Murphy SidingIt looks like I'm in good company. You didn't read it either. Oh well. I'm looking forward to how you explain the relevance of a study about congested railroads in a tightly packed, urban, industrial continent verses a railroad system hauling zillions of tons of non-time sensitive, commodities over long distances.
Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed in the article which was efficiency of market access (incremental - using speed) per an individual and the effect on wages, GDP, where they chose to live, etc.
Your using the old standby for the Trains forum, if you do not understand what was posted or do not comprehend it.......pull another subject out of thin air and start to talk about it instead. Which proves my point about discussing economic theories in this forum (in this case a spatial economic theory). Flys over most peoples understanding here and the discussion never addresses the issues raised.
Not that I am faulting that. This is not an Economics forum but it is what it is and hence pointed out to the OP his subject matter is at a level that he will never really get a straight or fact based answer here. He is better off taking it to an Economics Forum.
CMStPnP PNWRMNM So, CMStPnP says that there is an Economic Theory somewhere, note he did not bother to cite it, that says faster passenger transport increases GDP and effieciency. Lets stipuate that, there is such a theory. At most a 3-5 min search via Google. Your not a data scientist and neither are most of the readers here so to find a non-technical article without complex charts and graphs which you would struggle to understand might take longer both are really beyond the audience of this forum as I stated earlier. But here is a good starter article for you since your incapable of using the keywords I provided with Google. Still I am willing to bet some of what is dicussed in the below is above your comprehension, hence I was hesistant to post a link since the article will tend to be misread or misquoted.
PNWRMNM So, CMStPnP says that there is an Economic Theory somewhere, note he did not bother to cite it, that says faster passenger transport increases GDP and effieciency. Lets stipuate that, there is such a theory.
At most a 3-5 min search via Google. Your not a data scientist and neither are most of the readers here so to find a non-technical article without complex charts and graphs which you would struggle to understand might take longer both are really beyond the audience of this forum as I stated earlier.
But here is a good starter article for you since your incapable of using the keywords I provided with Google. Still I am willing to bet some of what is dicussed in the below is above your comprehension, hence I was hesistant to post a link since the article will tend to be misread or misquoted.
The point of my post from which you launched your ignorant and insulting personal attack was that the theory, whatever it/they are, does not matter. Reality is what matters.
I went to Amazon to find the book that the OP referenced. The promotional material makes clear that HSR, that is new passenger only lines built within the last 60 years, make economic sense ONLY within a narrow band of conditions. This means that outside of that narrow band, they cost more than they are worth and cause a net destruction of wealth.
There is also an excellent review of the book, which reads like a dust jacket summary, that makes the same point perfectly clear.
As to the economics of high speed rail, I do not care enough about the subject matter to spend (invest if you are a progressive) $35 to find out what those narrow boundary conditions are.
Mac
It's not how fast you go. It's how soon you get there and how closely you adhere to your schedule.
I remember a trucking company that ran tachs in their tractors years ago. One driver was always on the carpet for speeding out on the road. You never knew when old Bill would be in to turn his unit over to the next driver. It consistently took Bill longer to make the same run compared to how long other drivers took.
Old Bill would yak forever if anybody would listen to him when he made a stop.
Reducing delays enroute to speed up and consistently make a schedule is not easy. It is less expensive than investing the capital to move faster from delay point to delay point.
jeffhergert Oh No! Never Assume anything. You know what happens when you assume something, right? To the railroad, there are a few things that are time sensitive. Enough that they'll kill off (HOS, not actually murder) crews on other trains to keep the hot ones moving. Think UPS. But in the big picture, the hottest of UPS business doesn't go by rail. For the railroad, reliability would go along way to get more business. Assuming (See, now you have me doing it. And I know what happens when you assume.) they want more business. Jeff
Oh No! Never Assume anything. You know what happens when you assume something, right?
To the railroad, there are a few things that are time sensitive. Enough that they'll kill off (HOS, not actually murder) crews on other trains to keep the hot ones moving. Think UPS. But in the big picture, the hottest of UPS business doesn't go by rail. For the railroad, reliability would go along way to get more business. Assuming (See, now you have me doing it. And I know what happens when you assume.) they want more business.
