Can Cargo Sprinters be used here in the US?

[BT CPSO 266]

I think now is the time to start trying out new rail intermodal options while they have the public's attention. Whether it is the new rail sprinters (which we brought a lot of good points and opinions to the table), new roadrailers (like brought up in a new thread), etc.

I think we can all agree that the system could do with a lot more innovation. We have cited out that the biggest problems converting more highway loads to rail are convenience, speed, flexibility, and cost.

Overall I think a plan needs to be made into how the railroads are going to adapt to these needs if the government is going to continue to help invest in their infrastructure; if they show new ideas like these, they may gain more funding support and change of some rules & regulations for these new ideas to become reality and encourage manufacturing & industrial development.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shift-in-intermodal-priorities-for-national-freight-policy-raises-concerns-for-trucking-reports-the-journal-of-commerce-89927952.html

[schlimm]

BT CPSO 266

think we can all agree that the system could do with a lot more innovation. We have cited out that the biggest problems converting more highway loads to rail are convenience, speed, flexibility, and cost.

 

 

See the China/GE passenger thread.  It is beginning to become sadly apparent that domestic innovation is lacking.

[PNWRMNM]

The three of you, Henry 6, BT CPSO 266, and Schlimm, who think that inovation is sadly lacking in rail marketing and operation are free to write up a business plan, get financing, purchase the services you desire from the railroad, and sell the services they are too stupid or too conservative to offer to anyone who will buy them.  When you do that then you have standing to condemn, criticize, and complain about the failures of others.

Mac 

[henry6]

PNWRMNM

The three of you, Henry 6, BT CPSO 266, and Schlimm, who think that inovation is sadly lacking in rail marketing and operation are free to write up a business plan, get financing, purchase the services you desire from the railroad, and sell the services they are too stupid or too conservative to offer to anyone who will buy them.  When you do that then you have standing to condemn, criticize, and complain about the failures of others.

Mac 

Mac, I think your remarks are out of line in reference to the three of us.  First, this is a railfan, mostly non professional thread, it is a discussion board, there are ideas and opinions, things are hashed and rehashed.  If you want to pick on something pick on ideas and statements and not on people. 

That being said, my opinion and observation is that the American railroad supply sector has not had to keep up with the rest of the world in relation to high speed rail but rather has done (thier job, a good job) well in catering to the demands of what American railroads have needed and wanted based on the parameters of heavey guage railroading directed by history and regulartory rules.  Thus, since there has not been a real effort, need or call, for high speed rail in thie country outside the Acela and Metroliner projects, it is only natural that we have to go offshore to get the up to date technology.  Otherwise we would be starting at tie one, rail one, spike one and take years to catch up to the rest of the world.  I'm not saying the Chinese or Japanese or Europeans have the best or that we will or should use anyone of them.  But they have it and we don't.  It makes common sense to look at what they've got to offer and design around and from what they've done.

Note: Acela, all electric locomotives in service, and Talgo, for example, are all passenger products based on European designs and operations and are here on license. The U.S. dabbled in the Turbotrain and Metroliner 40 or so years ago, but went no further.

NOTE 2: I saw Mac's remarks and commented from a notification rather than while in the thread and thought it was in reference to a Chinese technology and HSR thread.  But a lot of what I've said above holds true outside the HSR debate, too.  And in a broader sense, there has always been a sharing of technologies and ideas from all over.  Some works here and not there and vice versa and some works equally well anyplace.  In other threads over time the fact that the US heavy guage has precluded the adoption or even adaptation of lighter guage foreign rail technology has been often mentoned.  As for your remarks, Mac, the fact remains that American technology is based on American railroad practices and needs.  And if there is a tried and true technology in Timbuctu that might be useful here, then the experts in Timbuctu should be relied on for expert guidence.  Reinventing the wheel can be a waste of time and very costly.

[Anonymous]

PNWRMNM

Bucyrus

PNWRMNM

henry6

What is now, Dave H., is only part of what lies ahead espeically if the FRA is successful in takeing more traffic off concrete and putting on steel. 

Henry,

The FRA will not take one ton of traffic "off concrete"  FRA is a regulatory agency.  It is a burden on the carriers and often a roadblock to progress.  If you want to find out more see 49 CFR for hundreds of pages of mind numbing fine print detail.  With only exceedingly rare exception the freight rail system supports the government, not the other way around.

Mac

Take a look at this FRA plan.  Is the FRA still just a regulatory agency, or has their role been recently enhanced?  In their plan, they seem to suggest that their role has been enhanced.  It certainly seems like a wide-ranging role when they include, for example,  “livable communities” in their overall objective.  Clearly, they say they want to take freight traffic off of trucks running on highways, and onto rail.

 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf

Bucyrus,

This preliminary plan says nothing of state or federal investment in rail infrastructure.  If dances around the subject on page 24 where it states that stakeholders should develop an investment strategy, and on the top of page 25 it correctly states that rail customers pay the full infrastructure costs for rail, unlike highways for which they claim about 80% cost recovery.

FRA will be an advocacy agency if congress tells them to be and gives them the money.  That has yet to happen.  My statement is correct.

Mac 

Mac 

When I read the FRA Preliminary National Rail Plan, it sure sounds like the FRA is rolling up its sleeves, and about to get right down to business in making sweeping changes to the railroad industry.  They may only be an advocacy agency, as you say, and they do not have all the needed funding in place, but clearly, their national plan sounds like it is perfectly matched to the goals and aspirations of the present administration and of congress.  And the plan outlines so much change that it is dizzying to read. 

.

I understand your point that the money for these changes has not yet been allocated.  But the main point of this particular issue is whether the FRA will drag their feet and prevent the railroad industry from adopting new methods and technologies.  When I read the FRA national plan, it sounds like the last thing the FRA will do is thwart change.  Indeed, the plan works hard in order to not leave out anything that could possibly be changed.  The plan calls for nothing less than the reordering of society for the purpose of better transportation. 

.

At the bottom of page 1, it says this (blue emphasis is mine):   

.

“The traditional role of the FRA has long been to promote and oversee railroad safety, and safety remains a focus of FRA. Legislative directives in the last year, most notably PRIIA and the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), have given FRA additional broad responsibilities to administer and manage funds that will improve rail transportation. The new scope and direction provided by PRIIA and RSIA, in combination with the Recovery Act, has made FRA’s participatory role in rail transportation projects comparable to that of other modal administrations in the Department.”  

.

The FRA Preliminary National Rail Plan:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf

 

[schlimm]

PNWRMNM

The three of you, Henry 6, BT CPSO 266, and Schlimm, who think that inovation is sadly lacking in rail marketing and operation are free to write up a business plan, get financing, purchase the services you desire from the railroad, and sell the services they are too stupid or too conservative to offer to anyone who will buy them.  When you do that then you have standing to condemn, criticize, and complain about the failures of others.

Mac 

 

California, the FRA and possibly other states are already in the planning stages of doing exactly that.  I have a right to observe and draw conclusions, same as you.  I never said the rails were " too stupid or too conservative to offer to anyone."   It simply is becoming evident that for HSR and some freight questions, the innovation and technology seem to lie off-shore.

[PNWRMNM]

Bucyrus,

I hope you are right about the FRA becoming a conduit for public funding of freight rail infrastructure improvements, but I do not expect to see it.  So far all I see is smoke.

Henry,

I have said and will say nothing here about HSR or where the technology will come from.  Frankly HSR is not something I expect to see, and I care nothing about it.

Mac