QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282 Once again another topic of discussion goes astray.[:-^]
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM FM, You are correct as to the first line. The body of the article however does not describe a high speed line as we typically use the term, 125 MPH or better. The article does not discuss engineering specs but I suspect they will operate at about 100 KMPH, or 60 MPH for freight trains. Mac
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton 2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed? You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations. The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port. But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight? [banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead] Why is this so hard to grasp? When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company. Try this for size: Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs. If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset. Evolve, please. Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton 2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed? You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations. The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port. But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight? [banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead] Why is this so hard to grasp? When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company. Try this for size: Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs. If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset. Evolve, please.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton 2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed? You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations. The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port. But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton 2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed? You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations. The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton 2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton 2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed? You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations. The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port. But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight? [banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead] Why is this so hard to grasp? When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company. Try this for size: Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs. If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset. Evolve, please. Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight? If I may keep this veering within the veered context aka captivity, I will name more than one area of the country where a single Class I is the only rail service provider for it's rail shipping needs: Southern Idaho (UP) Eastern Montana (BNSF) Northern Montana (BNSF) Northwestern Montana (BNSF) Western North Dakota (BNSF) Western Wyoming (UP) Southern Nevada (UP) Southern Arizona (UP) Northern Arizona (BNSF) Eastern Oregon (UP) North Central Washington (BNSF) Northwestern South Dakota (BNSF) *Northern Nevada (UP) *All of Utah (UP) *Eastern Colorado (UP) *(Yeah, I know. BNSF supposedly was granted operating rights over the "Central Corridor" through Northern Nevada, Northern Utah, and Eastern Colorado, but from what I understand BNSF isn't too interested in using these rights to provide real time competition to UP for online traffic) I haven't even mentioned the captive areas east of the Mississippi, nor in Canada. Nor have I mentioned the carload customers who are captive e.g. whose products are predicated on shipment directly from the production facility by rail. Case closed. Now, can we please go back to the topic of HSR for freight? Thank you.
QUOTE: Originally posted by drfizzix Err... so, how about those Detroit Tigers [%-)]...
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton 2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed? You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations. The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port. But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight? [banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead] Why is this so hard to grasp? When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company. Try this for size: Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs. If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset. Evolve, please. Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight? If I may keep this veering within the veered context aka captivity, I will name more than one area of the country where a single Class I is the only rail service provider for it's rail shipping needs: Southern Idaho (UP) Eastern Montana (BNSF) Northern Montana (BNSF) Northwestern Montana (BNSF) Western North Dakota (BNSF) Western Wyoming (UP) Southern Nevada (UP) Southern Arizona (UP) Northern Arizona (BNSF) Eastern Oregon (UP) North Central Washington (BNSF) Northwestern South Dakota (BNSF) *Northern Nevada (UP) *All of Utah (UP) *Eastern Colorado (UP) *(Yeah, I know. BNSF supposedly was granted operating rights over the "Central Corridor" through Northern Nevada, Northern Utah, and Eastern Colorado, but from what I understand BNSF isn't too interested in using these rights to provide real time competition to UP for online traffic) I haven't even mentioned the captive areas east of the Mississippi, nor in Canada. Nor have I mentioned the carload customers who are captive e.g. whose products are predicated on shipment directly from the production facility by rail. Case closed. Now, can we please go back to the topic of HSR for freight? Thank you. So none of these have a truck shipping option? Rail captivity might have been an issue in the 19th century, but you really need to come into the 20th century. Most of us are in the 21st. Or would that be some kind of "evolution" thing?