.....Interesting. My feelings are we should be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Isn't that the area we're pretty sure has large deposits. I understand there are risks, but we have other risks in the world too.
Quentin
JulesB wrote: Oil is Ambiotic it turns out, not fossill.
Oil is Ambiotic it turns out, not fossill.
I think you mean "abiotic"- not associated with living things.
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
JulesB wrote: The oil prduction at Prudhoe bay is not declining!The well heads came in at 1700 lbs. sq,in Artisian, and still maintain that pressure. The first full day of oil tranport thru the pipeline was 1.7 million barrals. It now stands at 1.2 million barrals a day. The oil pundits claimed Prudoe Bay's fields would last 20 years, it's now 32 years. As noted it's still maintains it's Artesian pressure, it's the pipe thats wearing out! If you look closley you will see that the pipe saddles (that support the pipe above the perma frost) are wide enough to accomodate 2 lines.Gull Island, is a few miles off of Prudoe Bay oil fields. It's a bigger find than Prodoe Bay! I worked on the pipeline and made some friends with some execs rather high up in the food chain. They unbeknownst to one another have told me Gull Island will start production when oils hits $150.00 a barrel. The Gull find became classified as a hedge against a dictatorship-s holding the US hostage.Russia found oil at 40,000 feet. Ain't no Dinasours down there. Oil is Ambiotic it turns out, not fossill.
The oil prduction at Prudhoe bay is not declining!
The well heads came in at 1700 lbs. sq,in Artisian, and still maintain that pressure. The first full day of oil tranport thru the pipeline was 1.7 million barrals. It now stands at 1.2 million barrals a day. The oil pundits claimed Prudoe Bay's fields would last 20 years, it's now 32 years. As noted it's still maintains it's Artesian pressure, it's the pipe thats wearing out! If you look closley you will see that the pipe saddles (that support the pipe above the perma frost) are wide enough to accomodate 2 lines.
Gull Island, is a few miles off of Prudoe Bay oil fields. It's a bigger find than Prodoe Bay! I worked on the pipeline and made some friends with some execs rather high up in the food chain. They unbeknownst to one another have told me Gull Island will start production when oils hits $150.00 a barrel. The Gull find became classified as a hedge against a dictatorship-s holding the US hostage.
Russia found oil at 40,000 feet. Ain't no Dinasours down there. Oil is Ambiotic it turns out, not fossill.
At $150 a barrel this field it will have to compete against oil shale, F-T diesel fuel, and a whole lot of tar sands.
Interesting they'd divulge top secret information to you but not to their investors.
The BP Working Partners in their quarterly filings to the SEC says production from all North Slope fields is ~700,000 bbl/day. Alyeska Pipeline filings with the state of Alaska says YTD average is 735,884 bbl/day. The Wall Street Journal says that Prudhoe Bay peaked in 1988 at 1.6 mm bbl/day and has since dropped to 388,000 bbl/day; overall North Slope peaked at 2.01 mm bbl/day same year and has since dropped to ~ 730,000 bbl/day.
RWM
gabe wrote: tatans wrote:Wouldn't it have to go through a country to the north called Canada?Not at all; the current plan is to build a bridge.GabeP.S. They put me here because they think I am slow, eh?
tatans wrote:Wouldn't it have to go through a country to the north called Canada?
Not at all; the current plan is to build a bridge.
Gabe
P.S. They put me here because they think I am slow, eh?
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton wrote: gabe wrote: tatans wrote:Wouldn't it have to go through a country to the north called Canada? Not at all; the current plan is to build a bridge.GabeP.S. They put me here because they think I am slow, eh?I think it would be much better to tunnel underneath. Avoids compaints about blocking scenic views, cutting down the middle of private property, etc.
gabe wrote: tatans wrote:Wouldn't it have to go through a country to the north called Canada? Not at all; the current plan is to build a bridge.GabeP.S. They put me here because they think I am slow, eh?
I think it would be much better to tunnel underneath. Avoids compaints about blocking scenic views, cutting down the middle of private property, etc.
Alaska wouldn't be on the great-circle route to Hawaii, would it?
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Railway Man wrote: At $150 a barrel this field it will have to compete against oil shale, F-T diesel fuel, and a whole lot of tar sands. The BP Working Partners in their quarterly filings to the SEC says production from all North Slope fields is ~700,000 bbl/day. RWM
The BP Working Partners in their quarterly filings to the SEC says production from all North Slope fields is ~700,000 bbl/day.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
F-T = Fischer-Tropsch, a process used to create liquid hydrocarbon fuel from coal or natural gas. Invented by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsche in the 1920s, used by Germany and Japan during WWII and South Africa during the apartheid era to supplant shortfalls in petroleum supply, still in broad use in South Africal by Sasol, and currently being upscaled in the U.S. to produce #2DF from coal and petroleum coke.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_trope
700,000 bbl (petroleum) = 30,400,000 gallons (U.S.)
30,400,000 gallons = 1,013 30,000 gallon tankcars
1,013 tankcars = 10 trains a day each way. No need for double track there!
CShaveRR wrote:Actually, diesel fuel is hauled in 26000-gallon tank cars (30000 would be too heavy). So add one more train per day, anyway.
I figured you would comment on that -- and I was figuring on 286K tankcars instead of 263K, which is what I would specify for such an operation. (Out here in the wild west we're using 27,000-gallon cars for #2DF but 26,000 are common too.)
Railway Man wrote: 1,013 tankcars = 10 trains a day each way. No need for double track there!
On a related train of thought....There is a big to-do in N.D., S.D., Neb., and Ok going on now about a proposed oil pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma. Why wouldn't rail transportation be a viable alternative in this case. It would seem that a similar gazillion dollar investment into existing rail lines would be as good a bet as the pipeline?
20-22 trains/day is well within the capacity of single track with CTC or CBTC with sidings at, say, 10-mile intervals, with possibly some second main track on any severe adverse gradients and on either side of terminals. At 40-50 trains/day, second main track is essential on long grades and it becomes difficult to find enough time for maintenance windows, especially in adverse terrain and climates. At 60-70 trains/day, second main track is clearly needed.
Rail is less expensive than pipeline on initial cost but more costly to operate. If we're comparing single-track with CTC to 48" pipe, a back-of-the-envelope difference is 1:2, but the operating cost penalty is 2:1. That's a cost hole rail can't dig out of. (Pipelines don't have to deal with that messy empty backhaul, etc.)
Here's a more representative video of the actual operational characteristics of the Osprey.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3a8--A1vsg One would think it was designed and built by Al Qaeda Aerospace. It's certainly the most efficient method of killing marines yet devised.
karldotcom wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKxpvgxCT4"If you don't finish you're schooling....you might end up in Iraq" - John Kerry >>>It's a shame, really, especially since four times that amount was spent on the Osprey helicopter, and it still doesn't work right. - al
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKxpvgxCT4
"If you don't finish you're schooling....you might end up in Iraq" - John Kerry
>>>It's a shame, really, especially since four times that amount was spent on the Osprey helicopter, and it still doesn't work right. - al
I know this is a very old thread (from 2007) but this subject has now come up again. The A2A Railway is serious about building a line from Fairbanks to northern Alberta where it would connect with the rest of North America's rail freight system.
The odds are long but I hope it happens.
Fred M Cain The A2A Railway is serious about building a line from Fairbanks to northern Alberta where it would connect with the rest of North America's rail freight system. The odds are long but I hope it happens.
What is the potential traffic that would justify the investment?
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
There have been studies done. Run the new line from Anchorage doen through Canada and connect to the line that currently exists north of Vancouver, BC. Many US railraods run into canada and the CN and CP run down through the US. No big deal there.
It would be a long route and expensive to build, BUT, the economic benefits to both the US and Canada would pay for the building costs over a number of years. Canada gets the ecomonic benefits of development along the line as well as direct access to Alaska. The US gets the benefits of direct access to Alaska instead of having to ferry everything up by barge as well as the products from along the line.
Caldreamer
caldreamerThe US gets the benefits of direct access to Alaska instead of having to ferry everything up by barge as well as the products from along the line.
The problem has always been (for as long as I've watched this, including the proposals to Bridge The Bering Strait) that the line required is relatively long and wandering, going through the Yukon Territories where both construction and emergency access are very limited, and would be subject to truly terrifying weather conditions during much of the year. If you have to amortize the construction and operating-maintenance costs into the actual tonnage going to and from Alaska, at rates competitive with existing services, you rapidly realize that an increased 'barge bridge' from coastal rail north of, say, Vancouver to rail connections at the various Alaskan ports is a better solution. Even potential 'Asian land bridge' traffic across the Straits (presumably via a double-track electrified railroad on the Russian side) might be far better transferred to containerships at logical Alaskan points rather than negotiate so fragile and frequently-interdictable a route as one of the 'inland gateway' lines proposed.
Much of the recent planning also assumed containerbridge service from Asian sources. It is arguable to me if this traffic can still be assumed to be of the density seen at the 'peak' of the Chinese trade-deficit-worsening years, even if national policy toward tariffs changes in the 2020s and the American economy isn't so further deflicted that it can continue to 'consume' large amounts of Asian production.
I don't really 'see' any point in using such a line for mass grain shipments, although there's a certain superficial joy in having 'bidirectional' traffic generation to make the numbers look better. The same might be said for prospective natural-gas-product or dilbit exporting traffic, or Alaskan crude not run through the pipeline.
Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing the line built, and I have some proposals for how to do it. The thing is that the economics are as dubious, and in some respects just as 'gamed', as building the new Acelas as 220mph equipment was. And this line is, principally, economic rather than 'strategic' in any real sense... you'd likely interdict traffic for the better part of a year just with a couple of carefully-initiated avalanches started with homemade drones. Don't even think about the cost of attempting -- ineffectually -- to prevent that.
Will ignore the capital funds. Weather is the big problem. ROW over permafrost ? Very difficult. Frost heave of track ? Different type of steel for rails to perform in the extreme cold ? You don't want pull aparts or rail fractures? Might need rail joints every few hundred feet if temp extremes -60 to + 90 ? Operating crews ? Would probably need a method of carrying operating crews in a crew car ? That means all locos have HEP capability.
How would you house needed crews and various signal, switch, track, loco, car maintainers. PTC ??? How do you solve the problem of air for brakes when temps get so cold ? Does ROW have walking space for crew to inspect and service train upon breakdowns ? Might need snowmobiles in a tool car for access to tain problems. How do you get electricity to signals, switches, and switch heaters ?
How does engineer access loco's machinery on a standard road loco's walkway in cold and snow ? How to store diesel when it will congeel at lower temps. Locos will need fuel and oil heaters.
It is easy to draw lines on a map - it is much more difficult to make those lines into a profitable economic reality.
Railroading is not the 'new' technological marvel that it was from 1840-1910 and is not the 'hot thing' to invest in in the 21st Century.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Good points all! Let me provide a couple of devil's-advocate alternatives "for the sake of discussion"...
blue streak 1ROW over permafrost? Very difficult.
You might be able to adopt the heat-pipe solution that was used for the Alaska Pipeline footings. Of course, that was for already-insulated standards that were 'few and far between' on the ground...
Suspect that actual construction would involve trenching and some strategic 'insulation' layers under geotextile and rock ballast. Assume very careful drainage, perhaps involving vaults.
Frost heave of track?
Would involve careful drainage and both grade/subgrade construction out of relatively stable material -- inherent in doing the deep rock ballast above. Presumably any preferential heave or displacement in the subgrade would be handled by 'keeping it frozen' -- YMMV as to whether normal engineering techniques on permafrozen subgrades will work for the anticipated heavy and fairly rapid train service necessary for economic utilization...
Different type of steel for rails to perform in the extreme cold?
These exist, but I think it more likely that different hardening strategy would be more important than the actual steel composition. Keep in mind that it would be possible to back-insulate the rails and actually use some version of heat tape to help with physical temperature extreme fluctuations between 'normalization' adjustments at fixed expansion locations.
You don't want pull aparts or rail fractures? Might need rail joints every few hundred feet if temp extremes -60 to + 90?
It is not that bad if your rail alloy can be kept safely above the brittle-transition temperature ... or is a heavy enough section kept adequately cushioned to prevent shock from causing propagation of any cracking. Note that any elastomeric pads in a Pandrol-like rail fixation system would have to be 'redesigned' to work properly at lower temperatures -- this is a somewhat exotic use of alternative technology, but nothing requiring particularly unusual materials (I am tempted to note the analogue with lunar-rover tires)
Operating crews?
An interesting issue, even assuming you can't get some kind of exemption from normal hours-of-service requirement, perhaps along the lines of towboat crewing. The alternative I was looking at, specifically, involved the construction of a 'safe' dormitory on top of a MATE-like fuel tender (which nowadays would probably double as hybrid-battery storage) where the multiple crews could bunk, weather out a derailment or microweather stoppage, etc. There is also the possibility of helicopter recrew, probably more to 'fixed forward bases' at relatively safe or accessible points along the routes and not 'directly' to trains. Some fun possibility for deadheading, too, if the traffic density is high enough.
... That means all locos have HEP capability.
Interestingly, not that much additional cost or problem -- see the current generation of PRIIA-capable locomotives which can 'reconfigure' one of the traction-inverter modules to produce the necessary 60Hz AC on the fly without making it incapable of producing traction current when necessary. Remember we are talking a well-insulated envelope and passages, just as for the locomotive carbodies (see below).
How would you house needed crews and various signal, switch, track, loco, car maintainers.
ASSume that most of them will either be forward-based, or flown into base facilities and then transported where needed. Not much use for Brandt units as built -- their tires would shatter. Much experience with cold-weather vehicle operation was made during the good old BMEWS days, particularly at places like (shudder!) Thule: if you could get trucks to run at -50+ there, I don't think Jack London's Yukon is that much worse...
PTC ???
Necessary, in a variety of ways, including some that specifically aren't in the mandate -- like the provision of explicit ELTs for those inevitable derailments down into snow-filled ravines.
My suspicion is that some form of CBTC overlay operating very much like the old QNS&L would be provided as a 'backstop' to the wireless connectivity and network provision -- this would simply use mutual communication between locomotive consists in 'proximity' to track location (and the chance of mutual 'interference'!) and would be able to slow or stop traffic in conditions of low signal integrity, excessive perceived multipath, or similar things. Of course there would be no 'fixed' external signal overlay, or particular need for one.
How do you solve the problem of air for brakes when temps get so cold?
As I recall, once you get below a given temperature there is so little atmospheric moisture that the provision for 'self-exhausting traps' becomes relatively slight, and other methods of desiccating brake air become possible. Presumably some version of brake control equipment that continuously monitors brakeline 'aperture' would be used (it would probably continually 'jitter' brake air pressures up and down a few psi at a known rate, and watch for things indicating impending ice blockage) and of course there's always the potential for use of ECP on 'dedicated' equipment for intermodal traffic.
Does ROW have walking space for crew to inspect and service train upon breakdowns?
It could be designed that way, and snowmobiles (or similar equipment built lighter, perhaps light enough to man-carry) could be provided. My suspicion, though, is that only a minimum of 'level' lineside clearance could be cost-effectively provided in many places the line would run, which might indicate that some means of traversing the consist under the train, or somehow using the equipment as a guide, or else some form of inspection drone capable of handling things like knuckles, replacement hoses, or toolkits ... and perhaps man-rated ... would be options for the union to get concessions for.
How do you get electricity to signals, switches, and switch heaters?
Theoretically via cables on or under the ROW structure, thoroughly sealed with modular repairability if broken or breached. Insulation to proper low-temperature standards, and periodic junction-box access as deemed appropriate.
The question of switches is interesting, as I'd think the 'best' operating model would be to fleet traffic on directional track and have as few fixed switches or crossovers as possible. You could adapt some combination of jet-engine blast and effective 'dewatering' to clear switches, perhaps using an autonomous or semi-autonomous device kept in a climate-controlled lineside 'igloo' for some of this. Likewise, much of the actual electrical 'need' could be provided via batteries kept in climate-controlled enclosures using some small proportion of power to keep them in a workable operating-temperature range. You might need careful low-oxygen copper in conductors, but again there's a wealth of knowledge on maintaining relatively primitive electronics in these very cold conditions, and much modern stuff is more compatible than that. (I happen to know, for example, how to build effective touchscreen modules that work at -40 with gloved hands, something of great value in (for example) ECP troubleshooting at midnight-sun-absence zero-dark-30 in blizzard conditions ...)
How does engineer access loco's machinery on a standard road loco's walkway in cold and snow?
He wouldn't. He can't. Assume some version of cowls with full 'inside' accessibility from one side to the other; good insulation and heating, too. Further assume some form of sealed communication between units, probably more than just a diaphragm arrangement would give. This might not need to be 'shirtsleeve' but you'd certainly need some form of thin heated gloves to do much anticipatable mechanical work. Keeping safe under some non-predictable kinds of common-mode failure that leave a consist with no usable power at all would have to be arranged. As would redundant emergency communication...
How to store diesel when it will congeal at lower temps. Locos will need fuel and oil heaters.
Much of the theoretical stuff to do this is known (for example how to handle gelling/waxing in diesel fuel stocks) in the trucking industry. Whether it is cost-effective to do 'knowledge transfer' to know-it-all railroad operating departments would remain to be seen. I'd personally not see much hope for effectively using "#1 diesel" or other low-temperature fuel kludging in modern Tier 4+ compatible power ... but perhaps that's already being done somewhere. Look for the fuel tanks to be very carefully nanoinsulated, and probably equipped with in-tank circulating heaters; there are already capable-enough inline fuel preheaters on, say, production GE locomotives to make the 'rest' of the fuel supply to locomotives simple...
Oil and engine coolant are much more involved. Note that any oiling system would have to contain effective preheating of all the critical passages, and contain a reasonable circulating preluber system, if there is any potential for the engines to be shut down long enough to chill ... easy to guess that this would happen sooner rather than later! Fortunately most of the detail design for these things exists in locomotive-specific context, and perhaps some or all the 'essential' equipment could be portably packaged and run to disabled locomotives if needed.
My approach to 'coolant' back in the day (this was a lot of days ago) was to have reserve tanks for coolant 'dumped' on shutdown, with some method to reheat them and pump the dumped coolant and additive mixture back into the engine for recovery. Presumably more modern locomotives that use 'antifreeze' mixture can be cost-effectively fitted with analogous means of heating and recirculating coolant 'as needed' and protecting adequately against either freeze damage or 'disablement' should temps go too low with the Hotstart off.
A new consideration is the DEF/SCR system that would be required for effectively-engineered new power. We have already seen problems with freezing on those pathetic Spirit F125s in California. Look for a careful detail design on all the different tanks and valves and other parts of this subsystem ... and some sort of 'run now - no backchat' provision instead of the currently-mandated '100% engine derating' that now applies when the DEF system "malfunctions"...
Overmod How to store diesel when it will congeal at lower temps. Locos will need fuel and oil heaters. Much of the theoretical stuff to do this is known (for example how to handle gelling/waxing in diesel fuel stocks) in the trucking industry. Whether it is cost-effective to do 'knowledge transfer' to know-it-all railroad operating departments would remain to be seen. I'd personally not see much hope for effectively using "#1 diesel" or other low-temperature fuel kludging in modern Tier 4+ compatible power ... but perhaps that's already being done somewhere. Look for the fuel tanks to be very carefully nanoinsulated, and probably equipped with in-tank circulating heaters; there are already capable-enough inline fuel preheaters on, say, production GE locomotives to make the 'rest' of the fuel supply to locomotives simple... Oil and engine coolant are much more involved. Note that any oiling system would have to contain effective preheating of all the critical passages, and contain a reasonable circulating preluber system, if there is any potential for the engines to be shut down long enough to chill ... easy to guess that this would happen sooner rather than later! Fortunately most of the detail design for these things exists in locomotive-specific context, and perhaps some or all the 'essential' equipment could be portably packaged and run to disabled locomotives if needed. My approach to 'coolant' back in the day (this was a lot of days ago) was to have reserve tanks for coolant 'dumped' on shutdown, with some method to reheat them and pump the dumped coolant and additive mixture back into the engine for recovery. Presumably more modern locomotives that use 'antifreeze' mixture can be cost-effectively fitted with analogous means of heating and recirculating coolant 'as needed' and protecting adequately against either freeze damage or 'disablement' should temps go too low with the Hotstart off. A new consideration is the DEF/SCR system that would be required for effectively-engineered new power. We have already seen problems with freezing on those pathetic Spirit F125s in California. Look for a careful detail design on all the different tanks and valves and other parts of this subsystem ... and some sort of 'run now - no backchat' provision instead of the currently-mandated '100% engine derating' that now applies when the DEF system "malfunctions"...
Murphy SidingWouldn't you think the Alaska Railroad and the Trans-Siberian Railroad have already tackled these issues?
Yes, plus the Scandinavian and Tibetan railroads.
MidlandMike Murphy Siding Wouldn't you think the Alaska Railroad and the Trans-Siberian Railroad have already tackled these issues? Yes, plus the Scandinavian and Tibetan railroads.
Murphy Siding Wouldn't you think the Alaska Railroad and the Trans-Siberian Railroad have already tackled these issues?
Except for the Alaska Railroad, the others are government owned and operated; and the Alaska Railroad started out as a government entity.
Huh? You mean -40 is a different -40 if you're Government owned or private enterprise?
Yes, I would think the Ruskies have this all figured out pretty well. The Trans Siberian has been around a while, in fact why not just let them be the operator on a contract basis.
Of course you're also going to have the time of it with Native issues in Canada and you will lose.
In fact the Russian's have excellent relations with their Aboriginal peoples which is something really worth looking into. Tells you something about both sides over here, maybe everyone can learn something.
MiningmanHuh? You mean -40 is a different -40 if you're Government owned or private enterprise? Yes, I would think the Ruskies have this all figured out pretty well. The Trans Siberian has been around a while, in fact why not just let them be the operator on a contract basis. Of course you're also going to have the time of it with Native issues in Canada and you will lose. In fact the Russian's have excellent relations with their Aboriginal peoples which is something really worth looking into. Tells you something about both sides over here, maybe everyone can learn something.
-40 is the same.
Government Rubles and Private Dollars are not.
Do they have good relations with their Native Peoples, or did Stalin eradicate them.
No they have superb relations with the Aboriginals people's in the North and thru Siberia. Nothing but respect and harmony with their Inuit and others. I'm no fan of the Soviet past but on this they got it right. Both sides are very cooperative , it's telling. I think both sides over here should take heed.
After updating this thread the other day, I was just absolutely amazed as to how many peopled chimed in with negative stuff again, bending over backwards to identify every possible problem or difficulty. Why do we do this? It almost seems that instead of advocating for rail, we're trying as hard as we can to make a convincing argument for NOT doing this! Why? Why just look for problems with it?
O.K. "If you can't beat 'em join 'em". Here is a REAL problem: I sent an e-mail to this Alaska to Alberta (A2A) Railway asking if there is anyway a small investor could invest in this. (What the heck? I’d throw in a few grand, sure). Guess what? No response. That is a red flag.
Here’s another red flag: There has been virtually NO news on this project since last July. That’s a BIG issue because with a scheme like this, it is absolutely critical to keep the momentum going. So, “no news is bad news”.
You know, the whole project might just have an ulterior motive. They cite the need to haul oil from the Alberta tar sands to ports in Alaska for shipping overseas since the building of pipelines is being held up for political reasons. Could this whole plan just be a method to push the Canadian government to back down and let them build a pipeline?
Needless to say, I’d love to see a physical rail connection to Alaska. This now makes at least the third time that they’ve gotten serious about building it. I’m afraid it will probably end up just like earlier attempts. Sure, it’d be nice but it’s just too darn expensive.
On the other hand, our governments, both in Canada and the U.S., have absolutely NO problem whatsoever in finding the money to build highways. Why make it so hard for rail?
Anyhow, just in case a few of you might not have seen it, here is the URL to the A2A’s website:
https://a2arail.com/
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Fred M CainOn the other hand, our governments, both in Canada and the U.S., have absolutely NO problem whatsoever in finding the money to build highways. Why make it so hard for rail?
You mean there are still railroads? I thought they went out of business years ago... [/sarcasm]
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Yesterday, the Jerusalem Rail and Transit Club had a meeting with Danny something or other, the hired professional transportation planner for the Israeli Government, and he made it clear he was non-political, gave advice when requested to the Palestinian Authority when they requested it, and expected to be in office regardless of who forms the new government with our third close-to-deadlocked election, with not only no party having a majority, but no even the left-wing-block or the right-wing-block having a majority.
He made it clear the future in Israel is rail. He said neither Tel Aviv nor Jerusalem will stop with light rail, but both will progress to mostly- underground Metros. And rail lines will serve all parts of the country, with heavily-used lines electrified. The private auto cannot do the job, even with time-shared autonomous vehicles.
Dave,
That is most certainly good news! Glad someone overseas at least has THEIR head together.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.