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.
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?
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?
henry6 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?
EMD never "moved to Canada" although they did transfer most of their assembly work to London, On. They are/were still an American based and owned company and the 710 series diesel (I mean prime movers, not entire locomotives) engines as well as many other components are still "Made in the USA". Even after shutting down the McCook (LaGrange) assembly facility EMD has still subcontracted assembly of locomotive orders in the US to Supersteel Schenectedy (in upstate NY) and NS's Juniata shops.
Although you're right about the recent history of passenger equipment note that there were strong US builders (particularly Pullman Standard and Budd) well into the Amtrak era...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
We can quibble about the precision of Henry's facts, or his clarity of communication, but I can get what he's saying. His statement of foundation is transportation policy, investment, and public interest in railroads declined precipitiously when the automobile and long-distance passenger aircraft appeared. His premises are (1) that free-market investment decisions (in the absence of any tax credit, subsidy, or guarantee from the public) will not make significant investment in passenger rail, and (2) passenger rail has too many uncertainties about future public policy and too large a scale and scope to attract private investment. I see no reason to doubt the general veracity of his statement of foundation or his premises.
His proposition is (1) that national policy needs to increase the role of passenger rail and decrease the role of highways and air in order to improve the economic strength of the U.S., (2) that passenger rail will provide a better return on the total economic investment and useage cost (public and private combined) than the total economic investment and useage cost in highways and air.
How about discussing his propositions? There's lots of smart people here I'm interested in hearing from.
RWM
Sorry, in advance, for this post. As it is a bit like arguing about the propriety of the war . . . in Vietnam. I should be discussing the now-emerging and interesting topic of the role of passenger rail in precipating cash infusions from the common fund.
But, I have two more fundamental questions/observations about electrification, which are the source of some of my doubt that it will ever happen in a significant capacity:(1) Although I think the double stack and clerance problems are very noticeable problems, I think there is a much more fundamental problem with electrification. Namely, railroads will then be on the grid rather than having the luxury of having control over when power goes to their locomotives. In otherwords, an electrified railroad will be subject to brown outs and executive-governmental decisions as to who gets power and who doesn't. If it comes down to a decision to power homes, schools, and hospitals or railroads during a brown out, I think we know who is going to get the power (OK, I know, some smart person is going to point out that hospitals have backup generators, but you get my point). I just can't see railroad execs giving up the control/luxury of having their own, individual power source.
(2) Less telling, but still bemusing, if electrification is this great elixir that is worth investing billions over--that could otherwise be spent on capacity improvements, passenger rail, etc., why does the South Shore have GP-39s? The electrification already is in place there.
These two reasons, combined with the problems of double stack and bridge and tunnel clearance lead me to suspect that any great infusion of cash is going to be spent on capacity improvements, safety improvements, like positive train control, etc.
As an aside, is local service really all that comensurate with electrification? Wouldn't that substantially increase the cost of putting in a rail spur to a plant that might ship 4-5 car loads a day? Maybe that answers my question about the South Shore, which has mostly local traffic.
But, I recognize that this is simply the opinion of an amature.
Gabe
Wow! The level of knowledge on these forums is impressive.. It will take me a while to read everything since my last post, but I know the below comment is new:
"Where will the electricity come from?"
I believe there is a way to exploit natural nuclear fusion on Earth to produce electricity. I'll not go into detail about the theory except to say that I have done my homework and have sitting on my desk proof why the Department of Energy is not investigating this.
What I have found is that our military-industrial complex is driven by profit and not efficiency. This makes sense in a narrow-minded, economic perspective; but it is illogical in a thermodynamic sense. Now we are approaching a crossroads: the cost of ignoring new ideas exceeds the benefits enjoyed by a very few "investors." Pretty soon, we are going to need to find a path to the future. How will we move into the future? What kind of vehicles will we ride?
The answer is for the United States to develop a TRANSPORTATION POLICY!! Then we would seek answers that make sense. Until then, our government explicitly ignores logic.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
An answer to Diningcar's question:
"Where and when can you cite government involvement with commercial activities that improved anything? "
Just look at Amtrak. It gets no respect and inadequate funding, but many of us who read these forums would give our eye teeth for a cross-country trip in Superliner room F (my favorite). The key to success of any venture is attitude of the workers and their respect by the employer.
