Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
High Speed Rail proponents take note: THIS is the right way to develop a HSR project
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by TomDiehl</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by futuremodal</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by TomDiehl</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by futuremodal</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by jeaton</i> <br /><br />2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed? <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations. <br /> <br />The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight? <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead] <br /> <br />Why is this so hard to grasp? <br /> <br />When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company. <br /> <br />Try this for size: <br /> <br />Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs. <br /> <br />Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs. <br /> <br />Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs. <br /> <br />If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset. <br /> <br />Evolve, please. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight? <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />If I may keep this veering within the veered context aka captivity, I will name more than one area of the country where a single Class I is the only rail service provider <b>for it's rail shipping needs</b>: <br /> <br />Southern Idaho (UP) <br />Eastern Montana (BNSF) <br />Northern Montana (BNSF) <br />Northwestern Montana (BNSF) <br />Western North Dakota (BNSF) <br />Western Wyoming (UP) <br />Southern Nevada (UP) <br />Southern Arizona (UP) <br />Northern Arizona (BNSF) <br />Eastern Oregon (UP) <br />North Central Washington (BNSF) <br />Northwestern South Dakota (BNSF) <br />*Northern Nevada (UP) <br />*All of Utah (UP) <br />*Eastern Colorado (UP) <br /> <br />*(Yeah, I know. BNSF supposedly was granted operating rights over the "Central Corridor" through Northern Nevada, Northern Utah, and Eastern Colorado, but from what I understand BNSF isn't too interested in using these rights to provide real time competition to UP for online traffic) <br /> <br />I haven't even mentioned the captive areas east of the Mississippi, nor in Canada. Nor have I mentioned the carload customers who are captive e.g. whose products are predicated on shipment directly from the production facility by rail. <br /> <br />Case closed. <br /> <br />Now, can we please go back to the topic of HSR for freight? Thank you. <br />
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy