Backshop charlie hebdo It's amazing how oppositional folks are on here to electrification of major trunk lines. It's really not such a big deal. Most other industrialized nations seem to have overcome the difficulties mentioned here. I suspect most here have never spent much time in areas that have such services. As to noise, definitely quieter. Most are government run, which means that money is less of a problem. Their runs are also much shorter than ours. LA-CHI is huge compared to anything in Europe.
charlie hebdo It's amazing how oppositional folks are on here to electrification of major trunk lines. It's really not such a big deal. Most other industrialized nations seem to have overcome the difficulties mentioned here. I suspect most here have never spent much time in areas that have such services. As to noise, definitely quieter.
It's amazing how oppositional folks are on here to electrification of major trunk lines. It's really not such a big deal. Most other industrialized nations seem to have overcome the difficulties mentioned here. I suspect most here have never spent much time in areas that have such services. As to noise, definitely quieter.
Most are government run, which means that money is less of a problem. Their runs are also much shorter than ours. LA-CHI is huge compared to anything in Europe.
I suggest that the network of lines in Europe or Japan is very dense. Majority of lines in Germany and France, Italy, Benelux are electrified. The infreastructure is state owned; operators are privatized. We should do the same for efficiency
charlie hebdo Backshop charlie hebdo It's amazing how oppositional folks are on here to electrification of major trunk lines. It's really not such a big deal. Most other industrialized nations seem to have overcome the difficulties mentioned here. I suspect most here have never spent much time in areas that have such services. As to noise, definitely quieter. Most are government run, which means that money is less of a problem. Their runs are also much shorter than ours. LA-CHI is huge compared to anything in Europe. I suggest that the network of lines in Europe or Japan is very dense. Majority of lines in Germany and France, Italy, Benelux are electrified. The infreastructure is state owned; operators are privatized. We should do the same for efficiency
Europe's rail 'system' is far from a system with each country marching to their own 'drummer' as to manner of operation and with each country having its own form of elctrification that effectively prevents anything like 'run through' trains across Europe in any direction. Were the European model implemented in the US, each state would have its own rail 'system' and crossing from state to state would be a major undertaking.
To my limited knowledge is the Thalys service is one of the few cross country services and the equipment has been built to handle the four different forms of electrification the service operates over.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There is lots of international service in Europe. If engine changes are needed st s border, they are done efficiently.
Backshop rdamon LA-CHI sure, but this may be more like LA-Barstow That's a separate thread about California banning older diesels. This thread is about long distance, widespread electrification on many major trunk lines.
rdamon LA-CHI sure, but this may be more like LA-Barstow
LA-CHI sure, but this may be more like LA-Barstow
That's a separate thread about California banning older diesels. This thread is about long distance, widespread electrification on many major trunk lines.
I disagree. Last time I drove that route it was not a local trip.
If that is the catalyst to start the transcon, then continuing to Belen and to KC and eventually Chicago would be incremental.
charlie hebdoThere is lots of international service in Europe. If engine changes are needed st s border, they are done efficiently.
Engine changes, no matter how efficient, are DELAY. The bigger problem is actually having engines at the proper location at the proper time to facilitate a change.
The Trans-Siberian is more than twice as long as LA-CHI and is electrified.
MidlandMike The Trans-Siberian is more than twice as long as LA-CHI and is electrified.
Backshop MidlandMike The Trans-Siberian is more than twice as long as LA-CHI and is electrified. It was also built and operated by an authoritarian government. See a pattern here?
It was also built and operated by an authoritarian government. See a pattern here?
Like California :D
In my opinion, there are no 'showstopping' objections to the technical achievement of punctate, progressive electrification. The concerns are allocating the capital and establishing suitable 'championing', developing effective-scale construction and maintenance support, and managing the public and political objections to electrification 'at all the neighbors' expense'.
Something I have seen architects and planners address is how to make OHLE less ugly or intrusive. Some of the work done in connection with 'three-wire' streetcar and light-rail development specifically concerned itself with how to make that kind of overhead wire look better -- acceptably better, not just something to be promoted via the usual methods.
Are Europe and Japan governments authoritarian? Even a third world country like Morocco has electrified high speed rail. Does the fact that they are all government owned, infer that private railroads are incapable of electrificatioon?
MidlandMikeAre Europe and Japan governments authoritarian? Even a third world country like Morocco has electrified high speed rail. Does the fact that they are all government owned, infer that private railroads are incapable of electrificatioon?
1. Europe and Japan are both high populations - small areas. Most of our country is not in that situation.
2. Private companies won't spend money with no possibility of profits in return.
York1 John
York1 MidlandMike Are Europe and Japan governments authoritarian? Even a third world country like Morocco has electrified high speed rail. Does the fact that they are all government owned, infer that private railroads are incapable of electrificatioon? 1. Europe and Japan are both high populations - small areas. Most of our country is not in that situation. 2. Private companies won't spend money with no possibility of profits in return.
MidlandMike Are Europe and Japan governments authoritarian? Even a third world country like Morocco has electrified high speed rail. Does the fact that they are all government owned, infer that private railroads are incapable of electrificatioon?
1. Apparently you missed the part of my post that talked about the Trans-Siberian railroad and the Morocco HSR. Do those countries have the density of Europe.
2. Does this mean that you agree that private companies are incapable of electrification?
MidlandMike1. Apparently you missed the part of my post that talked about the Trans-Siberian railroad and the Morocco HSR. Do those countries have the density of Europe. 2. Does this mean that you agree that private companies are incapable of electrification?
1. Government sponsored, supported and financed.
2. If there is a sufficient profit, private companies will be there. No profit expected, no private involvement.
Perfect example--Germany has 84 million people in a country a little more than half the size of Texas. Japan has 124 million people in a country the size of Montana. With a population density like that, you can do it. Germany's is greater than every state except for Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey. Guess what? Two of the three have decent electrified networks.
Backshop Perfect example--Germany has 84 million people in a country a little more than half the size of Texas. Japan has 124 million people in a country the size of Montana. With a population density like that, you can do it. Germany's is greater than every state except for Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey. Guess what? Two of the three have decent electrified networks.
Russia is vastly larger with a populaton of 140 million and declining. Their rail network is electrified for the most part (87%) including the Trans Siberian line. In Russia 90% of intercity freight moves by rail..
How is picking only the dense countries that have electrified rail a perfect example. It is a biased example. You are ignoring the examples of the Trans-Siberian and Morocco mentioned multiple times. Population density is not a defining factor; ton-miles and efficiency and ability to finance are the limiting factors.
MidlandMikeHow is picking only the dense countries that have electrified rail a perfect example. It is a biased example. You are ignoring the examples of the Trans-Siberian and Morocco mentioned multiple times. Population density is not a defining factor; ton-miles and efficiency and ability to finance are the limiting factors.
You are mixing the two.
You point up Russia and Morocco. Russia is a good example of a railroad system built by a dictatorial government. Morocco's railroad is state-owned.
Then you mention Japan and Europe. As pointed out, both of those are small, densely populated areas. Europe's private trains for the most part operate on state owned tracks. Japan's trains are private, but carry almost no freight.
All of these situations would not translate well to the U.S. or Canada.
If you want us to have a system like Russia or Europe, then elect people to Congress who will take over the rail system, spend trillions of dollars to electrify it, and then sit back and enjoy watching your tax dollars at work.
Several times you've mentioned Russia's system. It was mostly built by the communist governments. While they electrified the system, they also had people standing in bread lines and living in government housing that would be condemned in any other country. They didn't worry about pollution or dirty power systems.
MidlandMike Backshop Perfect example--Germany has 84 million people in a country a little more than half the size of Texas. Japan has 124 million people in a country the size of Montana. With a population density like that, you can do it. Germany's is greater than every state except for Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey. Guess what? Two of the three have decent electrified networks. How is picking only the dense countries that have electrified rail a perfect example. It is a biased example. You are ignoring the examples of the Trans-Siberian and Morocco mentioned multiple times. Population density is not a defining factor; ton-miles and efficiency and ability to finance are the limiting factors.
Trans-Siberian was a Russian State project; Morocco is also a state project. It is amazing what can be accomplished when return on investment is looked at as other than on a financial profit/loss statement.
Remember MILW and GN both had long distance electrified zones and scrapped them in the 1970's or thereabouts.
York1 MidlandMike How is picking only the dense countries that have electrified rail a perfect example. It is a biased example. You are ignoring the examples of the Trans-Siberian and Morocco mentioned multiple times. Population density is not a defining factor; ton-miles and efficiency and ability to finance are the limiting factors. You are mixing the two. You point up Russia and Morocco. Russia is a good example of a railroad system built by a dictatorial government. Morocco's railroad is state-owned. Then you mention Japan and Europe. As pointed out, both of those are small, densely populated areas. Europe's private trains for the most part operate on state owned tracks. Japan's trains are private, but carry almost no freight. All of these situations would not translate well to the U.S. or Canada. If you want us to have a system like Russia or Europe, then elect people to Congress who will take over the rail system, spend trillions of dollars to electrify it, and then sit back and enjoy watching your tax dollars at work. Several times you've mentioned Russia's system. It was mostly built by the communist governments. While they electrified the system, they also had people standing in bread lines and living in government housing that would be condemned in any other country. They didn't worry about pollution or dirty power systems.