I'm going to try to attach a photo. It was my entry in the "Against the Elements" contest. It shows two happy porters, watching the doors of the Coast Starlight. Our train was delayed because the relief engineer got in late the night before, and hours-of-service rules required that we all wait while he drank his coffee. But because the crew projected a positive attitude, most pasengers did not mind.
Amtrak employees fight the elements of poor funding, old equipment, disrespect from the railroads, and even racism. Lets hear it for Amtrak!
' mce_src=''>
gabeSorry, in advance, for this post. As it is a bit like arguing about the propriety of the war . . . in Vietnam. I should be discussing the now-emerging and interesting topic of the role of passenger rail in precipating cash infusions from the common fund. But, I have two more fundamental questions/observations about electrification, which are the source of some of my doubt that it will ever happen in a significant capacity:(1) Although I think the double stack and clerance problems are very noticeable problems ...
But, I have two more fundamental questions/observations about electrification, which are the source of some of my doubt that it will ever happen in a significant capacity:(1) Although I think the double stack and clerance problems are very noticeable problems ...
Whatever might be done, it will have to accommodate double-stacks.
... I think there is a much more fundamental problem with electrification. Namely, railroads will then be on the grid rather than having the luxury of having control over when power goes to their locomotives. In otherwords, an electrified railroad will be subject to brown outs and executive-governmental decisions as to who gets power and who doesn't. If it comes down to a decision to power homes, schools, and hospitals or railroads during a brown out, I think we know who is going to get the power (OK, I know, some smart person is going to point out that hospitals have backup generators, but you get my point). I just can't see railroad execs giving up the control/luxury of having their own, individual power source.
I think you answered your own question futher down, quite nicely too.
As an aside, is local service really all that comensurate with electrification? Wouldn't that substantially increase the cost of putting in a rail spur to a plant that might ship 4-5 car loads a day? Maybe that answers my question about the South Shore, which has mostly local traffic. But, I recognize that this is simply the opinion of an amateur. Gabe
But, I recognize that this is simply the opinion of an amateur.
As to the topic of passenger rail service's relation to public funding:
I am probably going to get several sighs, a few groubles, and maybe something e-thrown at me for this thesis. But, to the extent the CURRENT U.S. passenger rail system has any effect on the public funding of railroads, I suspect it is very negative rather than positive.
I am sure most of you share my experience when people who know nothing about railroads scoff at the allegedly dilapadated condition of the U.S. rail system. When I ask these pedogoths what supports their opinion, I always get an answer of something to the effect of, "have you riden Amtrak lately?"
Granted, I live in a more libertarian-disposed section of the country, but most people I come into contact with view the efficiencies of Amtrak like they view the efficiencies of the post office and the BMV--at best they regard it as a necessary evil whose chief antribute is to employ people who are otherwise unemployable (n.b., this is not necessarily my view--I am a transplant to Indiana . . .).
My preceived public categorical error of thinking our rail system "is" Amtrak combine with what I believe to be the near universal public belief that Amtrak is a sort of wooden-spoke operation, makes me suspect that any relation between the public's perception of passenger service and the desireability of funding railroads from the common fund would lead Joe voter to conclude that putting money in the rail system is throwing good money after bad.
A Canadian editorialist several years ago posited that if the freight railroads were to co-operate more with publicly funded railroad passenger agencies, then it would be easier for freight haulers to get more funding for capital improvement projects from these same governments. Voters elect the governments and the only thing most voters know about railroads is what they know about passenger service. Only offered as food for thought from the Canadian prairies.
AgentKid
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Thank you guys...I am glad some are hearing what I am saying. The effeciency of the Government can be found in many places, namely, I think, what is now the United StatesPostal Service. Any thing as big as it, or the entier government for that matter, can become quite unwieldly, yet the USPS does soldier on streamling itself when it can, reinventing itself when it has had to. Another effieciency of the Government has to be reflected in the way it handled Consolidated Rail Corporation, allowing it the freedom, while wholly owned by the Government, to operate as needed to become a sucessful enough entitity to be able to be sold off into the public domain.