Jeff
One thing, I would add is that UPS may be the oldest large 'package shipper' ; BUT NEVER FORGET it was Fred Smith's, college paper, that shook up the package delivery business. It gave us the Fed Ex Corp. [nee: Federal Express model] of package delivery. Since adopted by most compeditors, in the package delivery business.
The Santa Fe's 'Super C' was the harbinger of the current COFC/TOFC transportation model. It was AT&SF president Mike Havery who recruited trucker JB Hunt to take a ride on the Super C that really brought TOFC into the world of today's railroading.
The point is that the 'model' of Fred Smith's college paper, was a 'universal model' for the future of the package delivery business. It was adopted also by UPS, and it is the reason that both these major compeditor's locations, and businesses virtually, mirror each other today.
Likewise, the COFC/TOFC railroad business transportation competition has evolved to provided the National, and International 'models'; used by most all the compeditors on this continent, and somewhat overseas as well.
Victrola1 It's not how fast you go. It's how soon you get there and how closely you adhere to your schedule. I remember a trucking company that ran tachs in their tractors years ago. One driver was always on the carpet for speeding out on the road. You never knew when old Bill would be in to turn his unit over to the next driver. It consistently took Bill longer to make the same run compared to how long other drivers took. Old Bill would yak forever if anybody would listen to him when he made a stop. Reducing delays enroute to speed up and consistently make a schedule is not easy. It is less expensive than investing the capital to move faster from delay point to delay point.
Agreed, I made the same point much earlier in this thread.
What I want to know about all the PhD's and their theories and charts - how many of them have actually run a business at a profit, especially a transportation business?
I don't have all the answers, but I learned a lot from my father who spent most of his working life in trucking management, much of that as a regional manager and terminal manager for what was at the time the largest carrier in the east, CAROLINA.
Freight trains don't have to go 110 mph, they just need to keep moving.
And all these "save the planet" ideas about rail passenger service are a waste of time and money.
Where we do have the need, we should have good commuter rail, which to some degree should be at least close to self supporting. Make it better in those places and those people to which it applies will use it, and that will make it more economically sound. And yes it needs goverment support because it benefits everyone in the areas it serves, just like a public road - but we only build roads based on need, not on dreams of people using them.......
Expecting other groups of people to adapt a different life style so they can live without a car and ride a train is the most backwards thinking I have ever heard.
As for long distance rail travel, that one is tough as long as airlines can do business the way they do.....that's another story for another time.
Sheldon
I'm no data scientist, as has been pointed out by another non-data scientist above. Therefore what follows is my opinion based on my perspective of the questions asked. My opinions are in red.
SAMUEL C WALKER Would an American Higher Speed Railroad Network - Up to 110 mph - Contirbute to Productivity and Competitiveness? Technically it could, I suppose. The net result would not be good for the economy as a whole as I feel it would require some crazy spending- like a Trillion dollars (hoenestly). As our railroad system is a freight railroad system, additional passenger service in many instances impedes freight operations due to diefferences in freight and passneger speeds. If both operated at 110 mph max, they would then be speed compatible. Would higher freight speeds create more competiveness and productivity for the American economy?No, as the majority of freight hauled is not time sensitive but you'd be rebuilding the entire railroad system to cater to that freight that was. Would higher speed compatibility attract passener business both now bound to the road and the air?Airlines- maybe on some coridoors. Autos- probably not. We're not Europe and we like our cars. Would a higher speed railroad (HrSR) system relieve / lessen truck / auto congestion and passenger air congestion? Conceivable. But so would spending that same Trillion dollars on all new roads.These thoughts from "The Economics and Politics of High-Speed Rail" by Albalate and Gel. I'm betting that their perspective has a slant toward high speed rail for passenger service, not freight.
