these have a truck shipping option? Rail captivity might have been an issue in the 19th century, but you really need to come into the 20th century.

Most of us are in the 21st.

Or would that be some kind of "evolution" thing?

You might be in the 21st ward, but not the 21st century.

What you are suggesting is that certain commodities (whose characteristics make them best suited for bulk transportation modes) can simply be sloughed off onto some other type of transport mode.

The coal fired power plant that takes 10,000 tons of coal every two weeks can simply call up all the trucking companies and have them make 600 collective round trips every month if they don't like the captive rates the one railroad charges. "Help Wanted: 300 CDL certified drivers for twice monthly round trip from Wyoming to Oregon ASAP". Yep, that's realistic.

The power plant is captive in the real world. If the power plant can't get reliable rates and services from it's one rail connection, they will have to shut down. There is no realistic transportation alternative.

Perhaps the 52 car shuttle loader for grain trains out in Smalltown, North Dakota can simply utilize 150 truckloads per cycle if BNSF (the only physical rail connection to the elevator) won't serve them anymore. That's it, that's the ticket! Heck, the population of such towns is probably 100 folks, where are they going to find 100 or so CDL certified drivers?

Smalltown, Montana is captive in the real world. Without reliable rates and services from BNSF, the shuttle loader will be shut down. There is no realistic transportation alternative available.

The cardboard plant in Northwestern Montana needs to move 500,000 cubic feet of cardboard every week to the East Coast. Well, that's only 100 truckloads per week, no problem. Of course, without adequate boxcar service from it's one Class I connection e.g. getting those 30 high cube boxcars in and out per week at a decent rate, the plant will be shut down because it cannot compete with the Canadian plant that is served by two Class I's with more competitive rates and service levels.

The Montana cardboard plant is captive in the real world. There is no realistic transporation alternative available. The only real alternative is to shut down the plant, which is not a transportation alternative, but an operating alternative.

You live in a fantasy world when you suggest such entities have transportation alternatives. If realistic transportation alternatives were available, such entities would utilize them and be able to stay in business. Since such realistic alternatives do not exist, the meaning of the word alternative moves beyond talk of transportation to the realm of operating parameters.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drfizzix

Err... so, how about those Detroit Tigers [%-)]...

Scott, you REALLY gotta work on your post hijacking technique. You'll never get a merit badge that way. [:D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?

[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company.

Try this for size:

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs.

If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset.

Evolve, please.

Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight?

If I may keep this veering within the veered context aka captivity, I will name more than one area of the country where a single Class I is the only rail service provider for it's rail shipping needs:

Southern Idaho (UP)
Eastern Montana (BNSF)
Northern Montana (BNSF)
Northwestern Montana (BNSF)
Western North Dakota (BNSF)
Western Wyoming (UP)
Southern Nevada (UP)
Southern Arizona (UP)
Northern Arizona (BNSF)
Eastern Oregon (UP)
North Central Washington (BNSF)
Northwestern South Dakota (BNSF)
*Northern Nevada (UP)
*All of Utah (UP)
*Eastern Colorado (UP)

*(Yeah, I know. BNSF supposedly was granted operating rights over the "Central Corridor" through Northern Nevada, Northern Utah, and Eastern Colorado, but from what I understand BNSF isn't too interested in using these rights to provide real time competition to UP for online traffic)

I haven't even mentioned the captive areas east of the Mississippi, nor in Canada. Nor have I mentioned the carload customers who are captive e.g. whose products are predicated on shipment directly from the production facility by rail.

Case closed.

Now, can we please go back to the topic of HSR for freight? Thank you.

So none of these have a truck shipping option? Rail captivity might have been an issue in the 19th century, but you really need to come into the 20th century.

Most of us are in the 21st.

Or would that be some kind of "evolution" thing?

[Murphy Siding]

Northwestern South Dakota (BNSF).[(-D] Now that's funny! I'm not sure if the train even slows down between the Missouri River and Montana.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?

[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company.

Try this for size:

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs.

If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset.

Evolve, please.

Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight?

