In the November 2008 issue - once again - you could read about the electrification of freight RR´s.
Even as I am a "friend" of electrification, I also see the problems. Over here in Europe we have a dense network of electrified lines. But our distances are shorter. Electrification means also maintenance. As it did happen more than once, a simple bird can cause a shutdown of the system, sending trains on detours until the problem is solved, by workers which are not too far away (because of the shorter distances). Imagine, somewhere in Montana a problem - in the first moment by unknown reasons - shuts down the mainline. The overhead wire is broken or a bird is responsible for a shortcut, to name just this (set in your own choice). It will take hours to find out what did happen and finally to repair it. Heavy snowfall can be a problem also (rethink the article how Portland [and others] light rail is managing this problem). And, and.
I do not want to say, all is bad and you cannot manage the problems. You may say the NEC is a vital showcase how it can work. Yes I say, but thats on a dens used line AND also in an area which is not too remote in most of the places, means most places are -more or less- easy to reach for repairs etc.
So, built the High Speed line LA to San Francisco (extend it at least to Sacramento etc.) but do not string wire over Donner Pass etc.
I while ago I would have written, string wire over Donner Pass (and others) so an electric engine can be used as pusher. (Well, well, know that there must be room for the overhead wire and the tunnels etc. must be cleared). But meanwhile it would take more time to stop the train put on the pusher set, return the pusher etc. Also with ECP there is is one more reason to not stop the train .
What do you think about that.
Herby DA
The answer is "ECONOMICS"! Economics based on tonnage, frequency, distance, environment, and if short or long range investment considered, How many tons per train? What is the fewest number of trains a day? What is the distance(s) of the traffic route? How is the envronment affected if or if not done and how? Return on investment expected within 12 months? 12 years? 50 years?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
This time last year I would have put the likelihood of electrification of any portion of the contiguous U.S. freight railroad network during the next 10 years as 5%. Now I would put the likelihood of electrification of some portion at 50%. What's changed is (1) the need to have more predictable energy cost (2) trends in emissions regulations (3) improved interest on the part of government in participating in the capital cost (4) changes in train-control technology that reduce the problem of EMF interference (5) desire for longer, heavier, faster trains.
RWM
Railway Man This time last year I would have put the likelihood of electrification of any portion of the contiguous U.S. freight railroad network during the next 10 years as 5%. Now I would put the likelihood of electrification of some portion at 50%. What's changed is (1) the need to have more predictable energy cost (2) trends in emissions regulations (3) improved interest on the part of government in participating in the capital cost (4) changes in train-control technology that reduce the problem of EMF interference (5) desire for longer, heavier, faster trains. RWM
Wow - funny how 2 reasonable and intelligent people - no, professionals in the industry - can have such wildly diverging views. To wit: I'd reverse those percentages - fair to good a year or two ago, about zilch now. Main reason; Capital ($) availability and rates (also "Capitol" availability, too, now with a Democratic administration, I suppose - not going to touch the "rate" component, though !).
I'm an electrification proponent, and until the last year or so I thought the ready availability of loan money at historically pretty low rates for big projects would lead to wires going up soon, for most of the same reasons you cite. However, events of the past 2 months and business news headlines make it seem like any expensive project is going to have a hard time lining up the money needed, at least in the commercial marketplace. EDIT - add: I think the era of easy money is over, at least for the forseeable future - the U.S. Govt.'s budget continuing to run at ever-larger fiscal deficits and the booming national debt are going to have a big and adverse impact on the market for and the availability of loan money - "giant sucking sound", I fear.
One point I'll concede is that any of the Big 6 railroads could make a good business case for it - probably objectively better than many other long-term investment deals (think real estate development, such as condos, housing, casinos, etc.). The often-unmentioned "secret" is that their "free cash flows" are pretty stable, mainly due to the on-going allowance of depreciation deductions for historically sunk-cost roadbed, structures, and other fixed-plant faciltiies, etc. So if they were to finance it internally, yeah, they could probably pull it off, in a normal world. But will Wall Street - both the debt issuers and the greedy quarterly-statement-watching stockholders (think CSX's TCI) let them ?
Otherwise, we're looking at governmental involvement - see RWM's (3) above - but I think that as much as they'd like too, their plate is too full with higher-profile consumer-and-voter-sensitive matters such as mortgage and foreclosure refinancing and relief, auto industry relief, corner grocery store bailouts [mild sarcasm], etc.
