Trains.com Sites
Resources
Shop
E-mail Newsletters
SEARCH THIS SITE
Help
Contact Us »
|
Customer Service
Get our free e-mail newsletters
Model Railroader
(weekly)
Model Railroader VideoPlus
(weekly)
Trains
(weekly)
Classic Toy Trains
(bi-weekly)
Garden Railways
(bi-weekly)
Classic Trains
(bi-weekly)
By signing up I may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers from Trains.com. We do not sell, rent or trade our e-mail lists.
Details about our newsletters »
Read our privacy policy »
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Search Community
Searching
Please insert search terms into the box above to run a search on the community.
Users Online
There are no community members online
Thread Details
Rate This
8
Replies — 2981 Views
0
Subscribers
Posted
over 20 years ago
Thread Options
Subscribe via RSS
Share this
Tag Cloud
1950s
advice
Amtrak
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Baltimore and Ohio
Boxcars
Bridges
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Caboose
Canada
Canadian National Railway
Canadian Pacific Railway
cargo
Chicago
Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
Colorado and Southern
Coupler
Coupling
CSX
dcc sound
Depots
Diesel Engines
education
Emporia
fec
Home
»
Discussion Forums
»
General Discussion (Trains.com)
»
TRAINS VS. TRUCKS
Forums
|
Want to post a reply to this topic?
Login
or
register
for an acount to join our online community today!
TRAINS VS. TRUCKS
Posted by
CSXrules4eva
on
Sun, Sep 26 2004 7:00 PM
Come One peps elaborate [:D]
LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Replies to this thread are ordered from "oldest to newest". To reverse this order, click
here
.
To learn about more about sorting options, visit our
FAQ page
.
Posted by
railman
on
Sun, Sep 26 2004 7:43 PM
I'll say no, then duck and wait to get run over.
I say this because in a vacuum, the trucking industry would never need the railroad. It would simply cost more to ship things, destroy the highway networks of our country, and also bring congestion to an all-time high around our cities, not to mention adding a collossal amount of polution to the air.
All this if the trains simply stopped rolling. However, because the trains are there, there will always be balance, especially as there is a great deal of sentiment against expanding highways. So I guess I could have voted that "they needed each other," but you don't start long witty forums with a middle of the road answer, now do we?
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Posted by
Junctionfan
on
Sun, Sep 26 2004 8:30 PM
At the moment no, but depending on how highway conjestion and fuel cost get out of control, I may be correct in saying that it could be both industries depend on each other.
Andrew
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Posted by
Allen Jenkins
on
Mon, Sep 27 2004 4:52 AM
There is a need for just in time delivery. Coast to coast. You can't beat Triple Crown, they're the King. Here's the difference, in the TC, and CSX. Backhaul. ACJ.
Allen/Backyard
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Posted by
route_rock
on
Mon, Sep 27 2004 10:23 AM
Trucks dont need trains trains dont need trucks that simple right?Nope.I said no but I am totally wrong about it.Trucking would survive fora time without rail but rail would come back.Reason 1 trucking is in a world of hurt right now.Not enough drivers.Trust me none of you want to be one unless it is local.So without enough drivers what do you do if your Schneider or JB Hunt?You go rail!I have seen an ALLIED truck(household goods movers!)in intermodal trains! Now this whole door to door thing is valid but rail could take it back if it could get faster service.Volume is a place where no trucking company wants to go either.If you would quit just shipping coal by rail there wouldnt be enough trucks to handle it.and thats only by maybe two or three mines.Rail will never get the LTL buisness(not fast enough nor flexible enough anymore)but LTL depends on rail as well due to union contracts forcing them to hire more drivers if they are to have a long haul service.The 34 hour restart in the new hours of service for truck drivers is NOT to be used by union drivers.Not in any contract so the Roadways Yellows and the like will be out there shipping by rail.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Posted by
ValorStorm
on
Sat, Nov 13 2004 1:54 PM
I'm voting "Mabe" because I can't find the "Maybe" option.
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
Sat, Nov 13 2004 6:01 PM
[#dots]
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
Sun, Nov 14 2004 2:24 AM
The need each other.
I'd like to see trucks haul the long distance bulk commodities the rails haul....you would not be able to get an automobile on the highways for all the trucks, of course the highways themselves would be beaten to a bloody pulp and basically unfit for traveling account of the additional tonnage they would be handling.
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Posted by
jimitimi
on
Mon, Nov 15 2004 12:31 PM
They both need each other because both have their strengths and weaknesses that depend on each other.
For railroads to continue to thrive, we need a balanced transportation funding system whereby airlines and highways AND railroads get equal funding formulas and support!
You have posted to a forum that requires a moderator to approve posts before they are publicly available.
Home
»
Discussion Forums
»
General Discussion (Trains.com)
»
TRAINS VS. TRUCKS