I also have noted the geographical differences when it come to political and social philosophies, which is probably at least one reason why there has never been a rationalized universal National Transportation Policy. People on each of the coasts are more strapped for land space and air quality, thus public tranportation (i.e., non personal mode transportation, like an automobile) is more attractive to them. More open spaces like the middle area, the less important those factors are plus the less likely there is a density of movement. And by the way, I'm not advocating this Policy as a pro rail passenger device but as a realistic approach to both freight and passenger rail, air, waterway and highway transportation needs. All have to work together as a single system in order for there to be order and efficiency across the board.
Electirfication of railroads is something that I believe is important in the very long run an has to be seriously considered. Since most of the other continents use electric power for rail transportation, the clearence problems are not as extensive as one might think...there would be a world standard of hieght and width for what ever "box" is put on railroad wheels. But as has been noted, diesels offered more flexibiity than electric, and thus will have to remain important especially on lower density lines and in switching operations.
As for the fear that the Government would control an electric grid thus railroads would be subject to brownouts, turn offs, etc. It is almost a "so what" point in that hopefully technology's progress will bring along better ways of generating, delivering and distributing of electricity. Ideas would include a seperate transportation grid or regional transportation grids. The day is young. We have a lot of quality technicians, scientists, and dreamers out there. The job doesn't have to be done today, but over the next several tomorrows. Yesterdays techologies may or may not hold up over the next 25 to 50 years, so someting new is definitely in the wind.
Railway Man His proposition is (1) that national policy needs to increase the role of passenger rail and decrease the role of highways and air in order to improve the economic strength of the U.S., (2) that passenger rail will provide a better return on the total economic investment and useage cost (public and private combined) than the total economic investment and useage cost in highways and air. How about discussing his propositions? There's lots of smart people here I'm interested in hearing from. RWM
OK, I don't know if I fit into your "smart people" category, (I probably don't) but I'll try.
A "national policy" on transportation, or almost any economic actvity such as transportation, is a bad idea. A really bad idea. The US is not a homogeneous country. What works well in the Boston-Washington corriodor won't work at all in rural central Illinois. It would be, and is, nonsense to have a central government running diverse transportaiton policies for local service areas. That's why all Federal subsidies for Amtrak should be zeroed out. If the Massachusetts-Rhode Island-Connecticut-New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania-Delaware-Maryland-DC-Virginia compact wants to subsidize high speed trains, they can vote to do it. Likewise, the folks in Green Valley, Illinois shouldn't be taxed to pay for trains that are of no use to them.
In areas such as the Northeast there are significant external costs that are aleviated through rail passenger service. This aleviation acrues to the people living in the Northeast. They should pay for it. The people there never really quit using the passenger trains because those particular passenger trains serve a useful purpose. On the other hand, the people in central Illinois couldn't get off the trains fast enough and there were few, if any, "externalities" for passenger trains in the corn fields.
There was some realy fine rail passenger service in central Illinois. The Illinois Terminal linked the major population centers, and some small towns, just fine. People got off the trains and into cars as fast as they could because the autos served their needs better. Very different from the northeast, which is why there should never be a national "transportation policy".
I see rail passenger service in the US as currently developing in a coherent, efficient manner. It would develop faster - and maybe could have stayed under private ownership - if the politicians hadn't gotten involved. It is configuring to serve regional needs on a case by case basis. Examples are regional systems such as those in the Northwest, California, the Northeast, and in the Chicago area. In these areas of high populations the "externailities" can justify the use of confiscated private money (which Henry falsely refers to as "public monney") by local governments to pay for the trains.
Long distance passenger trains aleviate virtually no "external costs" and are a waste of scarce resources which could be best left in the private sector.