Plus, all of the rest of your reasons - (1), (2), (4), and (5) - aren't really new. Maybe something in the EMF interference aspect changed in the last year - I'm a civl engineer, not an EE nor a signaling expert as you are - so I'll defer to your view on that point. But otherwise, all of them have been around for the last 30+ years, and have gotten more emphasis in the last 5 - 10 years.
That said, I greatly respect your [RWM's] very informed insights, opinions and analyses as evidence by your many posts here. So please tell me - what am I missing or misunderstanding here ?
- Paul North.
The economy is the major factor, and economics have not yet brought electronic brakes. Obviously, the railroads are doing okay without worrying too much about efficiency.
Electrification should be instituted the same way we finally are getting PTC -- by government mandate. Just let government assume operation of all the tracks, and the taxpayers can reap the benefits of electrification.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Maglev The economy is the major factor, and economics have not yet brought electronic brakes. Obviously, the railroads are doing okay without worrying too much about efficiency. Electrification should be instituted the same way we finally are getting PTC -- by government mandate. Just let government assume operation of all the tracks, and the taxpayers can reap the benefits of electrification.
So who pays to buyout all the freight railroads? Are you proposing forced nationalisation of the entire US rail network?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Maglev Electrification should be instituted the same way we finally are getting PTC -- by government mandate. Just let government assume operation of all the tracks, and the taxpayers can reap the benefits of electrification.
OK, let's say it'll be 25,000 route-miles. Note that only 4 coast-to-coast East-West transcontinental routes - @ 3,000 to 3,200 to 3,500 miles each - would use up 12,000 - 14,000 miles of that. That would leave about 12,000 miles for North-South or "diagonal" routes (such as the former Southern's line from Washington D.C. to New Orleans, or a Chicago to Texas line, etc.) at 1,500 miles or so each - that would give us about 8 of those. So 25,000 R-M seems like a reasonable 1st rough estimate.
Next, figure 2 tracks = 50,000 track-miles. At $1 million per track-mile, that's $50 billion. If you prefer $2M per T-M for either the catenary alone, and/ or to allow for new locomotives and the signal retrofit - although we're now getting PTC anyway, so that's not really or fairly chargeable to the electrification project per se - then use $100 billion, or any other number you think justifiable or supportable or reasonable.
Until 2 months ago, I would have said "No way !". Now, in the brave new world of $700+ billion governmental bailouts of various industries, I'm not so sure anymore. We're way beyond the late Illinois Senetor Everett Dirksen's famous budgetary aphorism of: "A billion here, a billion there - pretty soon you're talking about some real money !". So yeah, it just might happen.
EDIT: We need a spell-checker here ! (or I need more time to read my posts before actullay posting them . . . ).
Paul, look in particular at my points 2 and 3.
Point 4, previously a fairly large cost item for electrification, will be greatly reduced as a side-effect of the requirements of HR2095.
Point 1 is that oil costs cannot stay at current levels, and have an expanding economy.
Point 5 is that oil cost increases and the rail industry's need to continue to improve productivity is driving it toward bigger trains at a faster rate than I thought would happen a year ago.
Everyone has opinions but it appears that a massive infrastructure investment package by the federal government is going to be created by early 2009, and "green" aspects will be front and center.
maglev, what may be obvious to you escapes me, and I presume several others who are involved in the RR industry. I see a substantial investment being made for efficiency and it is having significant effect.
"Just let the government assume operation" ??? Where and when can you cite government involvement with commercial activities that improved anything? Perhaps the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, who by the way made personal fortunes while there, would be the administrators you would choose.
Some of our experts here who are currently involved are offering selected sites (locations) where this may be practical soon. But among the many unanswered questions is WHERE WILL THE POWER COME FROM.
Two more things worth having a think about.
1. Electric rail services in most of the Europe are needed for speed reasons. Packing lots of horse power in a small package means that accelleration is swift and average speed over the road can be relatively high.
2. And this relates to regular forum discussions on Horsepower vs Tractive effort, most Western European freight trains are tiny by American standards. High Tractive Effort isn't as needed as it is in the US as the trains are lighter, whereas high horsepower is needed especially in the mixed traffic mountainous lines where freights have to keep away from passenger trains. Electics do give you more HP per engine, but as has been said previously don't expect a high speed power car packing 10,000hp to start a freight train.