Would an American Higher Speed Railroad Network - Up to 110 mph - Contirbute to Productivity and Competitiveness? Technically it could, I suppose. The net result would not be good for the economy as a whole as I feel it would require some crazy spending- like a Trillion dollars (hoenestly). As our railroad system is a freight railroad system, additional passenger service in many instances impedes freight operations due to diefferences in freight and passneger speeds. If both operated at 110 mph max, they would then be speed compatible. Would higher freight speeds create more competiveness and productivity for the American economy?No, as the majority of freight hauled is not time sensitive but you'd be rebuilding the entire railroad system to cater to that freight that was. Would higher speed compatibility attract passener business both now bound to the road and the air?Airlines- maybe on some coridoors. Autos- probably not. We're not Europe and we like our cars. Would a higher speed railroad (HrSR) system relieve / lessen truck / auto congestion and passenger air congestion? Conceivable. But so would spending that same Trillion dollars on all new roads.These thoughts from "The Economics and Politics of High-Speed Rail" by Albalate and Gel. I'm betting that their perspective has a slant toward high speed rail for passenger service, not freight.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
One thing standing in the way of commuter rail is that we no longer live in a hub-and-spoke world.
There was a time when the centers of commerce and industry could be located on a map in most big cities. And the residential areas were on the fringes of those cities. Commuters rode from the residential areas to the centers of commerce and industry, and then home again.
This is less the case today, although the growth of local commuter rail does show that it occurs.
The automobile and suburban crawl mean that people want/need to travel between points other than those centers, and may not be willing to endure a trip all the way downtown for a transfer out another spoke - it may be a substantially longer trip than simply driving between the two points.
Some transit systems were built speculatively - the builder of the system was trying to induce people to settle in an area the builder was developing.
Of course, unless you're talking some form of express trains, this has little to do with high speed rail.
It's been said that the most efficient rail system is one that runs at a consistent speed. In real terms, this means that freight and passenger traffic needs to run at the same speed. This is bad for both - bringing the general freight up to a speed that will make passenger happy is costly, and bringing passenger down to freight speeds makes it that much less attractive.
The Central and Pennsy had the right idea with their four track mains - two for passenger, two for freight, and rarely did the twain meet. Passenger trains could run upwards of 100 MPH while freight plodded along at 45 or 50 MPH.
Even having a third track strictly for passenger (with a few well-placed passing sidings) would help. There's room on most of the Water Level Route, and possibly on the Pennsy ROW, but other lines might have problems finding the room.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Even when there is a fairly good system for bringing people into the big city, it does not work well for everybody. I have a cousin in King George, Virginia; her husband worked in Washington--but for him to drive to Fredericksburg, take the VRE and then go from Union Station to his place of work would have added about an hour to the time it took him to get to work by driving his car.
Johnny
Many thanks for all the information being offered. Let's consider this. Passenger service provided by roadrailer based highway coaches would simply take adavantage of linehaul efficiencies of rail. Operators would be government authorities and private companies. Some companies would identify the market and serve it - executives? professionals? managers? office workers? manual workers? No intervening stations. Just transport - sort of a "railpike" as if a turnpike. Freight - roadrailer vehicle instead of lumbering behomeths now used. Why? the HrSR higher speed rail would primarily compete for highway bound business. Adding lanes and concrete not likely and is not desireable. So, forget current heavy rail. How about new heavy rail with a proven vehicle to add transport capacity for the future. All perdeictions are for substatial, even complete gridblock by 2035. Thoughts?
I read the summary, and I have read the German newspaper stories condemning the two stations. The station of Limburg Süd (Limburg South) serves Limburg an der Lahn, a district that includes several small villages, with a population of just over 34 thousand. The station is not very close to the town proper, indeed the A-3 Autobahn and the other station is located inside the town boundaries. The newspapers at the time accused the German state of Hesse of blackmail to get the station built. The cost of the station was roughly €27 million. The station at Montabaur cost a similar amount, but it was reputedly in exchange for the German state of Rheinland-Pfalz to acquiesce to the building of the Limburg station.
The service at Limburg Süd is 7 trains per day about one every two hours, 5 trains per day on Saturday, just one train on Sunday.
The population of Montabaur is about half of that of Limburg.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.