gabe As to the topic of passenger rail service's relation to public funding: I am probably going to get several sighs, a few groubles, and maybe something e-thrown at me for this thesis. But, to the extent the CURRENT U.S. passenger rail system has any effect on the public funding of railroads, I suspect it is very negative rather than positive. I am sure most of you share my experience when people who know nothing about railroads scoff at the allegedly dilapadated condition of the U.S. rail system. When I ask these pedogoths what supports their opinion, I always get an answer of something to the effect of, "have you riden Amtrak lately?" Granted, I live in a more libertarian-disposed section of the country, but most people I come into contact with view the efficiencies of Amtrak like they view the efficiencies of the post office and the BMV--at best they regard it as a necessary evil whose chief antribute is to employ people who are otherwise unemployable (n.b., this is not necessarily my view--I am a transplant to Indiana . . .). My preceived public categorical error of thinking our rail system "is" Amtrak combine with what I believe to be the near universal public belief that Amtrak is a sort of wooden-spoke operation, makes me suspect that any relation between the public's perception of passenger service and the desireability of funding railroads from the common fund would lead Joe voter to conclude that putting money in the rail system is throwing good money after bad. Gabe
I agree with your points. But that pesky Joe Voter has basically been circumvented lately by the invention of crises that demand immediate socialization in the form of financial bailouts. Government, on an institutional level, has found a way to expand without the consent of the political process. We have entered a brave new world that is soon likely to get slapped upside the head by the laws of economics.
A couple of quick notes for tonight.
One, Gabe: your statement about the public's perception of railroads is their experience of Amtrak is very true. When passenger trains stopped running in most of the country people believed...and still do...that there are no railroads. This hurts the railroads be it a private enterprise or a public entity.
Two, Greyhound. You probably should be sitting down for this: I agree with you. Geographic divisions and diversity of the country does mean that you cannot BigMac our transportation system as a whole. And that should be one of the first things to be understood in forming a National Transportation Policy. But, each of those regional differences have to be fitted into the system as a whole so that a truck, a car, a bus, a train, or whatever, can go from coast to coast and any and everywhere it between without major obsticals
greyhounds A "national policy" on transportation, or almost any economic actvity such as transportation, is a bad idea. A really bad idea. The US is not a homogeneous country. What works well in the Boston-Washington corriodor won't work at all in rural central Illinois. It would be, and is, nonsense to have a central government running diverse transportaiton policies for local service areas.
A "national policy" on transportation, or almost any economic actvity such as transportation, is a bad idea. A really bad idea. The US is not a homogeneous country. What works well in the Boston-Washington corriodor won't work at all in rural central Illinois. It would be, and is, nonsense to have a central government running diverse transportaiton policies for local service areas.
A national transportation policy needs to include all major forms of transportation. It also needs to be geared toward what's good at achieving overall, national goals, not an ad-hoc mess, put together to appease the constituents of whoever is the highest ranking Congressman or Senator on the commitee.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
greyhounds Railway Man His proposition is (1) that national policy needs to increase the role of passenger rail and decrease the role of highways and air in order to improve the economic strength of the U.S., (2) that passenger rail will provide a better return on the total economic investment and useage cost (public and private combined) than the total economic investment and useage cost in highways and air. How about discussing his propositions? There's lots of smart people here I'm interested in hearing from. RWM OK, I don't know if I fit into your "smart people" category, (I probably don't) but I'll try. A "national policy" on transportation, or almost any economic actvity such as transportation, is a bad idea. A really bad idea. The US is not a homogeneous country. What works well in the Boston-Washington corriodor won't work at all in rural central Illinois. It would be, and is, nonsense to have a central government running diverse transportaiton policies for local service areas. That's why all Federal subsidies for Amtrak should be zeroed out. If the Massachusetts-Rhode Island-Connecticut-New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania-Delaware-Maryland-DC-Virginia compact wants to subsidize high speed trains, they can vote to do it. Likewise, the folks in Green Valley, Illinois shouldn't be taxed to pay for trains that are of no use to them. In areas such as the Northeast there are significant external costs that are aleviated through rail passenger service. This aleviation acrues to the people living in the Northeast. They should pay for it. The people there never really quit using the passenger trains because those particular passenger trains serve a useful purpose. On the other hand, the people in central Illinois couldn't get off the trains fast enough and there were few, if any, "externalities" for passenger trains in the corn fields. There was some realy fine rail passenger service in central Illinois. The Illinois Terminal linked the major population centers, and some small towns, just fine. People got off the trains and into cars as fast as they could because the autos served their needs better. Very different from the northeast, which is why there should never be a national "transportation policy". I see rail passenger service in the US as currently developing in a coherent, efficient manner. It would develop faster - and maybe could have stayed under private ownership - if the politicians hadn't gotten involved. It is configuring to serve regional needs on a case by case basis. Examples are regional systems such as those in the Northwest, California, the Northeast, and in the Chicago area. In these areas of high populations the "externailities" can justify the use of confiscated private money (which Henry falsely refers to as "public monney") by local governments to pay for the trains. Long distance passenger trains aleviate virtually no "external costs" and are a waste of scarce resources which could be best left in the private sector.