What this means is don't take what happens in Europe too seriously when you are in comparison mode.
What about dimensional loads that may not fit under the catenary?
Big loads+ low wire=
My Model Railroad: Tri State RailMy Photos on Flickr: FlickrMy Videos on Youtube: YoutubeMy Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives
carnej1 So who pays to buyout all the freight railroads? Are you proposing forced nationalisation of the entire US rail network?
Therein lies the rub. Up to now, for the most part, railroads in the United States have been private sector investments and operations based on our supposed economic practices. Nevermind any other arguements of history and competition for the moment. That being said, there is a major need for a virtual total transportation infrastructure repair or replacement and the question from air, highway, water, and rail, is "how" (nevermind the "how much", we know it is lots and lots and lots). Since we have never had a comprehensive and all ecompassing transportation policy in this country, we are headed into some major arguements (both political and financial) and, therefore, some major changes in the way things have been done. If one group insists on being included while excluding another, then nothing will be accomplished. Or if one side insists on being included because they are the only one not included already and are rebuffed, then nothing will be accomplished either. We are at a point where all have to come to the same table and talk and plan and form a transportation system for the 21st Century. The question is how much has to change to reach a mid ground model that will be acceptable to both Capitalistic and Socialistic (because that is what each other calls the other) sectors and thus move this country forward instead of stagnating in the 19th Century mindset and 19th and 20th Centuries' technologies.
But mind you, I am one who thinks we have never fully exploited steel wheels on steel rails and all it can accomplish because we have always been beset by idiologies rather than applications. Electric railroading in this country is one of those technologies of the past which must be considered for the future.
henry6 carnej1 So who pays to buyout all the freight railroads? Are you proposing forced nationalisation of the entire US rail network? Therein lies the rub. Up to now, for the most part, railroads in the United States have been private sector investments and operations based on our supposed economic practices. Nevermind any other arguements of history and competition for the moment. That being said, there is a major need for a virtual total transportation infrastructure repair or replacement and the question from air, highway, water, and rail, is "how" (nevermind the "how much", we know it is lots and lots and lots). Since we have never had a comprehensive and all ecompassing transportation policy in this country, we are headed into some major arguements (both political and financial) and, therefore, some major changes in the way things have been done. If one group insists on being included while excluding another, then nothing will be accomplished. Or if one side insists on being included because they are the only one not included already and are rebuffed, then nothing will be accomplished either. We are at a point where all have to come to the same table and talk and plan and form a transportation system for the 21st Century. The question is how much has to change to reach a mid ground model that will be acceptable to both Capitalistic and Socialistic (because that is what each other calls the other) sectors and thus move this country forward instead of stagnating in the 19th Century mindset and 19th and 20th Centuries' technologies. But mind you, I am one who thinks we have never fully exploited steel wheels on steel rails and all it can accomplish because we have always been beset by idiologies rather than applications. Electric railroading in this country is one of those technologies of the past which must be considered for the future.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that we need a virtual total transportation infrastructure repair or replacement? You mentioned the capitalistic and socialistic sectors. A trumped up transportation crisis demanding a national solution that is bandied about these days strikes me as a rather obvious ploy by that socialistic sector.
And what in the world are you talking about when you say that steel wheels and rails have never been fully exploited because they have been beset by ideologies rather than applications?
ns3010What about dimensional loads that may not fit under the catenary?
Catenary at a minimum would have to be sufficient to clear high-cube double-stacks and tall multilevels. Unfortunately most recent grade-separations and overpasses have been constructed at 23'4" above top of rail, which isn't sufficient for clearance for 50kV catenary and probably not enough for 25kV either, as erikem pointed out in another thread a few months back.
You might ask, "why did the rail industry not forsee this and plan accordingly?" Well, actually they did forsee this. But the higher clearance the rail industry wanted was bitterly opposed by the State Highway Departments and their allies in the federal government, who did not want to pay the extra cost to make overpasses a couple of feet taller in the air. The rail industry gave in at threat of having additional taxation imposed or a federal law requiring railroads to pay for the extra height.
You want to read something depressing, read 23 CFR Part 646, which says in part,
"The cost of reconstructing or modifying any existing railroad-highway grade separation structures solely to accommodate electrification will not be eligible for Federal-aid highway fund participation."
