OvermodI'm not a specialist in all types of HSR, but that's not the case with Old Man Thunder's New Tokaido Line (or at least some of the other Shin Kansen) and it isn't the case with most of the LGV system. Real HSR, whether or not it is effectively built (the original New Tokaido Line really wasn't; it needed complete line and surface every six weeks or so) is new construction on new routes that suit the very demanding characteristics involved, in both horizontal and vertical profile as well as extremely long-radius and spiraled curves.
Nope, you misread what I posted and I don't know how you misread it because I did not put all that detail into it. What I am saying is they had the near high speed rail lines FIRST (up to 110 mph) before they built the dedicated HSR lines. I am not saying the HSR lines evolved from the near high speed rail lines on the same right of way. I think we need to do likewise in this country.
It was the LONG DISTANCE originally under Amtrak in some corridors that paved the way for the corridor trains by lowering the startup cost allocated to the state for the second frequency of a corridor train.
It will be a series of successful near high speed short corridors like Chicago - Milwaukee that will build political support for the more expensive longer distance HSR projects. Or at least a series of longer distance HSR projects that are successful financially. Maybe Dallas-Houston will start to turn public opinion but it's my opinion you will need more than just one. Though I have to say Dallas was mostly anti-rail transit prior to DART, then attitudes started to shift, then came TRE, then the Denton A-Train, then TexRail, and Dallas keeps getting the voter green light to continue down the path of more rail transit projects.
It will take a large leap of faith for taxpayers in this country to jump from nothing right into a HSR project given only the California boon doggle we have now. I think they need a few successful, cheap and fast projects first in the near high speed rail area. We'll see though.
CMStPnPBTW, Germany and the rest of Europe crawled before it walked. That is they all had near high speed rail passenger service first, then started on the high speed lines. They did not jump right into large high speed rail projects after WWII, they incremented their way up to them. Same deal with Japan though Japan focused on it sooner than Europe did.
Britain tried heroically to design something that could work up to somewhere in the low end of the HSR range with the APT, but riding it 'at the limit' was something of an adventure. Note that modern projects like HSR 2 don't even attempt to make extensive use out of existing route infrastructure -- it just isn't suitable for those speeds no matter how much of it could take 'the ton' back in the day.
Even the American projects that would have come the closest to super passenger railroads in the age America could afford actual high-speed private railroads would likely be modern disasters. If you look at the first or second Ramsey surveys for Gould's high-speed Pennsylvania main line project, or PRR's response with the Sam Rea line -- their curvature as built would be far too great for true HSR, and complicated by being on heroic fills and in massive cuts and tunnelling posing enormous expense to 'rectify', with obsolescent and not very suitable forms of electric power. I suspect it would be cheaper to make a complete replacement largely on viaduct using nothing more innovative than Chinese self-launching construction rigs and TLMs (probably built in quantity for the great Chinese HSR development blitz that Walmart enabled so compellingly) and leave the great earthworks for 'the ages' alone. I have seen at least one new German HSR line on YouTube that has enough consecutive tunnels and cuts to represent the worst parts of the second-spine NEC through the worst part of its run from Boston across to Springfield/Hartford; the Boring Company was supposed to be replicating enough devices to make it conceivable to build such a number of tunnels in parallel... assuming you have access to the capital to get them all working simultaneously... and potentially reduce the overall build time to, well, the sort of lead times many of the Chinese lines seem to have had (with proper build quality and no Mexican-style graft issues, etc.)
But you would NOT get anywhere with a C&NYAL-style scam where you had some piddly electric line and telpher package system uphill and down dale while you spent and spent and spent to get a thousand Coffee Creeks bridged and finally start running your nominal high speed service by fits and starts.
Running last-mile over existing infrastructure into city centers is another matter; we've seen politically that nobody wants these things in their back yards any more than elevated railroads. So taking a few minutes' worth of lumps to diverge off the LGV and run 'legacy' into terminals or large-city through stations makes sense ... there and here. Provided you perform your trajectory changes in such places, and manage sustained running at true-HSR speed everywhere 'else'... on new and specialized routes and track structure.
