----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I am with LC on this one. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe I am with LC on this one. Gabe Thanks Gabe. Guess somebody didn't like my long form answer. Sometimes the truth hurts, I guess. Like trying to turn a donkey into a canary. With a lot of genetic engineering and a few generations time you can get close, but it'll never really work... LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc Ok, you want an explaintion 2. To Charter a bank would take an Act of Congress to creat. Chances of that ever happening are slim to none. 4. Where would the money come from? As a charter bank it needs deposits and after seeing amtraks track record with money, no fund or retiremen fund manager in their right mind would put money there. The lawsuits for failing thier fiduciary duties would be unreal. NOt only that,, but a bank MUST pay interest on their deposits and the return at this time is not going to encourage deposits.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Donclark is on the right path. HSR would fill a time niche between highway and airline. Current standard 79 mph max rail operations do not beat highway travel door to door, freight or passenger. The only thing he's missing, and the most important variable for success with HSR is that it MUST be focussed on freight, first and foremost, then and only then can you add a passenger element. Freight makes money, ergo would attract the necessary private investment capital (although you would still need a significant government financial invovement, not necessarily using tax dollars but utilizing instead tax exemptions and credits). HSR freight would take market share from truckers mostly and also some airfreight, and these time sensitive freight components have higher profit margins. Once you've establish HSR freight lines, it would be no problem to introduce passenger operations, even running as "mixed" consists. A HSR passenger operation over the medium distance corridors would make the most sense, since such could directly compete with medium haul airlines, but even long distance HSR passenger operations could probaby attract enough travelers to approach private sector profitability.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Donclark is on the right path. HSR would fill a time niche between highway and airline. Current standard 79 mph max rail operations do not beat highway travel door to door, freight or passenger. The only thing he's missing, and the most important variable for success with HSR is that it MUST be focussed on freight, first and foremost, then and only then can you add a passenger element. Freight makes money, ergo would attract the necessary private investment capital (although you would still need a significant government financial invovement, not necessarily using tax dollars but utilizing instead tax exemptions and credits). HSR freight would take market share from truckers mostly and also some airfreight, and these time sensitive freight components have higher profit margins. Once you've establish HSR freight lines, it would be no problem to introduce passenger operations, even running as "mixed" consists. A HSR passenger operation over the medium distance corridors would make the most sense, since such could directly compete with medium haul airlines, but even long distance HSR passenger operations could probaby attract enough travelers to approach private sector profitability. Hmmm. Sounds great... EXCEPT, Amtrak, when it ran express, had trouble keeping the cars on the rails at 79 mph... Second, there are good reasons that neither the Japanese nor Europeans run a significant amount of HSR freight. Freight is heavier and much more dense than passengers. Trains must have heavier construction, track structures must be of both heavier construction and correctly engineered for freight including little or no super elevation that is often used on passenger lines especially HSR lines. Lets not forget that merely mixing freight and passenger trains on the same tracks is likely to create dispatching headaches similar to those felt now. For example, suppose freight speeds can be increased to 100 mph. That's great until you introduce 130 mph passenger trains on the same tracks. You quickly revert to the same problems felt when freight are at 50 to 60 mph and passenger at 79 mph. Without a magic wand, it just isn't gonna work. LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel HSR for freigth and passengers are more expensive to build and to maintain than HSR that serve only passenger and some mail and parcel-trains. The question is whether the market niche is big enough to justify the higher costs. These costs would have to be covered by the freight trains alone, because any other solution would be a cross-subsidy which does not make sense economically. the problem is very simple. You can build a supply-chain based on almost any trip-time, supposed the trains arrive reliably. Why should a customer pay higher rates if the does not need the faster delivery? Parcels, mail and perishables are the only exception to this rule. Furthermore, you need a fleet of decidated HSR-freight-cars, streamlined and equipped with electronicalle-controlled disc-brakes. So you have to transload the cargo at the end and at the beginning of the HS-run, or you have to buy an enormous fleet of these cars. In Europa, the fastet freight trains run at 100 mph, some perishable-trains from southern France to the North and limestone trains in Britan. But these are exceptions, and they run on the convetional lines, not the HSR. The Germans tried to establish a HR-freigt-service. It failed on the commercial side, not from a technical or safety point of vue. Starting years ago, the French still run HSR-Mail trains on their HS-network, with yellow TGV-trainsets. I think, UPS is studying to introduce a similar service for parcels basing on PDG-airport as hub. Entire Trucks - not only trailers or containers - on railcars is an idea practized in Europe for years. It is called the moving highway. It survives only because it is heavily subsidized by government. It is much cheaper not to haul the tractor and to hire a new tractor and driver for delivery of the trailer or container.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.