Bucyrus How do you arrive at the conclusion that we need a virtual total transportation infrastructure repair or replacement? You mentioned the capitalistic and socialistic sectors. A trumped up transportation crisis demanding a national solution that is bandied about these days strikes me as a rather obvious ploy by that socialistic sector. And what in the world are you talking about when you say that steel wheels and rails have never been fully exploited because they have been beset by ideologies rather than applications?
B, we've been down the ideological discourse on these points several times on several other threads here. Working backwards, we abandoned rail technology in the 50's with the coming of the Jet Age and Space Exploration, thus the rest of the world's rail technology surpassed us with high speed, electric, and dual mode power...so today we import such technology rather than relying on our own manufacturers to produce suceh. Next, private rail corporations are approaching the governments for aid in preparing for the future of their transportation niche. And all the way up to the top, bridge and highway repair and replacement along with new build are all on the plates of transportation planners from D.C. down. What it boils down to is that the ideological clash has to end and cooperation and coordination is imperitive to rebuild our ecnomic system to compete in the world economy,
henry6 Bucyrus How do you arrive at the conclusion that we need a virtual total transportation infrastructure repair or replacement? You mentioned the capitalistic and socialistic sectors. A trumped up transportation crisis demanding a national solution that is bandied about these days strikes me as a rather obvious ploy by that socialistic sector. And what in the world are you talking about when you say that steel wheels and rails have never been fully exploited because they have been beset by ideologies rather than applications? B, we've been down the ideological discourse on these points several times on several other threads here. Working backwards, we abandoned rail technology in the 50's with the coming of the Jet Age and Space Exploration, thus the rest of the world's rail technology surpassed us with high speed, electric, and dual mode power...so today we import such technology rather than relying on our own manufacturers to produce suceh. Next, private rail corporations are approaching the governments for aid in preparing for the future of their transportation niche. And all the way up to the top, bridge and highway repair and replacement along with new build are all on the plates of transportation planners from D.C. down. What it boils down to is that the ideological clash has to end and cooperation and coordination is imperitive to rebuild our ecnomic system to compete in the world economy,
Yes we have been down this road before, but it bears further exploration. How can you say that we abandoned rail technology in the 50s? We (private railroad companies) abandoned passenger trains in the 50s because the public would not use them enough to make it pay. The public preferred airplanes and cars. If the public had a change of heart, and wanted to ride new high speed trains today in enough numbers to make them pay, we will get new high speed trains. But I don’t look at the country as if we are just one big club that wants new high speed trains in case somebody wants to ride one, and therefore we should all chip in and pay for new trains for the club. If you just set out to satisfy every want and need, the club will run out of money.
I really don’t understand why you believe that we need to redo our entire transportation infrastructure just because we changed to a new century number on the calendar. I can understand the need for ongoing maintenance, but I don’t think that it is all worn out and/or obsolete, and therefore needs to be replaced today.
How are the private and public sector ideologies supposed to cooperate when the public sector imposes no limit upon itself, and every time it gets bigger, the private sector must by definition get smaller? Fundamentally, you cannot blend them together. Who decides how much socialism and how much capitalism we should have?
Bucyrus henry6 Bucyrus How do you arrive at the conclusion that we need a virtual total transportation infrastructure repair or replacement? You mentioned the capitalistic and socialistic sectors. A trumped up transportation crisis demanding a national solution that is bandied about these days strikes me as a rather obvious ploy by that socialistic sector. And what in the world are you talking about when you say that steel wheels and rails have never been fully exploited because they have been beset by ideologies rather than applications? B, we've been down the ideological discourse on these points several times on several other threads here. Working backwards, we abandoned rail technology in the 50's with the coming of the Jet Age and Space Exploration, thus the rest of the world's rail technology surpassed us with high speed, electric, and dual mode power...so today we import such technology rather than relying on our own manufacturers to produce suceh. Next, private rail corporations are approaching the governments for aid in preparing for the future of their transportation niche. And all the way up to the top, bridge and highway repair and replacement along with new build are all on the plates of transportation planners from D.C. down. What it boils down to is that the ideological clash has to end and cooperation and coordination is imperitive to rebuild our ecnomic system to compete in the world economy, Yes we have been down this road before, but it bears further exploration. How can you say that we abandoned rail technology in the 50s? We (private railroad companies) abandoned passenger trains in the 50s because the public would not use them enough to make it pay. The public preferred airplanes and cars. If the public had a change of heart, and wanted to ride new high speed trains today in enough numbers to make them pay, we will get new high speed trains. But I don’t look at the country as if we are just one big club that wants new high speed trains in case somebody wants to ride one, and therefore we should all chip in and pay for new trains for the club. If you just set out to satisfy every want and need, the club will run out of money. I really don’t understand why you believe that we need to redo our entire transportation infrastructure just because we changed to a new century number on the calendar. I can understand the need for ongoing maintenance, but I don’t think that it is all worn out and/or obsolete, and therefore needs to be replaced today. How are the private and public sector ideologies supposed to cooperate when the public sector imposes no limit upon itself, and every time it gets bigger, the private sector must by definition get smaller? Fundamentally, you cannot blend them together. Who decides how much socialism and how much capitalism we should have?