OvermodSee, the problem is that very few of those elements either describe, or could conform practically with, much of the national passenger rail system -- they are corridor and community-specific.
In order to gain support for the larger projects (corridors) you need to demonstrate what works with the smaller projects (corridors).
Understood the fixation with High Speed Rail but High Speed is not necessary for success in all cases. Successful rail passenger corridors are defined as:
1. Frequency of trains.
2. Convienent accessibility.
3. Travel times comparable to other modes.
Easy to cheaply achieve in short corridors, my contention is you need to do that first before you attempt a $100 Billion SFO to LA Corridor for example. If you attempt the latter first as California did, you set efforts back years or even decades more.
In fact is that not what Brightline and Texas Central are doing?, cherry picking corridors where the likelyhood is highest they will have success and the construction costs are not that expensive? Eventually they will run out of cherries to pick. Look what happens though if any of their experiments are successful. Private rails can do it......Amtrak and the government can't will then be the thought process. People will start to seriously question the subsidy to Amtrak then. Why are they spending so much money on Amtrak when it has not produced a single successful near high speed corridor that is profitable?
BTW, Germany and the rest of Europe crawled before it walked. That is they all had near high speed rail passenger service first, then started on the high speed lines. They did not jump right into large high speed rail projects after WWII, they incremented their way up to them. Same deal with Japan though Japan focused on it sooner than Europe did.
I'm glad I posted the article as a stimulus to new discussions. Rather than examine each point for flaws, I like what OM and CMStPnP did in introducing new ideas.
Not new, since I suggested this long ago, but the only way higher speed passenger rail (>125 mph) can work on ROWs (not track) shared with freight is nationalized infrastructure. Private rails cannot afford this. Except for approached to major cities, true HSR needs dedicated ROWs.
See, the problem is that very few of those elements either describe, or could conform practically with, much of the national passenger rail system -- they are corridor and community-specific.
So what we fall back on is the model that has been adopted by the pending-successful development efforts, which involves a hefty dose of either 'prequal' or the political support that would lead to a successful take rate upon introduction. One of the considerations here is whether 'service more often' is more or less important to the subject communities than high speed that precludes more or longer stops and that requires expensive infrastructure both for riding quality and to accommodate trains.
Sustained high speed is most definitely in the sort of 'national-scale' development project range the poster described, with the added consideration that few of the actual benefits of high speed can be observed until a considerable and contiguous part of the route has been expensively completed. If you build it and for any reason they do not come... you may be in trouble even though your premises were good or even sound. Not only deep Keynesian pockets but a certain immunity to consequences is in order, both of which are more likely "Federal" than local at the planning and execution stages. But if the results don't suit local preference, and local buy-in is 'necessary' -- as in recent memory with the ARC tunnel project -- there may be insufficient Federal resolve even with proven gains in utilization to get a project accomplished 'properly'.
I cynically think that one of the only ways this might become 'implementable' is if some massive stick, like greatly increased and more pervasive corporate taxes on railroad companies and their owning structures, were to be "nationally" introduced, with the desired capital programs for electrification, or higher speed, or electropneumatic proportional braking then applied as 'deductible' against the higher taxes, perhaps at more than 100% of their nominal or accounted dollar value. I do expect to see this tried within the next three or so years...
OvermodWhere I want to see a paragraph or two on the High Speed Rail Alliance site is how they propose representatives of this new Government agency are to sit down with railroads in this current world of 40-mph optimized track, operation limited to run 6, ad-hoc block switching, and limited one-speed PSR, and try to convince them that high speed nationwide is in their financial best interest. I'd be as tempted to look at what 'getting to yes' with the freight railroads might look like in designing an effective 'national passenger rail' system that does not involve higher peak speed, or that focuses on desirable (enough) experience to make the national-scale rail system self-sustaining economically. (I am not saying this sarcastically...)