If I may keep this veering within the veered context aka captivity, I will name more than one area of the country where a single Class I is the only rail service provider for it's rail shipping needs:

Southern Idaho (UP)
Eastern Montana (BNSF)
Northern Montana (BNSF)
Northwestern Montana (BNSF)
Western North Dakota (BNSF)
Western Wyoming (UP)
Southern Nevada (UP)
Southern Arizona (UP)
Northern Arizona (BNSF)
Eastern Oregon (UP)
North Central Washington (BNSF)
Northwestern South Dakota (BNSF)
*Northern Nevada (UP)
*All of Utah (UP)
*Eastern Colorado (UP)

*(Yeah, I know. BNSF supposedly was granted operating rights over the "Central Corridor" through Northern Nevada, Northern Utah, and Eastern Colorado, but from what I understand BNSF isn't too interested in using these rights to provide real time competition to UP for online traffic)

I haven't even mentioned the captive areas east of the Mississippi, nor in Canada. Nor have I mentioned the carload customers who are captive e.g. whose products are predicated on shipment directly from the production facility by rail.

Case closed.

Now, can we please go back to the topic of HSR for freight? Thank you.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

FM,

You are correct as to the first line. The body of the article however does not describe a high speed line as we typically use the term, 125 MPH or better. The article does not discuss engineering specs but I suspect they will operate at about 100 KMPH, or 60 MPH for freight trains.

Mac

I can agree with that definition. "High speed rail" can be a relative description. I would suppose a freight service that averages 50 mph (compared to the usual North American standard of 25 mph) could be seen as high speed relative to the North American experience, but not compared to the EWS/TGV/et al.

The point I'm trying to make with this post is my belief that the concept of HSR, however it is defined speed-wise, would have a better footing on sustainability if it is predicated on moving freight first and foremost, with passenger services added as the HSR operations are made kink-free. From the article, it seems the proponents of this project are using that very philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Err... so, how about those Detroit Tigers [%-)]...

[oltmannd]

Futuremodal needs a wheel alignment. Everytime he tries to drive down a thread, he veers right into the OA guardrail.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

Once again another topic of discussion goes astray.[:-^]

Another nomination for the "Post Hijacker" Merit Badge?

[rrnut282]

Once again another topic of discussion goes astray.[:-^]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?

You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations.

The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.

But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?

[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company.

Try this for size:

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs.

Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs.

If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset.

Evolve, please.

Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight?

I have a few questions:

So, if I evolve, I'll be able to run my high speed train through central Asia, any time I want? Will I have to cook my meals on board or can I order out? Will the cabin have to be pressurized? And, will this count toward my RR merit badge?

[Tulyar15]

Just as an aside, the French have a number of postal TGV trains, used for parcels and mail traffic. In Britain, EWS operates parcels trains at 110mph, using adapted passenger equipment.

[Flint Hills Tex]

If I understood the original message correctly, Dave wasn't questioning the feasability of the project. Rather, he was trying to make a point, that by designing the road primarily for freight, the Chinese will easily be able to subsidize HSR passenger service. I disagree with Dave that the Chinese are "on the right track" for developing HSR service. As both Germany and France prove, dedicated HSR passenger service can be run both profitably and efficiently. I live in Germany, where well over 90% of our rail network is under caternary. Diesel is only used in yards, on branchlines, or for heavy duty hauls such as ore or coal unit trains. Freight service here reaches mainline speeds of 75 mph, while tests for HSR passenger service are being made for regular 190 mph speed limits. The DB (German Railway) has dedicated lines for HSR, meaning no freight traffic, yet they are making a profit despite heavy competition with commuter airlines. I predict that the freight situation will turn around within the next ten years, as German highways are already clogged with trucks.

Since we are talking about Kazakhstan, however, I agree that their top speed will probably not exceed 100 km/h. The problem with the routing Russia and the Ukraine could be solved through the mediation of Kazakhstan, so to speak as a "neutral" middle man. Besides, Chinese-Russian relations are in détente, opening up all kinds of (scary) possibilities.