Not pleasant outlook for railroads as we know them.....

[Modelcar]

...After reading Mark W. Hemphill's column in current months TRAINS, I'm thinking what may be coming may not be what we'll like to see in our hobby of railroading.... Better check it out.

[Modelcar]

....But after all of the above is said, it indicates much of the rail plant may be leaving us.

[MP57313]

This reminds me of what my parents said when I was very young. They said "there might not be any railroads" when I grew up, therefore discouraging me from planning to work for one. {They never worked in the industry}. This was from the 1960s, when we lived in upstate New York and later the San Bernardino area.

No doubt the rail industry will continue to change, and the rail map will continue to shrink, as the STB announcements of approved abandonments continue regularly...

[rich747us]

I dont believe we have anything to worry about. As far as the abandonment reports I've read in the October Trains, several of them were branch lines up in North Dakota probably used to serve grain elevators. You have to think that there are tons of little spurs just like these across the country, and the railroads are just getting rid of them to cut expenses. The cover story about the TRANSCON is, in My opinion, a good prognosis for railroading's future.

[daveklepper]

I agree with rich47us. Also, does the world, with wealth as the main goal, really want global warming to continue with the possibility that within the lifetime of children living today, Manhattan Island and much else will be under waer? If not, then possibly the world, but especially the uSA MUST get more energy efficient.

[Modelcar]

Global Warming.......I'd like to understand that a bit more. Doesn't the majority of ice on the earth we have now float on water at their location near the poles....? If so and some of it melts, why would that raise our ocean levels....Maybe I'm wrong in thinking much of it now floats on water...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

Global Warming.......I'd like to understand that a bit more.

There's not much to understand because they still don't know if the planet is supposed to be warming itself or if we're doing it or what.

They also never mention what airliners have done to the planet. Greenhouse gases and all that stuff that warm the planet have warmed it something like 2.4 degrees over the last 150 years. Airliners create all those lovely contrails that eventually turn into high altitude clouds. High altitude clouds reflect sunlight back into space more effectively than low altitude clouds and snow on the ground (really, snow does that). This has increased Earth's planetary albedo (the amount of light reflected off an object) so much that the ambient temperature of the Earth has been reduced 3.1 degrees. So taking the 2.4 degrees warming minus our 3.1 degrees from increased albedo and we've cooled the planet off .7 degrees.

[fuzzybroken]

And considering the poor excuse for "Summer" we've had here in Wisconsin, I'm not surprised.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rich747us
As far as the abandonment reports I've read in the October Trains, several of them were branch lines up in North Dakota probably used to serve grain elevators. You have to think that there are tons of little spurs just like these across the country, and the railroads are just getting rid of them to cut expenses.

Yes, they are getting rid of them. Removing rail lines from local communities will further remove railroads in general from the public eye.

From time to time you will see significant alternate routes disappear also. The former SP line west of Phoenix...could it not be rehabbed/retained to at least provide a slower alternate route for through trains? Or would the roundabout routing cost too much in extra crew time, etc.

[Modelcar]

To the above posts on global warming.....I'm not questioning whether it is or not....I'm talking about the flooding of areas if ice melts...Or rather, why would it, if most of the ice we have now at the poles is NOW floating on water.

[Randy Stahl]

I got another 20 years to go .... so far my future looks pretty good, I think I made a good career choice. I am willing and able to adapt.
Randy

[Anonymous]

Mark, I would be interested in the sources you cite to come to the point of believing the propaganda of "man caused global warming". According to the Anti Global Warming Petition, over 17,000 scientist have made a stand against the whole concept of man caused global warming <http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/pproject.htm>. I don't think you can call these people anti-science without totally destroying all your credibility. The reason so many legitimate scientists reject the current global warming hyperbole is that we have all the data we need to show that climate change is cyclical. The Middle Ages were much warmer than what we are experiencing today, and we just came out of the "Little Ice Age" of the early 1800's, which implies a 300 to 500 year cycle. If as the global warming types claim that CO2 levels are the highest they've been in 100,000 years, what caused the Middle Ages warming period? There is a conumdrum here, because if CO2 is the main culprit in global warming, was CO2 the cause of the MIddle Ages warming period? If so, why is there no record of such levels in ice core samples? If CO2 isn't the cause of the Middle Ages warming, then that would imply no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and warming, and therefore it is more likely the cyclical indicators relate more to solar activity and orbital anomolies.

As for rising sea levels, there is no historical record of any such sea level rise during the MIddle Ages, unless you count the legend of the disappearance of Atlantis as some type of historical fact.....