Reports from newspapers from across the country, news magazines, and trade magazines,reports on the internet, etc., all report that our transportation infrastructure is in bad shape and must be refurbished soon, the beginning of the21st Century is merely where we are . None of what I have said is of my own making, but as reported about the state of our transportation system and the call to cooperative action by and from both the private and public sector. What appears to be happeing is that each side is understanding its place and its place in relation to the other and that both appear to understand that they need and want each other in order for things to happen. Both sides determine how much they want of the other and how it will be effected...they know they have to. It is actually a continuation of what has been going on for centuries in our Country, like it or not.
As far as technology being left behind, when we abandoned the passenger train, publicy, we abandoned the railroad. Air and space , as well as our freedom of automobiling, were more on our minds than rail. Railroads were out of sight, out of mind and our monies for research and development went elsehwere. Thus we have been importing heavy and light rail technology over the past three or four decades.
Bucyrus Who decides how much socialism and how much capitalism we should have?
We, the voters decide by whomever we elect into office.
The biggest obstacle is availability of electricity to power these trains. The U.S. power grid is overloaded. More generating stations would have to be built to run the railroads -- coal fired? Gas fired? Nuclear? Hydroelectric is out of the question in the desert due to the vast distances that power would have to be transmitted from available power plants.
Who is going to pay for these new power plants and the transmission lines? How many years and billions of dollars would it take to build the power plants, transmission lines, and all of the other infrastructure that would be required to support such a scheme?
Ask John Q. Public to foot the bill in the form of higher taxes and listen to the screams of anguish. Ask the environmentalists their opinion of building more power generating stations and high tension transmission lines across the country and listen to them scream.
As the OP mentioned, Europe is a much smaller area geographically, and their residents have always been taxed at a higher rate than in the U.S. to finance their rail network.
doghouse Bucyrus Who decides how much socialism and how much capitalism we should have? We, the voters decide by whomever we elect into office.
That’s true all right. I guess the question I am getting at is this: Do you think we can just blend socialism and capitalism together in a permanent mix so that we no longer have to decide how much of each on an ongoing basis? Can you envision a mix where both ideologies thrive and offer their best performance? It seems like henry6 can.
Bucyrus I guess the question I am getting at is this: Do you think we can just blend socialism and capitalism together in a permanent mix so that we no longer have to decide how much of each on an ongoing basis? Can you envision a mix where both ideologies thrive and offer their best performance? It seems like henry6 can.
I guess the question I am getting at is this: Do you think we can just blend socialism and capitalism together in a permanent mix so that we no longer have to decide how much of each on an ongoing basis? Can you envision a mix where both ideologies thrive and offer their best performance? It seems like henry6 can.
I can't and I haven't. The truth is the U.S. has always been a conglamoration of Capitalism and Socialism and a few other isms as needed. And it has thrived except when one of the extremes runs unbridled. This time it has been capitalism unbridled which should teach us it can't be so and be honest with the good of the country or its people at heart. Socialism without limits become communism (which Capitalists like to try to confuse us that socialism and communism is one in the same which they aren't). I am not forcing any one of them on anybody, merely stating what has transpired in the US and that there is good in all to which end such middle ground must be found and adhered to. I am just telling it as it is. As to who decides. It is easy to say the electorate. However our electorate is guided (misguided?) by rehtoric, celeberte~, glamour, blind ideology, ignorance, greed, and emotion, more than intllegent logic in the thought process,
But, again we are talking ideology rather than subject. And will go round and round with neither of us giving in. So lets not and just discuss the nuts, bolts, wheels, and whatever, of railroading. Be railfans rather than political and social debaters, leaving that to other forums.