MidlandMike How is picking only the dense countries that have electrified rail a perfect example. It is a biased example. You are ignoring the examples of the Trans-Siberian and Morocco mentioned multiple times. Population density is not a defining factor; ton-miles and efficiency and ability to finance are the limiting factors.
Bread lines, government housing, and pollution aren't unique to Russia..
Ulrich... Bread lines, government housing, and pollution aren't unique to Russia..
Stalin would like your comment.
UlrichBread lines, government housing, and pollution aren't unique to Russia..
And?
BaltACD Ulrich ... Bread lines, government housing, and pollution aren't unique to Russia.. Stalin would like your comment.
Ulrich ... Bread lines, government housing, and pollution aren't unique to Russia..
I believe Lenin referred to such people as "useful idiots."
York1 Ulrich Bread lines, government housing, and pollution aren't unique to Russia.. And?
Ulrich Bread lines, government housing, and pollution aren't unique to Russia..
And lots of poverty here too.. but no state of the art electrified railways that might suggest that the poor were robbed to build them.
Psychot BaltACD Ulrich ... Bread lines, government housing, and pollution aren't unique to Russia.. Stalin would like your comment. I believe Lenin referred to such people as "useful idiots."
Useful idiots beats the other kind..
UlrichAnd lots of poverty here too.. but no state of the art electrified railways that might suggest that the poor were robbed to build them.
Since our poor (12% of the population) don't pay taxes, they wouldn't be 'robbed' to pay for the railways.
Again, if you really want us to have state-of-the-art railways, elect people to Congress who will have the gov't take over the railways and make them into what you want.
Don't expect a for-profit railway company to spend billions stringing and powering lines across the vast western U.S., all without any hope of ever recouping the costs.
Edit -- I just noticed that you live in Canada. I should have looked at that before responding. My arguments don't really apply to you. Sorry. I guess that puts me into the 'not so useful idiots' group!
BaltACD Remember MILW and GN both had long distance electrified zones and scrapped them in the 1970's or thereabouts.
Except for the Northeast Corridor and even Conrail quit running electric locomotives in the 80s. Not 1 Class one electricalficaion survived unless it was for passenger service. That is the only reason why certain lines around Chicago have it and even those are run by the government aka Metra.
MidlandMike Backshop MidlandMike The Trans-Siberian is more than twice as long as LA-CHI and is electrified. It was also built and operated by an authoritarian government. See a pattern here? Are Europe and Japan governments authoritarian?
Are Europe and Japan governments authoritarian?
Both areas received lots of money to rebuild their railroads that were decimated in WWII.
An "expensive model collector"
York1 Edit -- I just noticed that you live in Canada. I should have looked at that before responding. My arguments don't really apply to you. Sorry. I guess that puts me into the 'not so useful idiots' group!
Not at all.. same process here only slightly nuanced as our political bodies and processes are a bit different. But for the most part our countries are more alike than different.
Doesn't the CARB regulation mandate "emissions-free" locomotives?
How is the engine in a large diesel going to be engineered to be "free" of all "emissions"?? Seems to me they're going to emit a lot of something.
One can easily dream up and put laws and regs to paper. It's quite more difficult to bend technology to satisfy such laws -- or comply with the laws of physics.
Regarding electrification...
I ran electric locos for 30+ years. They beat diesel power hands-down, in passenger.
I didn't work the electric territory for Conrail, but I do remember comments from guys who did who said the E44's were great pullers.
But electrifying the major freight lines in California?
Even UP and BNSF are going to be challenged to pay for it. The cost in dollars will be astronomical.
The technical and engineering work will be daunting, particularly with tunnels that will have to be rebuilt to handle double-stack AND a 25,000v overhead catenary system. Keeping that overhead functional during the blizzards in the High Sierras is going to be interesting -- rotary snowplows under catenary?
And what happens when the trains get to the Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon borders? Gonna be a whole lotta engine changin' goin' on (apologies to Jerry Lee Lewis). That's going to mean "more crews", as well.
I won't live to see this, but for the youngsters here, it's gonna be interesting.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.