Couldn't some of the same arguments against Amtrack (areas that are taxed to pay for it don't get the benefits of it) also be used against the Highway Trust Fund? Every highway user pays a tax on fuel, but because of variations in population, some areas get more in return than what they pay in.
If government hadn't got involved with road building way back and left it up to the private sector, would our transportation system look different today? An automobile isn't of much use if you don't have an all-weather road to drive it on.
I'm not advocating one way or the other. We have what we have. I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak. And Greyhounds, you are one of many that I consider to be the smart people here.
Jeff
if you want to learn about a good electrified rail system look to australia in queensland there is approx 1500 minles of electrified freight lines the main tonage lines are from the central state area to the coast and carry approx 120,000,000 tons of coal to export markets all with a gauge of 3' - 6"
google... queensland rail and look at some of the huge coal trains being pulled the lines are used for coal haulage and not much else no wide loads etc why not build new lines with electrification for example the new coal lines into the powder river area use electric locos powered from coal fired power stations built at the mines and run east to a major city where a storage yard could be built and the trains transferred to diesel locos even if the distance is only 300 miles or more each way the cost savings would be immense say 30 trains /day / year x $10 per gallon fuel ( 2020 ) x600 miles x fuel usage = MILLIONS / BILLIONS of dollars saved over the next 30 -40 years
COME ON GUYS... WORK IT OUT.. ITS NOT ROCKET SURGERY
Frankly, when it comes to transportation, I find the ideological arguements-public vs. private, socialism vs. capitalism-a little tedious. In the US, the public pays for transportation either via taxation or in the price of goods and services with a transportation component, and that component is in just about everything we buy. So what, pray tell is the benefit of either system from the point of money out of my pocket? We have the arguement that capitalism and its private entities are more efficient at allocating resources. Let me suggest that there are many examples of inefficiencies or failures on the part of both public and private entities. Further, if it can actually be shown that government has made more mistakes and wasted money in the transportation area, it, unlike private business, is not extracting a profit for its effort.
I do think it is reasonable to debate the matter of the best split between public and private sources of funds. Given the way we do things now-mostly public funds to roads, airways and waterways and mostly private money to (frieght) railroads, it really becomes a modal issue. Unfortunately, the place where proposals or at least the starting point for the development of a national transportation policy, is ill organized to do the job. From its beginning and through every subsequent administration, the US Department of Transportation has been little more than a building so titled where the very separate entities governing airways, roadways and railroads happen to work. (The water guys are somewhere down the street.) Here how Dave Gunn put it in a presentation made after he left Amtrak. The Federal Aviation Administration lobbies congress to secure funds, promotes the use of airplanes and regulates airline safety, The Federal High Way Administration lobbies congress to secure funds, promotes the use of highways and regulates highway safety. Same thing for the Corps of Engineers and waterways. The Federal Railroad Administration regulates railroad safety. Any questions?
Sometime back, there was actually a small section in the US DOT that was given the task of developing "intermodalism". The whopping $250,000 annual budget might have given the department head one analyst and an administrative assistant. While they worked on methods for getting the traveling public between home and the airport, I suspect they may have had to spend a good deal of time just getting appointments to see people in the line agencies.
One more thought about public vs. private. You can write the people you elect to public office-administrative or legislative-and state how you would like your tax money to be spent. You may not get agreement but you will get a response. Unless you hold a really big chunk of the outstanding shares, hold a seat on the board, or are in the top 20 percentile on the customer list, see how far you get writing to tell a CEO how to spend money.
"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 In the US, the public pays for transportation either via taxation or in the price of goods and services with a transportation component, and that component is in just about everything we buy. So what, pray tell is the benefit of either system from the point of money out of my pocket? Further, if it can actually be shown that government has made more mistakes and wasted money in the transportation area, it, unlike private business, is not extracting a profit for its effort.
In the US, the public pays for transportation either via taxation or in the price of goods and services with a transportation component, and that component is in just about everything we buy. So what, pray tell is the benefit of either system from the point of money out of my pocket?