ELECTRIFICATION: Many U.S. railroads were looking at it during the first three decades of the 20th Century but the Stock Market Crash, the Depression, and the changing use of coal as a home heating source altered the thinking. The increase in highways, automobiles, etc, the post WWII emergence of airlines and jet planes also allowed for the railroads to see both passenger and freight traffic decrease to the point that they could not justify the cost of electrification. Thus other parts of the world stepped ahead of us in the use and technology. If we can attract investors with vision...25 to 100 year returns on investments...we can possibly find electrification of railroads good for the nation not just for in terms of energy costs and availability, but also in terms of environmental concerns. Again I point out that the US has never had a uniform, universal intellegent, philosophy of dealing with transportation needs. This is one of the major parts of such a program. It may also benefit the electric industry as well as both homeowners and businesses who use electric power, too!
The US has always blended Capitalism and Socialism along with several other "isms", It just changes from time to time. I am advocating nothing but telling what is. Further, it appears that the mix is going to continue and thrive as much if not more than ever. But I don't want to discuss ideologies here anymore, butr rather railfanning topics.
To electrification: thorugh the 1920s most railroads were looking very closely at it but the Stock Market Crash ant the resulting depression made them step back and put plans on hold. Less use of coal for home heating, thus less hauled, meant propulsion cost was no longer a major factor. The emergence of the internal cumbustion diesel engine also pushed electrificaiton needs aside. Until today. Europe and Asia did pursue electrification technologies for rail transport while we concentrated on jet plane and automobile technology and needs. Thus we must either play catch up or import (as we have for both heavy and light rail applications) locomotives and coaches. Now we must get a universal, comprehensive national transportation policy in place, prioritize needs and applications, and execute programs for the rebuilding and expansion of all our transportation needs over the next 25 to 100 years. We need to gear investment mentality--private and public-- into long range benefits to the economy in general, and to specific business applications be it transportation or other, And when it come to electricity, enviornmental concerns can also be addressed as well as the needs of business and public for the product as well. Ironically, it was trolley lines which brought electricity into communities (as well as took responsiblity for plowing and clearing streets) and spun off thier franchise duties to public and private enterprises when bus companies (who did not take responsiblity of plowing or clearing streets) replaced the trollies.
The street railways often had street-watering (to keep the dust down) and snow-plowing responsibilities imposed on them by the various municipalities as one of the conditions of the franchises granted to them to operate streetcar service.
Railway Man ns3010 What about dimensional loads that may not fit under the catenary? Catenary at a minimum would have to be sufficient to clear high-cube double-stacks and tall multilevels. Unfortunately most recent grade-separations and overpasses have been constructed at 23'4" above top of rail, which isn't sufficient for clearance for 50kV catenary and probably not enough for 25kV either, as erikem pointed out in another thread a few months back. You might ask, "why did the rail industry not forsee this and plan accordingly?" Well, actually they did forsee this. But the higher clearance the rail industry wanted was bitterly opposed by the State Highway Departments and their allies in the federal government, who did not want to pay the extra cost to make overpasses a couple of feet taller in the air. The rail industry gave in at threat of having additional taxation imposed or a federal law requiring railroads to pay for the extra height. You want to read something depressing, read 23 CFR Part 646, which says in part,"The cost of reconstructing or modifying any existing railroad-highway grade separation structures solely to accommodate electrification will not be eligible for Federal-aid highway fund participation." RWM
ns3010 What about dimensional loads that may not fit under the catenary?
As far as doublestacks being absolutely incompatible with electrification I was just reading that the Indian railways are experimenting with a "max height" catenary/pantograph system that will allow doublestack operation. I realize however, that their loading gauge would be designed to accomodate double stacked international containers which are slightly shorter than North American domestic boxes. The Indians want to build the new electrified Mumbai to Delhi freight line with these clearences. Of course the cost per mile gets even more astronomical with that type of engineering challenge. And the money is OC the issue....
