Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered We would have seen steam last a bit longer as a freight hauler. If EMD had never demonstrated the FT series when they did, and in the way they did, the country would have run right into World War II. That would (and did) limit development of new types of diesels. ALCO had the DL's running in MU form, but I think they had some maintenance issues that were new to mainline railroading. I believe GE in the late 30's was more interested in producing electric engines of the GG-1 type- a lot of their diesel stuff appears to be either small horsepower switchers or prototype passenger power. [/quote] I had always wondered if we would have had more development in the alternatives to steam and/or diesel. What about steam turbine and turbine electric engines? What about steam/traction motor hybrids? I think it is unquestionable that we would have seen more investment in electric operations without the widespread advent of EMC/EMD diesels. The rail picture would look completely different today if more catenary had been strung up, and probably electric would still be the dominate form of rail traction today. [quote]QUOTE: Concerning the Interstate vs railroads debate- a long time ago (back in 1977) I did a study of population growth along the Connecticut shoreline. People moved out of the cities into the suburbs, and the Interstates followed. The Connecticut turnpike opened up in 1955 (and provided the NHRR with much needed freight revenue, trains being used to carry construction materials.) While population numbers for the suburbs tripled over the next 50 years, rail transportation declined and became non existant around 1968 to the suburbs. Everyone used the highway to get to work. The population is still growing on the shoreline, and using the Connecticut Turnpike (now just plain old Interstate 95) is really painful in terms of costs of gasoline vs. time expended getting anywhere. And the railroad (Metro North, I believe) now is running three round trips daily between New Haven and the suburbs. I believe the reason for increased growth in rail traffic is because it's easier and cheaper to use. The Long Island Rail Road is another example. The LIRR is the only passenger railroad in the US to stay profitable. (I think the LIRR now belongs to the State of New York.) This is because Long Island reached capacity to handle vehicles on the Long Island Expressway a long time ago... plus, it costs a bundle to park in New York City. Population has boomed out on the Island- for the same reason it did in Connecticut- the vast majority of people wanted to move out of the city, and did. Erik [/quote] The difference of course comes in comparing freight market share losses with passenger share losses. I think it is more apparent that the Interstate Highway System took passengers off the rails, while conversely it is less apparent that the railroads lost any meaningful freight market shares to the Interstate Highway System. If anything, what the railroads lost to the highways (short haul, small lot) was the stuff they were losing money on anyway.
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