Further, if it can actually be shown that government has made more mistakes and wasted money in the transportation area, it, unlike private business, is not extracting a profit for its effort.
It is true that while government imposes an added cost for the relatively high cost of its overhead, capitalism imposes an added cost of profit. But are they really the same detriment? Capitalism has financial risk, and profit is the reward for that risk. If you take profit away from capitalism, there will be no capitalism. Conversely, you could reduce the overhead of government without affecting the result of its business activity.
Moreover, I suspect that the high overhead of government, which is a fundamental result of bearing no actual financial risk, is larger than the profit taken by capitalism applied to the same task. And then you have the fact that government socializes the cost of goods and services to people who have no need for them, while capitalism charges cost only to the recipients of goods and services.
So, in reference to your question about which system takes more money out of your pocket, my answer would be socialism.
Bucyrus So, in reference to your question about which system takes more money out of your pocket, my answer would be socialism.
Mainly because there's less incentive to improve efficiency with socialism than with capitalism.
gabe(2) Less telling, but still bemusing, if electrification is this great elixir that is worth investing billions over--that could otherwise be spent on capacity improvements, passenger rail, etc., why does the South Shore have GP-39s? The electrification already is in place there..... As an aside, is local service really all that comensurate with electrification? Wouldn't that substantially increase the cost of putting in a rail spur to a plant that might ship 4-5 car loads a day? Maybe that answers my question about the South Shore, which has mostly local traffic.
....
If I recall correctly, many of the South Shore's customers did not want wires on the spurs serving them. For that reason, straight electrics were not a viable choice. The other side of the coin was that the South Shore was the last RR in the US to be hauling freight behind 1500VDC locomotives, so new locomotives would have been custom jobs and costing more.
An electric locomotive with storage batteries would have been on solution to the problem, but I would shudder to think what it would be like to work on a locomotive with a 1500V lead acid battery (about 700 to 750 cells in series). Controlling the charging of the batteries would have been a pain in years past, high voltage IGBT's make implementing a charge controller a piece of cake by comparison.
Considering that GE is developing batteries specifically for locomotive use, and modern AC drives work beautifully with batteries - storage battery electrics may be the way to go. One way to overcome the issue with double stacks and clearance would be to use denergized wires underneath highway overpasses and rely on battery power through the dead spots. With GPS, it wouldn't be that difficult to program the locomotive to automatically switch over to battery power when coming up on a low clearance overpass.
I first read that as armature, which would qualify for a pun in shockingly poor taste.
Murphy Siding I disagree. We do do need a national transportation policy. Just like we need a nation energy policy, and a lot of other national policies. .... A national transportation policy needs to include all major forms of transportation. It also needs to be geared toward what's good at achieving overall, national goals, not an ad-hoc mess, put together to appease the constituents of whoever is the highest ranking Congressman or Senator on the commitee.
I disagree. We do do need a national transportation policy. Just like we need a nation energy policy, and a lot of other national policies. .... A national transportation policy needs to include all major forms of transportation. It also needs to be geared toward what's good at achieving overall, national goals, not an ad-hoc mess, put together to appease the constituents of whoever is the highest ranking Congressman or Senator on the commitee.
Ahh, the reassuring warm womb of Central Planning! Isn't this always how the uninformed view Capitalism: "an ad-hoc mess"? When individuals vote for solutions through bond issues, buying a car, purchasing an airplane ticket? When a railroad decides to add capacity? When someone invents a "Big John" which upsets the Central Planners? Millions of individual decisions for whom no one sought Government Permission. Someone needs to tell all these people how it's done and what the goals really are.
And who shall select the "planners"? How would you take those high ranking Senators out of the process?
-- Bagehot
erikem.... As an aside, is local service really all that comensurate with electrification? Wouldn't that substantially increase the cost of putting in a rail spur to a plant that might ship 4-5 car loads a day? Maybe that answers my question about the South Shore, which has mostly local traffic.If I recall correctly, many of the South Shore's customers did not want wires on the spurs serving them. For that reason, straight electrics were not a viable choice. The other side of the coin was that the South Shore was the last RR in the US to be hauling freight behind 1500VDC locomotives, so new locomotives would have been custom jobs and costing more.An electric locomotive with storage batteries would have been on solution to the problem, but I would shudder to think what it would be like to work on a locomotive with a 1500V lead acid battery (about 700 to 750 cells in series). Controlling the charging of the batteries would have been a pain in years past, high voltage IGBT's make implementing a charge controller a piece of cake by comparison.Considering that GE is developing batteries specifically for locomotive use, and modern AC drives work beautifully with batteries - storage battery electrics may be the way to go. One way to overcome the issue with double stacks and clearance would be to use denergized wires underneath highway overpasses and rely on battery power through the dead spots. With GPS, it wouldn't be that difficult to program the locomotive to automatically switch over to battery power when coming up on a low clearance overpass.
Even in Switzerland they use diesels for switching in most industrial locations. SBB Cargo owns a sizeable fleet of Vossloh G1700s which are much like GP15Ds, these are used to serve industrial tracks and do operate under the wires where it makes sense to do so.
My thinking for low clearance locations is to make those your neutral sections, they would still be wired, but unenergized so that the pantograph would stay in contact. The lack of power would allow clearances between the contact wire and the structure to be very minimal. As now the train would coast through them. Also the CFRs are Federal Regulations not Constitutional Amendments, they can be changed.
In the US acquiring the necessary right-of-way for such projects is always a sticky issue, even in the "wide open" spaces of the American west. There is a RR company (Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern, soon to be part of Canadian National) currently attempting to build a new coal hauling line into Wyoming's Powder River Basin and it's been a long, uphill battle for them. Property rights are very important in the US and there is a reluctance nowadays to use Eminent Domain laws....
Maglev Wow! The level of knowledge on these forums is impressive.. It will take me a while to read everything since my last post, but I know the below comment is new: "Where will the electricity come from?" I believe there is a way to exploit natural nuclear fusion on Earth to produce electricity. I'll not go into detail about the theory except to say that I have done my homework and have sitting on my desk proof why the Department of Energy is not investigating this. What I have found is that our military-industrial complex is driven by profit and not efficiency. This makes sense in a narrow-minded, economic perspective; but it is illogical in a thermodynamic sense. Now we are approaching a crossroads: the cost of ignoring new ideas exceeds the benefits enjoyed by a very few "investors." Pretty soon, we are going to need to find a path to the future. How will we move into the future? What kind of vehicles will we ride? The answer is for the United States to develop a TRANSPORTATION POLICY!! Then we would seek answers that make sense. Until then, our government explicitly ignores logic.
At the severe risk of going wildly off topic the theory the the Government/Big Oil/ the Masons or whoever is conspiring to bury "cold fusion" is completely unfounded. I think that eventually Confined Fusion may very well be a revolutionary energy source but that is a ways off. Keep in mind that it is not a magic solution to the energy crisis and that many of the same groups who oppose conventional fission power plants have raised objections to fusion as well (I am not in that camp but even with Fusion there would be some waste and safety issues that would need to be adressed)....
The Military Industrial complex would make a mint off commercializing fusion as well....
Can you cite a concrete example of an efficient, centrally planned economy?
carnej1Can you cite a concrete example of an efficient, centrally planned economy?
I don't think any member of this forum believes that a fully centrally planned economy will work. The discussion concerns a centrally planned Transportation Network. I can name one that works very well, the Swiss transportation network.
beaulieuMy thinking for low clearance locations is to make those your neutral sections, they would still be wired, but unenergized so that the pantograph would stay in contact. The lack of power would allow clearances between the contact wire and the structure to be very minimal. As now the train would coast through them. Also the CFRs are Federal Regulations not Constitutional Amendments, they can be changed.
I'd wonder if there were some places where coasting through a dead spot would be impractical (e.g unpleasant slack action). The question may become whether it is cheaper to increase clearances or to put some sort of energy storage on the locomotives. To put this into perspective, the study on electrifying the freight RR's in Southern California came up with a price tag of $4 billion (in 1992 dollars) - half of which was just for raising bridges or lowering tracks.
I haven't studied European RRs, I don't recall seeing any stacks in Europe, do they stack over there? Also I believe, but could be wrong, aren't tri-level auto-racks an American phenomonon, are those used else-where also?
I do know that the Higher the Voltage your system operates on, the greater the clearance you need from other objects to avoid an arcing short, so your minimum clearances would be affected in part by what voltage you're operating on.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.