You can chat with guy that leads the HSRA via Email. However, before you do, this is not him or his organization speaking or even their official position. This is a guest blogger that happened to post on the website. Head of the HSRA has different views than those expressed by the guest blogger. So you might want to ask him in your Email what the main points of the HSRA are in regards to High Speed Rail. I already know some of them and I do not agree with all of them as being realistic in the United States in the current political climate.
It's very frustrating to me personally because I feel the Chicago to Milwaukee corridor and it's political and grass roots support system is the perfect model to follow for others in the country. Yet nobody else sees it and everyone wants their own formula. Chicago to Milwaukee worked out......though it took more than 50 years to get here Because the local business community in Milwaukee wanted an alternative to the automobile or airline to reach Chicago #1. They had past experience on C&NW and Milwaukee Road trains #2, length of the corridor made improvements relatively cheap and auto competiveness easy..... and last and most important, the local political organizations of METRA, Mayors of Milwaukee and Chicago were on board with it fairly consistently as well. Take that model to anywhere else in the country and you will win with it over time. The only challenge your going to run into is the experience of having frequent and fast trains in community memory from the past, which I think was key to the corridors success in Wisconsin. So not sure how you will transplant that part into other locations.
Though one could argue the TRE example between Fort Worth and Dallas was roughly similar to Chicago to Milwaukee as well but they accomplished it via a cheap approach of buying used equipment from GO Transit and long ago purchased the rail line so the right of way with rails was in place but sitting idle.
To facilitate the discussion a bit, here are somewhat paraphrased versions of the eight principles:
1. All United States transportation programs are based/predicated on infrastructure programs. [You can't run trains without effective track and control]
2. All successful infrastructural programs are national in scope.
3. All successful Federal transportation-infrastructure programs have been national [he uses air-traffic control and, interestingly, the Bureau of Public Roads 'Road Gang' rather than the Eisenhower defense-highway system and HTF as examples]
4. America launches priority infrastructure programs at national scope only in an emergency [especially those involving multi-trillion-dollar stranded capital with delayed utility]
5. It's not about Amtrak and its issues [the premise being that once national-scale high-speed infrastructure characterizes the 'iron ocean' there will be greater incentives for people to invest in high-speed service even in the structurally-unprofitable areas of LD service]
6. No Federal-level transportation-infrastructure program has ever succeeded without active collaboration of a major industry. [Also making the point that major industries, and consortia, can develop to generate the necessary 'collaboration' once the infrastructure program provides the opportunity ... I have just been reading about space and missile development in 1959 to 1960, very little of which would exist without not only a Cold War, but reports of a 'bomber/missile gap', and at this point I'd recommend that anyone who hasn't read 'The Insolent Chariots' do so.]
8. Congress must establish a new agency within the DOT to plan passenger-compatible and then passenger-prioritized infrastructure programs.
Where I want to see a paragraph or two on the High Speed Rail Alliance site is how they propose representatives of this new Government agency are to sit down with railroads in this current world of 40-mph optimized track, operation limited to run 6, ad-hoc block switching, and limited one-speed PSR, and try to convince them that high speed nationwide is in their financial best interest.
I'd be as tempted to look at what 'getting to yes' with the freight railroads might look like in designing an effective 'national passenger rail' system that does not involve higher peak speed, or that focuses on desirable (enough) experience to make the national-scale rail system self-sustaining economically. (I am not saying this sarcastically...)
charlie hebdohere's a critical article.
And no 'emergency', not even WWII shipping levels redux, is going to make passenger-train speed a freight-railroad priority. Assuming that the bar stays at the pathetic government 79mph speed for "passenger", which for most long-distance national service is decades behind most of the rest of the world -- as well as grossly inadequate for many of the 'national' long-distance services, and even for many of the corridors in a link-up-the-corridors "national" model (which appears to be Amtrak's current alternative to what is in the eight-principle article).
These issues would have to be thoroughly addressed before most of the items in the eight principles actually apply to profitable* freight railroading.
Meanwhile, there's a whole 'nother issue here, which I hadn't even thought much about until my nose was rubbed in it a few months ago. That is the 'commodification' of container intermodal down to mineral-train profit levels per well. When transporting boxes no longer commands a premium price, and Walmart monopsony-style race-to-the-bottom margins get applied to the various aspects of 'rail' intermodal, much of the incentive for high-speed anything starts eroding; as soon as you have a surplus of any kind of suitable well equipment, the incentive to run anything but a least-common-denominator one-speed railroad gets even less. And there is very little place for a two-speed railroad even with Amtrak's current pathetic speed maxima on any reasonably-trafficked railroad that cannot clear appropriate windows... leaving aside considerations of improving the plant to permit the second speed smoothly in the first place. Or figuring out who's going to pay for the additional fuel and maintenance for the equipment to run commodity traffic at increased, non-shipper-compensated speeds...
* and I mean 'profitable' in the sense it makes money from satisfied shippers valuing more than just road speed -- not the penny-pinching PSR distortions.
Rather than continue with silliness, here's a critical article.
https://hsrail.org/blog/eight-principles-establishing-us-passenger-rail-system
CMStPnPThat's not going to fool anyone....
charlie hebdoI'm tired of playing a game with someone
That's not going to fool anyone....
Joshua has good advice for y'all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU
I'm tired of playing a game with someone who moves the goalposts every time his assertions are hollow. Or engages in whaddaboutisms, aka, false analogies.
charlie hebdo Lithonia Operator CMStPnP Lithonia Operator What I wrote is: "No passenger rail system in the world is profitable." You have yet to show us a profitable passenger rail system. You have used as an example only Deutsche Bahn, which also does freight railroading and logistics. If you can provide a link to a credible article which shows that the passenger division on its own makes a profit, then you will have made your case. It's up to you to make your case that my statement is untrue (if it indeed is). So far you have not done so. You should have used Google to find such an article, and linked it, prior to publishing a statement ecompassing the whole globe in a discussion forum. Your just going to keep narrowing your definition until the stats you ask for are far more granular that what is reported and impossible to obtain publicly. DB reports along business lines, you want passenger train by passenger train accounting then request it from the company. Some of the arguments are not consistent though because airlines fly routes that lose money or in which the air cargo under the seats makes the flights profitable. Additionally airlines fly government subsidized routes. Good luck finding passenger train by passenger train accounting stripped out from everything else. DB reports rail passenger services (2019 - profit), Logistics services (2019 - profit), Freight (2019 - profit), etc. Within the rail passenger services division it even splits out Long Distance, Commutter, Regional, and ICE reporting. British Rail Services are not international and to my knowledge only cross borders via the Chunnel. Brit Rail is not really integrated with Europe to the extent DB is. So pretty much stuck on an Island. You cannot compare British rail to DB. DB has run through trains to bordering country cities. How many Brit Rail trains do that outside the Chunnel route? A good portion of DB rail routes are new or rebuilt after WWII. Not the case with Brit Rail. BTW, Amtrak accounting and reporting is far more opaque than DB Rail reporting. So good luck comparing those two together. I guess you've found one profitable passenger rail system. But he overlooks the facts of large subsidies from the Federal German government and various states and regions. There have been articles in recent years about this is German media, such as Der Spiegel, FAZ and Deutsche Welle. He (conveniently) overlooks the fact that ROW, etc. are also a part of DB and is heavily subsidized by the government.
Lithonia Operator CMStPnP Lithonia Operator What I wrote is: "No passenger rail system in the world is profitable." You have yet to show us a profitable passenger rail system. You have used as an example only Deutsche Bahn, which also does freight railroading and logistics. If you can provide a link to a credible article which shows that the passenger division on its own makes a profit, then you will have made your case. It's up to you to make your case that my statement is untrue (if it indeed is). So far you have not done so. You should have used Google to find such an article, and linked it, prior to publishing a statement ecompassing the whole globe in a discussion forum. Your just going to keep narrowing your definition until the stats you ask for are far more granular that what is reported and impossible to obtain publicly. DB reports along business lines, you want passenger train by passenger train accounting then request it from the company. Some of the arguments are not consistent though because airlines fly routes that lose money or in which the air cargo under the seats makes the flights profitable. Additionally airlines fly government subsidized routes. Good luck finding passenger train by passenger train accounting stripped out from everything else. DB reports rail passenger services (2019 - profit), Logistics services (2019 - profit), Freight (2019 - profit), etc. Within the rail passenger services division it even splits out Long Distance, Commutter, Regional, and ICE reporting. British Rail Services are not international and to my knowledge only cross borders via the Chunnel. Brit Rail is not really integrated with Europe to the extent DB is. So pretty much stuck on an Island. You cannot compare British rail to DB. DB has run through trains to bordering country cities. How many Brit Rail trains do that outside the Chunnel route? A good portion of DB rail routes are new or rebuilt after WWII. Not the case with Brit Rail. BTW, Amtrak accounting and reporting is far more opaque than DB Rail reporting. So good luck comparing those two together. I guess you've found one profitable passenger rail system.
CMStPnP Lithonia Operator What I wrote is: "No passenger rail system in the world is profitable." You have yet to show us a profitable passenger rail system. You have used as an example only Deutsche Bahn, which also does freight railroading and logistics. If you can provide a link to a credible article which shows that the passenger division on its own makes a profit, then you will have made your case. It's up to you to make your case that my statement is untrue (if it indeed is). So far you have not done so. You should have used Google to find such an article, and linked it, prior to publishing a statement ecompassing the whole globe in a discussion forum. Your just going to keep narrowing your definition until the stats you ask for are far more granular that what is reported and impossible to obtain publicly. DB reports along business lines, you want passenger train by passenger train accounting then request it from the company. Some of the arguments are not consistent though because airlines fly routes that lose money or in which the air cargo under the seats makes the flights profitable. Additionally airlines fly government subsidized routes. Good luck finding passenger train by passenger train accounting stripped out from everything else. DB reports rail passenger services (2019 - profit), Logistics services (2019 - profit), Freight (2019 - profit), etc. Within the rail passenger services division it even splits out Long Distance, Commutter, Regional, and ICE reporting. British Rail Services are not international and to my knowledge only cross borders via the Chunnel. Brit Rail is not really integrated with Europe to the extent DB is. So pretty much stuck on an Island. You cannot compare British rail to DB. DB has run through trains to bordering country cities. How many Brit Rail trains do that outside the Chunnel route? A good portion of DB rail routes are new or rebuilt after WWII. Not the case with Brit Rail. BTW, Amtrak accounting and reporting is far more opaque than DB Rail reporting. So good luck comparing those two together.
Lithonia Operator What I wrote is: "No passenger rail system in the world is profitable." You have yet to show us a profitable passenger rail system. You have used as an example only Deutsche Bahn, which also does freight railroading and logistics. If you can provide a link to a credible article which shows that the passenger division on its own makes a profit, then you will have made your case. It's up to you to make your case that my statement is untrue (if it indeed is). So far you have not done so. You should have used Google to find such an article, and linked it, prior to publishing a statement ecompassing the whole globe in a discussion forum.
Your just going to keep narrowing your definition until the stats you ask for are far more granular that what is reported and impossible to obtain publicly. DB reports along business lines, you want passenger train by passenger train accounting then request it from the company.
Some of the arguments are not consistent though because airlines fly routes that lose money or in which the air cargo under the seats makes the flights profitable. Additionally airlines fly government subsidized routes. Good luck finding passenger train by passenger train accounting stripped out from everything else.