Bucyrus doghouse Bucyrus Who decides how much socialism and how much capitalism we should have? We, the voters decide by whomever we elect into office. That’s true all right. I guess the question I am getting at is this: Do you think we can just blend socialism and capitalism together in a permanent mix so that we no longer have to decide how much of each on an ongoing basis? Can you envision a mix where both ideologies thrive and offer their best performance? It seems like henry6 can.
carnej1 A historical footnote about this was back in the 1970's when there were serious proposals to nationalize the entire US rail system. IINM this was largely due to the near collapse of the Northeast RR system which in turn was caused by an extremely archaic regulatory environment (which changed with the Staggers Act and Dergulation). I'm glad this didn't occur and tend to think if it did we would already have seen some type of "reprivatization" as has happened in much of Europe and other parts of the world....
A historical footnote about this was back in the 1970's when there were serious proposals to nationalize the entire US rail system. IINM this was largely due to the near collapse of the Northeast RR system which in turn was caused by an extremely archaic regulatory environment (which changed with the Staggers Act and Dergulation). I'm glad this didn't occur and tend to think if it did we would already have seen some type of "reprivatization" as has happened in much of Europe and other parts of the world....
That's not history. I was there!!!
You are correct that nationalization of the US railroads was a topic of discussion. In many respects, the folding of the North East railroads into Conrail was a nationalization. The Federal Government held the stock in the Conrail and put in +/- $7 billion to rebuild the railroad and cover operating cost until it started to turn a profit. A public offering of the shares put the railroad back in private ownership. Technically speaking, Conrail was always a private corporation, but if it walks like a duck...
"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
henry6 Bucyrus henry6 Bucyrus How do you arrive at the conclusion that we need a virtual total transportation infrastructure repair or replacement? You mentioned the capitalistic and socialistic sectors. A trumped up transportation crisis demanding a national solution that is bandied about these days strikes me as a rather obvious ploy by that socialistic sector. And what in the world are you talking about when you say that steel wheels and rails have never been fully exploited because they have been beset by ideologies rather than applications? B, we've been down the ideological discourse on these points several times on several other threads here. Working backwards, we abandoned rail technology in the 50's with the coming of the Jet Age and Space Exploration, thus the rest of the world's rail technology surpassed us with high speed, electric, and dual mode power...so today we import such technology rather than relying on our own manufacturers to produce suceh. Next, private rail corporations are approaching the governments for aid in preparing for the future of their transportation niche. And all the way up to the top, bridge and highway repair and replacement along with new build are all on the plates of transportation planners from D.C. down. What it boils down to is that the ideological clash has to end and cooperation and coordination is imperitive to rebuild our ecnomic system to compete in the world economy, Yes we have been down this road before, but it bears further exploration. How can you say that we abandoned rail technology in the 50s? We (private railroad companies) abandoned passenger trains in the 50s because the public would not use them enough to make it pay. The public preferred airplanes and cars. If the public had a change of heart, and wanted to ride new high speed trains today in enough numbers to make them pay, we will get new high speed trains. But I don’t look at the country as if we are just one big club that wants new high speed trains in case somebody wants to ride one, and therefore we should all chip in and pay for new trains for the club. If you just set out to satisfy every want and need, the club will run out of money. I really don’t understand why you believe that we need to redo our entire transportation infrastructure just because we changed to a new century number on the calendar. I can understand the need for ongoing maintenance, but I don’t think that it is all worn out and/or obsolete, and therefore needs to be replaced today. How are the private and public sector ideologies supposed to cooperate when the public sector imposes no limit upon itself, and every time it gets bigger, the private sector must by definition get smaller? Fundamentally, you cannot blend them together. Who decides how much socialism and how much capitalism we should have? As far as technology being left behind, when we abandoned the passenger train, publicy, we abandoned the railroad.
As far as technology being left behind, when we abandoned the passenger train, publicy, we abandoned the railroad.
There is not a sole in any dept on a Class one frt RR who would agree that statement. You want the short list or the long list?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd There is not a sole in any dept on a Class one frt RR who would agree that statement. You want the short list or the long list?
The point was that the American public abandoned railroad technology when they the passenger train was abandoned. But note that a lot more of today's technololgy in railroading is imported tahn was so into the 60s. At one point we were down to just one major American locomotive manufacturer as EMD moved to Canada! Passenger cars, light rail, and a lot of other "new" technology along with virtually 100% of electric propulsion has all been imported for almost 50 years. Made here? Sometimes. But engineered and designed elsehwere and licensed to be manufactured here. Even what has been manufactured here has been by foreign companies. But how many billions of American dollars a year have gone into air and highway?
[
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.