As Radivil pointed out above , there is the basic laws of physics at work when there is an increase in atmospheric gases. Yes, there is an increased greenhouse effect, but there is also more reflecting of solar radiation, so the net effect is to balance out ("For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"). LIke the lake effect (where large bodies of water tend to moderate temperatures on adjacent land masses), an increase in atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and dihydrogen oxide, if anything, will create a moderating effect on temperature extremes on earth, not exasterbate them.

Why do so many "squeeky wheel" scientists continue to pu***he global warming hysteria? Just follow the money, in the form of the research grants that we keep pumping into the "scientific community". No global warming, no grants, and then these frauds would have to actually work for a living, flipping burgers or more likely writing fiction dressed as fact for the MIchael Moores and Andy Rooneys of the media world.

With an ever growing world population, an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels can only do good in that plant growth will also increase, thus food production will also increase. Unless we want our grandchildren to experience world wide famine, we should just keep on burning those fossil fuels and raising those fartin' cattle. I know, it goes against the grain of every ecofactoid that has been shoved into our brains since kindergarten, but sooner or later we all (or at least most of us) wise up. As long as we are utilizing our resources in a judicious non-wasteful manner, we need not berate ourselves over our energy usage.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
dihydrogen oxide

Water? Water vapor? Just call it that...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

Dave (futuremodal):

A debate on global warming is hopelessly off-topic for this forum, only the discussion of how carbon emissions, etc., would affect railroads, and for that question one doesn't have to prove global warming is fact or fancy, just posit it as a "what if" and consider the consequences. Continuing it in this forum is harmful, I think. I'm not going to promulgate this off-topic debate further, so I deleted the post you responded to, and I apologize for leading you into it in my zeal to respond to Modelcar's questions. E-mail me if you wi***o continue what I think should be a discussion in another forum, or a private exchange, and when I have time, I'll be glad to respond off-forum.

I'll just say this to stay on topic: The global warming debate (and specifically the caveats in the Kyoto Treaty) can have serious implications for the rail industry, and if the current bandwagon of junk science makes its way into legislation, the economy (and the railroads) will suffer.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

As a longtime reader of TRAINS and a fan of John G Kneiling, I long ago realized that railroading would have to change if it was going to survive as a viable enterprise. The changes have not been as drastic as those posited by Kneiling, but they have occurred and I still find railroading to be fascinating.

Most of the branchlines that are up for abandonment have probably lost any economic rationale for their continued existence and they won't be missed except maybe by the shipper who uses them maybe once a month since he doesn't want to change to trucks and won't pay what it really costs to ship over an underused branch and the locals who stopped riding the train a long time ago.

My son and his family now live across the street from the now abandoned rights of way of the CA&E and the CGW. People wanted the CA&E to continue but they were unwilling to pay the true cost of the service. The CGW was abandoned because it duplicated existing service. Some will argue that it should never have been built in the first place. Railroading will continue only as long as it can economically justify its existence.

[rrnut282]

Modelcar
Your question about the floating ice is only correct for the North Pole. A good majority of the ice around the South Pole sits on top of the continent of Antartica. In places it is upwards of a thousand feet thick. I believe that is the ice that might, possibly, only in the extremist of circumstances, that would be responsible for the oceans to rise, if it ever melts.

While I'm on the subject, does the Kyoto Protocols specifically ban volcanic activity? One good blast from a volcano spews more ash, co2, methane, and hydrocarbons into the atmosphere than the U.S. does in several years. (Remember the cool summer we had after Mt Penitubo erupted in the Phillipeans?) So I say, if they don't go after the biggest polluters, why are they picking on the little 'ol U.S.?

[gabe]

I agree with Mark's contention that the global warming discussion was going a bit off topic; but, (1) to respond to something that I have a definitive answer for and (2) to relate it to railroading:

(1) It does not matter that the ice is floating on water. In fact, the ice in Antartica is not as much of a concern as the "floating ice" of the North Pole. The density of water changes at different temperatures--this is why ice floats 6 and 1/2 percent above the water line. Ice, is more dense than most forms of water. Ergo, when the ice caps melt, the trillions of gallons of water that once had a smaller density as frozen ice will expand and have a larger density. Scientists estimate that the density distinction between water and ice is enough to raise ocean levels at least one-to-two yards. That may not seem like a lot. However, watch the water line of a lake when they allow two yards worth of water out by lowering the dam. The size of the lake will shrink by nearly half. Hense, the concern of global warming.

My scientific diatribe ends there, however, and I will express no further "opinion" on the subject--other than noting that the "dead zones" in oceans caused by such chemicals was more of what Mark's column was alluding to.

(2) Doesn't all this help railroading? Has anyone ever seen the BTU/floral-carbon comparison of shipping a ton of product X one mile via a rail as opposed to truck?

I am surprised no one has made the argument that there should be NO environmental regulation of trains. That may sound extreme and quixotic at first until you think about it. Due to efficiencies, trains are substantially more environmentally friendly than trucks. Requiring further environmental regulation of railroads makes it more difficult for railroads to compete with trucks--ergo decreasing the efficiency of railroads will require more freight to move by the more polluting, more fuel burning trucks.

However, perhaps we shouldn't make this argument too strongly--then everything that could would move by barge, which trumps everything in terms of being least pollutant and least fuel consuming.

Gabe Hawkins

P.S. Sorry for any grammatical errors, I am having a busy day at the office and have little time for editing.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

Modelcar
Your question about the floating ice is only correct for the North Pole. A good majority of the ice around the South Pole sits on top of the continent of Antartica. In places it is upwards of a thousand feet thick. I believe that is the ice that might, possibly, only in the extremist of circumstances, that would be responsible for the oceans to rise, if it ever melts.

While I'm on the subject, does the Kyoto Protocols specifically ban volcanic activity? One good blast from a volcano spews more ash, co2, methane, and hydrocarbons into the atmosphere than the U.S. does in several years. (Remember the cool summer we had after Mt Penitubo erupted in the Phillipeans?) So I say, if they don't go after the biggest polluters, why are they picking on the little 'ol U.S.?

You can't expect mother nature to do what you tell it to do. Kyoto Protocols were designed and aimed to reduce pollution that can be fixed as people respond better to laws than inanimate objects.

[TH&B]

Ya but like it sais "the US in several years" but the US is is constantly doing this with no let up, in other words the US couyld be "nickel and diming" mother nature to death, she can deal with a volcano blow if she has her savings, if you get my drift.
The fact still remains that we don't know what we are causing, but not knowing should not be an excuse.
A major meteor could do even more damage, so party now!
People can't even take care of their own health in this world so how are they gonna take care of the planets health ?
Barges and slow boats use even less energy then trains is true, trains can be operated safer. These two things are in theory anyways, they may not be actual. The railroads are energy efficient in nature but do not always operate to their full potential, in fact most of the time they don't because they are dogged by regulations, inflexability, unions, governments and even their own coorperate way. The railroads may reach their max efficientcy eventualy but not without change. Like changes in work rules, removal of drawbar slack, and of course level crossings and congestion and relaibilty, ((less tracks and more trains, no real need to increase max speed but increase average speed)) ect.... etc.... lots of future potential.

What is switching anyways ?

[rrnut282]

My point was, those trumpeting the warnings of global warming failed to look at the big picture. The Kyoto Protocalls directed nearly every change at the U.S. and other western nations. If the U.S. subscribed to every paragraph, we would seriously reduce the amount of coal mined (bye bye Appalachian coal trains), scrub and re-scrub all steel production to reduce emissions (bye bye big steel and all the trainloads of scrap, coke, coal, and finished product), increase auto mpg and reduce auto emissions (this one may actually increase trainloads of auto parts and finished autos to replace all the "bad" cars out there), and so on without requiring the same of "developing" nations like China, Brazil, Thailand, India...China will soon become the largest user of coal if they aren't already, when this goes through. Brazil has a problem with homesteaders clear-burning the jungle to create tillable land in the amazon basin. Hey, that's got to be good for the envoronment, too.

The Kyoto protocalls are just an economic development policy disguised as an environmental savior. Worse, it lets the developing economies grow unregulated at the expense of the heavily regulated U.S. (western) economy. That means you and me get to pay for it twice in job losses at home and import costs of the items soon to be made elsewhere. Three times if you count the lost loads for the railroads. I say fair is fair, make it apply equally to all and then let's see who is still in favor of the Kyoto protocalls.

[Anonymous]

[#offtopic][#offtopic][#offtopic][zzz][zzz][zzz] May this part of the discussion be at an end please, ad-nasium arguement does reach its limits. May I recommend another topic under the heading of " THE POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CAPITALISM, SHIP BUILDING, THE RAILROADS, AND COAL FUELED GENERATING PLANTS ON THE NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SPECIES HOMO SAPIEN. Not as emotional but I am sure thoughtful and controversial enough for discussion

[rrnut282]

party pooper...


At least I tried to keep railroads in the discussion.