Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH As usual, a major consideration has been ignored in FM's arguments for a stand-alone broad-gauge rail system for the future: WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM TO BUILD IT? The initials costs of building such a system would be mind-boggling, not to mention the initial costs of rolling stock to new operators if FM's concept of "open access" is used. The costs to carload and trainload shippers to rebuild their facilities also need to be considered. The return on investment would have to be virtually guaranteed before anybody would throw their money at such a concept. [/quote] CSSHEGEWISCH, may I remind you that the topic starter of this thread brought up the hypothetical regarding what is the best gauge for new transit projects, and by expanded inference, an all new rail system. You might want to direct your question and criticism toward him. That being said, where does the money come for any new rail-related project? Some entity somewhere decides they need a new transportation system to take care of a perceived transportation problem. The costs of building a wide gauge railroad wouldn't be much different than the costs of building a new transit system of standard gauge from scratch. There would be no need for terminals to engage in any heavy rebuild of their facilities, other than laying the new track. You can use the same rail size, no need to retool rail making facilities. Concrete tie makers already have the ability to make wide ties for switchouts, they would just have to make more than usual. As has been brought up previously, the only real cost differential is in the equipment. Since the load factor with this new equipment may be enough to offset new equipment design and construction, it is possible the efficiency gains could offset the higher equipment costs. Only a dedicated cost/benefit analysis will give a solid idea one way or the other. To recap, the people who shell out for new transit projects are the ones who pay for such projects. The determination of the varying gauges for the most part is irrelevent to the initial construction costs, but is relevent to the equipment purchases. The latter factor is then weighed against the efficiency gains to determine whether it is a worthwhile project or not. That's usually how these things work. Not being connected to the current standard gauge rail network may be more of a blessing than a curse. Being a stand alone system, would the FRA have any say in the matter?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag