JonathanS wrote: Railroads didn't just look at the cost of maintenance of the locomotives. There was and is a much larger picture. Because diesels are much easier on the track than were the large steam locomotives of the day the size of the rail could be reduced at the next replacement.
Railroads didn't just look at the cost of maintenance of the locomotives. There was and is a much larger picture. Because diesels are much easier on the track than were the large steam locomotives of the day the size of the rail could be reduced at the next replacement.
The knowledgeable studies expected that diesel-electrics would be harder on track than steam engines. Your comment is something that has arisen since that time and is parroted, but I've never seen a study that supports it.
And the number of people needed to maintain the track could be reduced. Both yield savings which do not show up in locomotive operations and maintenance costs.
Do you believe this? The 79 mph rule had more to do with reduced investment -- that, and the desperate attempt to keep operating ratios from deteriorating -- which led to huge deferred maintenance and capital investment deficits. "Normalized" maintenance requirements, according to at least one study, increased slightly as the result of dieselization.
Additionally, since the diesel locomotive develops higher TE than does steam at low speeds the railroads were able to eliminate many helper districts.
Baloney. Never happened. The diesel-electrics overheated at slow speeds and generally could operate only in the range where Steam power developed superior TE. And that points to an advantage for Steam. For units of equivalent weight on the drivers, the Steam engine could move equivalent tonnage faster on grades than a Diesel-electric locomotive which could not develop the TE, and which therefore slowed down to get on the point of the TE curve where it could continue to move the train, which either burned up the traction motors or ... required helpers where the Steam engine did not in order to maintain the speed and TE of the Steam engine.
Not only the operating crews of the helpers were eliminated, but the hostlers, night watchmen, maintenance crews, roundhouses, coaling towers, and everything else needed to support the helpers. Some 2nd tracks and passing sidings were eliminated because of the elimination of the helper moves. So additional savings in crews, building maintenance, local property tax, etc. None of which shows up as locomotive operations and maintenance costs.
Except that the net financial investment in engine facilities doubled during the period of dieselization. Property taxes likely went up. As a percentage of total costs, engine crew costs were higher in 1957 than at any time prior to that in the 20th Century.
The change was made becuse a lot of factors came together at that time to make diesels much more attractive to railroads. It wasn't a simple comparison of the cost of operation and maintenance of one locomotive versus the other.
Yet, most people who argue this point make very simple comparisons. And it isn't good enough to simply offer that there were "a lot" of factors. Those studies which have, in fact, examined the determinative factors in detail, including the effect of financing charges and economic service lives, came to different conclusions, but also allowed that, if certain factors were left out of the examination, the diesel-electric was the clear winner based on fuel cost savings.
It cannot be gainsaid that the cost of fuel was the primary motivating factor behind dieselization. Anything else was ancillary. The supposed cost savings in many of those ancillary areas were the natural result of post-War economic changes, not the change-over in motive power. That included shut-down of many branch line facilities as the growth of highways and the rapid decline of many branch lines permitted/compelled consolidation of facilities. That happened irrespective of motive power type, and the economic record on that point is reinforced by the decline in carloadings resulting in fewer trains, fewer locomotives in general, and an overall need to consolidate facilities as a result. Even at that, the cost of consolidation of facilities was high; and as noted above the total cost of such facilities more than doubled the cost of such facilities during the Steam era.
Bucyrus wrote: Lee Koch wrote: And you didn't answer my question: why did the railroads stick with diesel if diesel is so inferior to steam? Why aren't they changing now? Why are the locomotive manufacturers' books backlogged with orders for new DIESEL power?Because the switch to diesel was at least perceived to be cost effective, and likewise with the potential switch back to coal, which is being pushed by the rising cost of oil. The reason the switch is not happening now is because it has not arrived yet. If the bottom somehow fell out of oil prices, it probably would not arrive.
Lee Koch wrote: And you didn't answer my question: why did the railroads stick with diesel if diesel is so inferior to steam? Why aren't they changing now? Why are the locomotive manufacturers' books backlogged with orders for new DIESEL power?
And you didn't answer my question: why did the railroads stick with diesel if diesel is so inferior to steam? Why aren't they changing now? Why are the locomotive manufacturers' books backlogged with orders for new DIESEL power?
Because the switch to diesel was at least perceived to be cost effective, and likewise with the potential switch back to coal, which is being pushed by the rising cost of oil. The reason the switch is not happening now is because it has not arrived yet. If the bottom somehow fell out of oil prices, it probably would not arrive.
Railroads didn't just look at the cost of maintenance of the locomotives. There was and is a much larger picture. Because diesels are much easier on the track than were the large steam locomotives of the day the size of the rail could be reduced at the next replacement. And the number of people needed to maintain the track could be reduced. Both yield savings which do not show up in locomotive operations and maintenance costs.
Additionally, since the diesel locomotive develops higher TE than does steam at low speeds the railroads were able to eliminate many helper districts. Not only the operating crews of the helpers were eliminated, but the hostlers, night watchmen, maintenance crews, roundhouses, coaling towers, and everything else needed to support the helpers. Some 2nd tracks and passing sidings were eliminated because of the elimination of the helper moves. So additional savings in crews, building maintenance, local property tax, etc. None of which shows up as locomotive operations and maintenance costs.
There also was a movement in many citys to prohibit, or highly regulate steam locomotives. New York City is the most known example of that. Chicago prohibited steam locomotives that stayed in the city, that is switchers and transfer locomotives, and was headed toward an outright ban in the NY City mold. Detroit didn't have a ban, but heavily fined railroads if there was visible smoke from a steam locomotive, and had a force of officers that monitored the railroads for compliance. Many other cities were threatening to follow. It didn't make sense to make up a train, drag it 5 miles with a diesel, turn it over to steam until the next town, turn it over to a diesel through that town, turn it back over to steam again until another town with a ban was encountered, etc. etc. etc.
Another question that needs to be addressed in this matter is financing. I doubt that anything like a return to steam locomotion could be internally financed. Any consortium of banks or other lenders would ask a lot of pointed questions about why any railroad would want to spend that much money on what is commonly perceived to be an obsolescent technology. These questions would need to be answered to the lender's satisfaction before any money could be obtained.
wsherrick wrote: Now it's your turn. I asked you a question a few posts back and you still haven't responded to it yet. I'll repeat it for you.Why did the US Railroad Industry LOSE money after it dieselized? Or more specifically why did the Return On Investment fall by 1960 to half of what it was in 1945?
Now it's your turn. I asked you a question a few posts back and you still haven't responded to it yet. I'll repeat it for you.
Why did the US Railroad Industry LOSE money after it dieselized? Or more specifically why did the Return On Investment fall by 1960 to half of what it was in 1945?
Simple: competition from the trucking industry, which did not have to pay for the upkeep of it's infrastructure. And you didn't answer my question: why did the railroads stick with diesel if diesel is so inferior to steam? Why aren't they changing now? Why are the locomotive manufacturers' books backlogged with orders for new DIESEL power?
Mr. Koch:
I took a look and, sorry, didn't find any studies that show diesel to be superior to anything.
The only objective comparison to steam and diesel costs ever done was by H.F Brown and his study showed clearly that modern steam of the 1950's was cheaper to buy, operate and maintain than any compared diesel. His report came out in 1960 I believe. There is another study done by Thomas Thelander a contemporary of Brown which supports Brown's conclusion,however; I have not read it so I can't quote from it. I believe Thelander studied the Santa Fe as they dieselized and found similiar results as Brown.
Now fast forward to today. The study quoted by M. Sol and myself,(The Economics of Coal as a Locomotive Fuel on US Class One Railroads) published in February of this year has these figures which I'll restate even though they are stated earlier in the thread here. The US Railroad Industry spent $8.1 BILLION dollars on diesel fuel in 2006. If the railroads were still steam powered and burned the equivalent amount in coal the cost would be $3.0 Billion. A savings of 62%. That's a $5.1 Billion dollars worth of savings. I believe he figured this at the old steam thermal efficiency average of 6%. Reciprocating Steam Locomotives built today with available technology would have thermal efficiencies of 12 to15% leading to a futher reducing of the cost of coal. A cost ratio of 14:1 coal vs. diesel at today's costs. So I guess that serves up a whole plate full of food for thought.
....That's a subject I've wondered about since we now have space age insulation that could be put in place under the boiler jacket and as just stated above, make the unit much more efficient. Especially in the colder weather times. Surely, the material we have now would make a difference to what was used 50 plus years ago.
Quentin
Alex V. wrote:It seems to me that if a modern day steam locomotive was well insulated it would retain more of the heat, therefore be more efficient. Yes?
You are absolutely correct about that. In fact, insulation is one of the characteristics that seperate modern steam from those of tradition. The new rack locomotives built for the Swiss cog railroad go all night without a fire in them and they keep a working pressure on the gauge all night.
Lee Koch wrote: This topic has been discusse in great detail in several other threads (enter "electrification").
This topic has been discusse in great detail in several other threads (enter "electrification").
I did. It shows 1,625 entries. Could you please be more specific?
One of the more recent threads being "Electrification, Why not tax incentives?".
Because tax incentives distort markets and legitimate investment decision making.
I'll leave it to you to check it out ...
This is kind of a "I disagree with you but I'll leave it up to you to do my homework for me to find out why" kind of an answer.
... there were quite a few educated posts with concrete figures based on actual feasability studies done by freight railroads. Interestingly, said studies showed diesel traction to be superior economically to any other form of traction. I'm still in favor of widespread electrification in North America.
Could you please identify the specific studies?
wsherrick wrote: I am not opposed to electrification at all. I just want to see some figures about how cost effective it would be to electrify the tens of thousands of miles of Class One Railroad in this country. How much would it cost? How long would it take the industry to recoup these costs?How much would that save over burning coal directly in a firebox? The United States has no lack of coal in all of its forms. And why can't you burn these bio-fuels in the firebox as well. Why is it better to burn them in a power plant, then transmit the power through thousands of miles of catenary, then convert it to tractive effort at the rail? I'm open to your case. Let's see the numbers.
I am not opposed to electrification at all. I just want to see some figures about how cost effective it would be to electrify the tens of thousands of miles of Class One Railroad in this country. How much would it cost? How long would it take the industry to recoup these costs?
How much would that save over burning coal directly in a firebox? The United States has no lack of coal in all of its forms. And why can't you burn these bio-fuels in the firebox as well. Why is it better to burn them in a power plant, then transmit the power through thousands of miles of catenary, then convert it to tractive effort at the rail?
I'm open to your case. Let's see the numbers.
This topic has been discusse in great detail in several other threads (enter "electrification"). One of the more recent threads being "Electrification, Why not tax incentives?". I'll leave it to you to check it out, but there were quite a few educated posts with concrete figures based on actual feasability studies done by freight railroads.
Interestingly, said studies showed diesel traction to be superior economically to any other form of traction. I'm still in favor of widespread electrification in North America.
Lee Koch wrote: wsherrick wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.Do you have any figures to support your supposition that total electrification would be the "evolved," choice. I think that generating enough electric power with a windmill, for instance, to run a railroad with is wishful thinking. I guess any point of view that supports modern steam is not, "evolved," but based simply on nostalgia and wishful thinking and not loads of data to support it.I believe what Phoebe Vet is trying to say (and I have to agree) is that if you're going to replace diesel with some other technology, it would be foolish to replace the entire locomotive fleets with motive power married to ONE energy source, when you could create more long term energy independence by electrifying. Sure, coal is cheaper now, but will it be in 30 years? What about emmissions? It is much easier to filter emmissions from ONE coal fired power plant than from hundreds of coalfired locos. When coal gets too expensive, switch your source of electric power, keep your electric locomotives!The short-sightedness of re-introducing steam powered locos can be seen in the transportation policies of former East Germany. The Central Commitee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany kept steam locomotives in service right up to the end in 1989. The original reason being that they could not afford to convert the entire fleet to diesel or electric all at once. The final phasing out of steam kept getting delayed from one five-year plan to the next. That didn't stop the CC from mandating (steam) rebuilds from coal to oil fired in the early 70's, only to convert them back to coal during the oil crisis. Then reconvert them to oil starting in the late 80's. Who knows how long this would have gone on had the Wall not fallen! In the long run, they would have saved money had they phased out steam as intended by the late 70's. Railroads are in the business of making money. They would not have phased out steam if diesel had not been overall less expensive! And it is not just a matter of the cost of any certain type of fuel.
wsherrick wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.Do you have any figures to support your supposition that total electrification would be the "evolved," choice. I think that generating enough electric power with a windmill, for instance, to run a railroad with is wishful thinking. I guess any point of view that supports modern steam is not, "evolved," but based simply on nostalgia and wishful thinking and not loads of data to support it.
Phoebe Vet wrote: When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.
When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.
Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.
Do you have any figures to support your supposition that total electrification would be the "evolved," choice. I think that generating enough electric power with a windmill, for instance, to run a railroad with is wishful thinking. I guess any point of view that supports modern steam is not, "evolved," but based simply on nostalgia and wishful thinking and not loads of data to support it.
I believe what Phoebe Vet is trying to say (and I have to agree) is that if you're going to replace diesel with some other technology, it would be foolish to replace the entire locomotive fleets with motive power married to ONE energy source, when you could create more long term energy independence by electrifying. Sure, coal is cheaper now, but will it be in 30 years? What about emmissions? It is much easier to filter emmissions from ONE coal fired power plant than from hundreds of coalfired locos. When coal gets too expensive, switch your source of electric power, keep your electric locomotives!
The short-sightedness of re-introducing steam powered locos can be seen in the transportation policies of former East Germany. The Central Commitee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany kept steam locomotives in service right up to the end in 1989. The original reason being that they could not afford to convert the entire fleet to diesel or electric all at once. The final phasing out of steam kept getting delayed from one five-year plan to the next. That didn't stop the CC from mandating (steam) rebuilds from coal to oil fired in the early 70's, only to convert them back to coal during the oil crisis. Then reconvert them to oil starting in the late 80's. Who knows how long this would have gone on had the Wall not fallen! In the long run, they would have saved money had they phased out steam as intended by the late 70's.
Railroads are in the business of making money. They would not have phased out steam if diesel had not been overall less expensive! And it is not just a matter of the cost of any certain type of fuel.
Yes, but steam will not require an infrastructure change as large as that of electrification, nor will steam require an infrastructure change sized for a total commitment to a motive power change as electrification does. It is true that coal represents a commitment to one fuel as opposed to electrification, which can substitute fuels. However, how much of a drawback is that commitment? The frequency and magnitude of fuel price fluctuations is not too likely to force a change in motive power before it wears out anyway. And even though the choice to replace steam with diesels may have been economically correct, the economics are shifting in favor of coal as opposed to diesel.
Lee Koch wrote:I believe what Phoebe Vet is trying to say (and I have to agree) is that if you're going to replace diesel with some other technology, it would be foolish to replace the entire locomotive fleets with motive power married to ONE energy source, when you could create more long term energy independence by electrifying. Sure, coal is cheaper now, but will it be in 30 years?
Well, in fact, this is exactly what the railroads did when they dieselized.
And they did so primarily because of the cost differential in fuel.
If your supposition is correct about the dieselization process here in the United States; why did the railroads LOSE so much money after they switched over? I guess you haven't read the whole thread.
Why did the return on investment of the railroads fall to half in 1960 to what they had earned in 1945 when most railroads were steam powered. Why did the ROI fall again and again each time the railroad industry had to upgrade their diesel fleets every few years? Why is there no evidence in the statistical record to support your argument that diesels were so cost effective?
Phoebe Vet wrote: When you take nostalgia and wishful thinking out of the equation the logical path for modernization is electrification.Electricity can be manufactured with petroleum, Hydro, solar, Wind, nuclear, coal, wood, even tidal flow. A change over from one fuel source to another as the world evolves is a simple matter of new or converted power plants.If you truly want to increase the efficiency of the railroads what is needed is a national improvement of the 19th century rights of way. The twisting, turning, at grade crossing, steep hilled routes of the "old days" are holding back the 21st railroads of "today".
If you truly want to increase the efficiency of the railroads what is needed is a national improvement of the 19th century rights of way. The twisting, turning, at grade crossing, steep hilled routes of the "old days" are holding back the 21st railroads of "today".
....Many of those 19th century ROW's sure must have been pretty close to the money....Just observe how close many of them were mimicked by recent decades of Interstate highway building.
I'm sure some could be improved upon but the cost would be tremendous.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Lee Koch wrote: MichaelSol wrote: At the current U.S. average delivered cost, coal already would enjoy a 2.7:1 price advantage over the current cost of diesel fuel, adjusted to the same BTU output at 6% efficiency.If a company could justify the cost of the technology, at 32% efficiency coal would enjoy an adjusted 14:1 advantage in price.Take your pick, I guess. But you can't just compare fuel price. There is no longer a sufficient infrastructure for steam power (coaling stations, water towers, backshops), not to mention the increased costs for retraining/hiring personnel. Even modern steam would be more labor intensive than diesel.I have to agree that in the long run electrification would be a more realistic option. There are already myriad ways of generating electricity, and who knows what the future holds in store in the way of viable possibilities (hydrogen fuel cells, bio-gas, cold fusion , etc.). Once the caternary is up, it would be relatively easy to switch from one primary energy source to another.
MichaelSol wrote: At the current U.S. average delivered cost, coal already would enjoy a 2.7:1 price advantage over the current cost of diesel fuel, adjusted to the same BTU output at 6% efficiency.If a company could justify the cost of the technology, at 32% efficiency coal would enjoy an adjusted 14:1 advantage in price.Take your pick, I guess.
At the current U.S. average delivered cost, coal already would enjoy a 2.7:1 price advantage over the current cost of diesel fuel, adjusted to the same BTU output at 6% efficiency.
If a company could justify the cost of the technology, at 32% efficiency coal would enjoy an adjusted 14:1 advantage in price.
Take your pick, I guess.
But you can't just compare fuel price. There is no longer a sufficient infrastructure for steam power (coaling stations, water towers, backshops), not to mention the increased costs for retraining/hiring personnel. Even modern steam would be more labor intensive than diesel.
I have to agree that in the long run electrification would be a more realistic option. There are already myriad ways of generating electricity, and who knows what the future holds in store in the way of viable possibilities (hydrogen fuel cells, bio-gas, cold fusion , etc.). Once the caternary is up, it would be relatively easy to switch from one primary energy source to another.
According to Rhodes in his recent paper, "The Economics of Coal as A Locomotive Fuel...."
The payback to reinvest in the support structure for steam would be at the most 10 years and if modern steam is invested in at 15% thermal efficiency then the payback would begin within 5 years of changing over from diesels. M. Sol posted a link to this paper in the first page or so of this thread I believe so somebody can check and see if I got the numbers right.
The point is (again X 3) that there is no rational argument to pose against adopting modern steam for commercial use that can hold up against the vast cost difference between diesel and domestic coal.
Modelcar wrote: ...If Challenger HP has {or is being}, increased by quite a large %....and T E is up to putting it on the rail....will the driving mechanicals...rods, pins, journal bearing, etc....need to be upped in capacity....?
...If Challenger HP has {or is being}, increased by quite a large %....and T E is up to putting it on the rail....will the driving mechanicals...rods, pins, journal bearing, etc....need to be upped in capacity....?
Along with the other work done on the engine, the running gear got a good overhaul as well so I guess they are anticipating the power increases to be realized.
martin.knoepfel wrote:Does anyone know how much money UP is willing to invest to modify the Challenger? This could be the answer to the question whether they intend to save money on excursion trips or whether they have farther reaching plans.
The first set of modifications to the Challenger HAVE been done already. The firebox was extensively modified along with the double lempor installation. There have been other modifications as well. I don't know what those are.
The cost of doing this is obviously way beyond a standard overhaul. The UP has been super secret about the project. The only news about it has come from leaks and what little is on the WRC web page.
The finished result will probably end up with the Challenger's horsepower output greatly increased, perhaps in excess of 8000 HP if these modifications have the same results that have been consistently produced in other modified locomotives. I can't believe this is just for the occasional excursion, but that's only conjecture on my part.
Railway Man wrote: Gasoline imports are growing and are now more than 10% of U.S. consumption. ...Globally, there's considerable doubt whether there will be any oil to fill the new refineries presently under construction or in planning in India, Asia, and the Middle East.
...
Globally, there's considerable doubt whether there will be any oil to fill the new refineries presently under construction or in planning in India, Asia, and the Middle East.
"But there's another side to this story: A global diesel shortage is developing. While many assume that the US doesn't consume diesel, they're incorrect. While gasoline may be the fuel of choice for passenger cars, distillates power jet airplanes, trucks and railway locomotives. Diesel demand in America is actually growing more rapidly than demand for gasoline."
"To make demand even more difficult to meet, consider that more stringent environmental regulations are making it increasingly difficult to refine diesel fuels."
"For the US, the growing diesel fuel shortage won't be as easy to fix as the gasoline shortage. The US won't be able to import diesel fuel from Europe as it does with gasoline because Europe just doesn't have sufficient capacity to meet its own demand. This is good news for US refiners in the long term. Because of lack of capacity and little competition from imports, US refiners should earn high margins for processing the fuel."
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/gue/2006/0915.html
....RWM:
Thanks for the input on the subject.
Quentin: Domestic refining capacity grew at an average annual rate of 0.9% from 1998 to present. Gasoline imports are growing and are now more than 10% of U.S. consumption. Motiva has a major capacity expansion underway at Port Arthur, Texas, and Chevron is studying significant expansion at six refineries. At least one refinery in Canada has plans for significant expansion. Ethanol exports from Brazil are now at 3 million bbl/day and scheduled to grow to 10 mm bbl/day by 2018. New ethanol refining capacity under construction elsewhere in Latin America will take up much or all of the growth in Latin American motor fuels demand and pressure gasoline prices in Latin America.
Refining is a commodity business with few proprietary processes that enable the owner to charge high margins. Given the public opposition to constructing new refineries, uncertainty about likely new laws restricting CO2 emissions, and the very large investment needed, there isn't much enthusiasm for heavy investments to expand domestic capacity.
And there might not be any reason to, either. Globally, there's considerable doubt whether there will be any oil to fill the new refineries presently under construction or in planning in India, Asia, and the Middle East.
RWM
....I know, everyone has a "take" on the no refineries built since....etc.}, but somewhere I've heard conversations on that subject, we {the refineries}, have increased capacity of various one's already in existense...True or not....?
Lee Koch wrote: MichaelSol wrote: At the current U.S. average delivered cost, coal already would enjoy a 2.7:1 price advantage over the current cost of diesel fuel, adjusted to the same BTU output at 6% efficiency.If a company could justify the cost of the technology, at 32% efficiency coal would enjoy an adjusted 14:1 advantage in price.Take your pick, I guess.But you can't just compare fuel price. There is no longer a sufficient infrastructure for steam power (coaling stations, water towers, backshops), not to mention the increased costs for retraining/hiring personnel. Even modern steam would be more labor intensive than diesel.
"Labor intensive" is a meaningless phrase without context. And there is a published, well known, statistical record that shows the comment is simply untrue -- it is a comment taken from picture captions and romantic notions of old steam engines shown in old Western movies. It has no statistical basis. The cost of maintenance per ton mile, in 1957, was cheaper for modern Steam than for equivalent Diesel-electric.
That included labor.
Unless Diesel-electrics have undergone a remarkable transformation themselves -- and the numbers I posted regarding GP40s suggests they haven't -- someone will have to explain how it would cost MORE to maintain Steam than it did in the 1950s.
Infrastructure is a problem. No new refineries have been built in the U.S. since 1976. The diesel fuel infrastructure may well have reached its limit and consumption will now be determined by price rather than need.
Coal will be more generally available and at a substantially lower comparable cost and that will, indeed, be a direct result of infrastructure limitations and market price pressure.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.