DB reports rail passenger services (2019 - profit), Logistics services (2019 - profit), Freight (2019 - profit), etc. Within the rail passenger services division it even splits out Long Distance, Commutter, Regional, and ICE reporting.
British Rail Services are not international and to my knowledge only cross borders via the Chunnel. Brit Rail is not really integrated with Europe to the extent DB is. So pretty much stuck on an Island. You cannot compare British rail to DB. DB has run through trains to bordering country cities. How many Brit Rail trains do that outside the Chunnel route? A good portion of DB rail routes are new or rebuilt after WWII. Not the case with Brit Rail.
BTW, Amtrak accounting and reporting is far more opaque than DB Rail reporting. So good luck comparing those two together.
I guess you've found one profitable passenger rail system.
But he overlooks the facts of large subsidies from the Federal German government and various states and regions. There have been articles in recent years about this is German media, such as Der Spiegel, FAZ and Deutsche Welle. He (conveniently) overlooks the fact that ROW, etc. are also a part of DB and is heavily subsidized by the government.
I mainly just got tired of the game.
Still in training.
charlie hebdoBut he overlooks the facts of large subsidies from the Federal German government and various states and regions. There have been articles in recent years about this is German media, such as Der Spiegel, FAZ and Deutsche Welle. He (conveniently) overlooks the fact that ROW, etc. are also a part of DB and is heavily subsidized by the government. A
So $15 Billion direct to our airline sector from the General Revenue fund for one years operation is a small subsidy? It just happened. Your overlooking the massive infusion of taxpayer money into the airline and road infrastructure in this country, subsidized largely by the DoD. Airline ticket fees, gasoline taxes do not cover it all I am afraid.
Further Amtrak gets same treatment from our government. Seperate that out if your demanding it be seperated out from DB otherwise apples and oranges. Also, subtract the multiple billions spent towards intercity rail in the 2008 stimulus bill please. Then subtract the hundreds of millions if not billions our states pay for Amtrak related items as well. Amtrak isn't making a profit anywhere......or did I miss something? Or are you overlooking that? What is the cumlative investment by California in Amtrak California? Last I checked it was North of $5 Billion.......where is Amtrak California turning a profit.
You know it is rather interesting Amtrak government owned, DB government owned. One makes money and the other doesn't.
GrampIf driverless vehicles achieve reliability and safety requirements, I think even more, longer trips will be taken by car. Look at Volvo's XC90 passenger "seat" option. Why would you mess with public transportation headaches if you can travel like that? Take a pitstop when you need to. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rpFcx_cMbv0/maxresdefault.jpg
I disagree that you will see long distance trips achieveable nationwide consistently anytime soon. I live in Texas and have driven...
Milwaukee - Detroit, MI
Dallas, TX - Naples, FL
Dallas, TX - Milwaukee, WI
San Diego, CA - Phoenix, AZ
Dallas, TX - Denver, CO
Milwaukee - Twin Cities
(a few examples)
On some of the above routes, the safest bet is to never let the gas tank drop below half because there are stretches of road for over a hundred miles or so with just nothing on them. You miss one refuel point you have a slim safety margin to get to the next one but if you miss the next one your screwed and will run out of gas. Infrastructure in this country is far from being setup to where you can just sit and let the car drive and sleep the night away. You better be attentive. Why half a tank.........because also there are construction zones in the boonies that cause traffic tie-ups and significant traffic slow-downs. Hit one of those between your fill ups and unless you started with half a tank you could find yourself in trouble. Same will hold true for electric vehicles as well as complete lack currently of nationwide recharging stations.
Further, your going to find and I know it because I have a Mercedes loaded with all the driver minder crap..........there are sections in this country with zero satellite or radio coverage in which all that nice stuff shuts down completely including the Sirius XM radio. It will give you a warning it is shutting down but I can tell you from experience there is no such thing at this point in time of coast to coast automatic land navigation or driver assist land navigation. Furthermore, when the system shuts down even on the Mercedes top end models you better know right where you are because you have to reset it again once it comes back online. Everytime I drive through Eastern Oklahoma it happens and usually passing through a tribal reservation but not always.
So driverless cars in city and urban areas maybe. Cross country, I wish you luck and you should probably pack an emergency survival kit because in a lot of cases you will be betting your life on the technology and you could wake up in the middle of nowhere with a dead car in a hostile environment.
If driverless vehicles achieve reliability and safety requirements, I think even more, longer trips will be taken by car. Look at Volvo's XC90 passenger "seat" option. Why would you mess with public transportation headaches if you can travel like that? Take a pitstop when you need to. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rpFcx_cMbv0/maxresdefault.jpg
All of them are competing against the DIY automobile driver who can drive a multiuse, multi person vehicle that is woven into his or her life's activities and finances. Hard to compete against free labor and low marginal cost of use on any given day.
Lithonia OperatorWhat I wrote is: "No passenger rail system in the world is profitable." You have yet to show us a profitable passenger rail system. You have used as an example only Deutsche Bahn, which also does freight railroading and logistics. If you can provide a link to a credible article which shows that the passenger division on its own makes a profit, then you will have made your case. It's up to you to make your case that my statement is untrue (if it indeed is). So far you have not done so. You should have used Google to find such an article, and linked it, prior to publishing a statement ecompassing the whole globe in a discussion forum.
Overmod . ignore. What I started to post stopped being amusing.
.
ignore. What I started to post stopped being amusing.
True. What I and L.O. commented is true. CMStPnP makes good posts but he went a bridge too far on this one.
The all time World Class Game -
Figures lying and Lying Figurers
Proveing both sides of a argument with the same figures.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I did find this about British trains:
"The train operators might be able to report a profit only because the infrastructure companies are heavily subsidized. British trains, for example, have been privatized and operate at a profit — but they run on infrastructure that receives an average of $4.6 billion in state subsidies per year."
CMStPnP Lithonia Operator This began when you stated that something I wrote was untrue. And it was untrue. You should have used Google prior to publishing a statement ecompassing the whole globe in a discussion forum.
Lithonia Operator This began when you stated that something I wrote was untrue.
And it was untrue. You should have used Google prior to publishing a statement ecompassing the whole globe in a discussion forum.
What I wrote is: "No passenger rail system in the world is profitable."
You have yet to show us a profitable passenger rail system. You have used as an example only Deutsche Bahn, which also does freight railroading and logistics. If you can provide a link to a credible article which shows that the passenger division on its own makes a profit, then you will have made your case. It's up to you to make your case that my statement is untrue (if it indeed is). So far you have not done so.
You should have used Google to find such an article, and linked it, prior to publishing a statement ecompassing the whole globe in a discussion forum.
Lithonia OperatorThis began when you stated that something I wrote was untrue.
CMStPnP Lithonia Operator DB is a passenger/freight/logistics company. How can you compare that to Amtrak? Post a link to something that shows the passenger division, as a whole (not just certain routes), making a profit. DB states it's revenues and profits by each division. I don't know why you cannot find that information yourself. It's really not hard.
Lithonia Operator DB is a passenger/freight/logistics company. How can you compare that to Amtrak? Post a link to something that shows the passenger division, as a whole (not just certain routes), making a profit.
DB states it's revenues and profits by each division. I don't know why you cannot find that information yourself. It's really not hard.
This began when you stated that something I wrote was untrue.
Now you want me to do the legwork to attempt to prove you were correct in your rude refutation of me?
Uh, no thanks. I'll pass.
Lithonia OperatorDB is a passenger/freight/logistics company. How can you compare that to Amtrak? Post a link to something that shows the passenger division, as a whole (not just certain routes), making a profit.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.