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton 2500 miles in 10 days? Average speed of 10.42 MPH is high speed? You need to access a globe before you jump to such conclusions. The 2500 miles is only to China's western border, while the 10 days is for the entire trip from China to Europe. My interpretation of the article is that only the Chinese portion will be de facto HSR, with the rest of the line standard operations. The bottom line is that this new line will result in a transit time from eastern China to Europe's markets that is 5 days less than the current top transit time. That's huge by any standard. And what isn't really mentioned in the story would be the ability of western Chinese factories to get their product to port in a few days for US bound export, while we in America still need up to two weeks for our manufactured goods to get from plant to port. And our plants are paying captive rates for this slow service, while the Chinese plants will probably be given at cost rates to move their products to port. But in the US, they have the option of trucks, so the "captive" argument doesn't wash. Coast to coast by truck is only a few days. Or are you saying trucks don't compete with rail freight? [banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead] Why is this so hard to grasp? When speaking of "rail captivity", we are speaking of being captive to the rates and services of only one Class I railroad. We are not saying that any area of the country is captive to only one transportation company. Try this for size: Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one trucking company for it's trucking needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one barging company for it's waterway transportation needs. Name one, just one, area of the country that is limited to only one airfreight company for it's airfreight transportation needs. If you can do that, then you will have embarked on an intellectual exercise that will pull you out of your one track "let them eat cake" mindset. Evolve, please. Name one, just one area of the country where rail is the only freight shipping option. Then "captivity" might have a meaning. To imply one doesn't compete with the other is a bit tunnel visioned. Why does it matter if they only have one company offering a rail shipping option when they have all the other options mentioned to ship their freight? If I may keep this veering within the veered context aka captivity, I will name more than one area of the country where a single Class I is the only rail service provider for it's rail shipping needs: Southern Idaho (UP) Eastern Montana (BNSF) Northern Montana (BNSF) Northwestern Montana (BNSF) Western North Dakota (BNSF) Western Wyoming (UP) Southern Nevada (UP) Southern Arizona (UP) Northern Arizona (BNSF) Eastern Oregon (UP) North Central Washington (BNSF) Northwestern South Dakota (BNSF) *Northern Nevada (UP) *All of Utah (UP) *Eastern Colorado (UP) *(Yeah, I know. BNSF supposedly was granted operating rights over the "Central Corridor" through Northern Nevada, Northern Utah, and Eastern Colorado, but from what I understand BNSF isn't too interested in using these rights to provide real time competition to UP for online traffic) I haven't even mentioned the captive areas east of the Mississippi, nor in Canada. Nor have I mentioned the carload customers who are captive e.g. whose products are predicated on shipment directly from the production facility by rail. Case closed. Now, can we please go back to the topic of HSR for freight? Thank you. So none of these have a truck shipping option? Rail captivity might have been an issue in the 19th century, but you really need to come into the 20th century. Most of us are in the 21st. Or would that be some kind of "evolution" thing? You might be in the 21st ward, but not the 21st century. What you are suggesting is that certain commodities (whose characteristics make them best suited for bulk transportation modes) can simply be sloughed off onto some other type of transport mode. The coal fired power plant that takes 10,000 tons of coal every two weeks can simply call up all the trucking companies and have them make 600 collective round trips every month if they don't like the captive rates the one railroad charges. "Help Wanted: 300 CDL certified drivers for twice monthly round trip from Wyoming to Oregon ASAP". Yep, that's realistic. The power plant is captive in the real world. If the power plant can't get reliable rates and services from it's one rail connection, they will have to shut down. There is no realistic transportation alternative. Perhaps the 52 car shuttle loader for grain trains out in Smalltown, North Dakota can simply utilize 150 truckloads per cycle if BNSF (the only physical rail connection to the elevator) won't serve them anymore. That's it, that's the ticket! Heck, the population of such towns is probably 100 folks, where are they going to find 100 or so CDL certified drivers? Smalltown, Montana is captive in the real world. Without reliable rates and services from BNSF, the shuttle loader will be shut down. There is no realistic transportation alternative available. The cardboard plant in Northwestern Montana needs to move 500,000 cubic feet of cardboard every week to the East Coast. Well, that's only 100 truckloads per week, no problem. Of course, without adequate boxcar service from it's one Class I connection e.g. getting those 30 high cube boxcars in and out per week at a decent rate, the plant will be shut down because it cannot compete with the Canadian plant that is served by two Class I's with more competitive rates and service levels. The Montana cardboard plant is captive in the real world. There is no realistic transporation alternative available. The only real alternative is to shut down the plant, which is not a transportation alternative, but an operating alternative. You live in a fantasy world when you suggest such entities have transportation alternatives. If realistic transportation alternatives were available, such entities would utilize them and be able to stay in business. Since such realistic alternatives do not exist, the meaning of the word alternative moves beyond talk of transportation to the realm of operating parameters.
QUOTE: Originally posted by KCMOWMAN What high speed rail? I read nothing that represents high speed, perhaps for the people of China thats high speed, not to me. The larger point is HSR in the USA. Not going to happen, too expensive for the limited number of passengers it could carry. California can't afford it, the northeast can't take care of the corridor properly. Nowhere else is it feasable to to build it. Chicago to New York? Still too expensive. Amtrak is about to wobble into the sunset because of a shortage of funds, Now you want HSR? Just where would you find the money? I would vote to throw money down the black hole of Amtrak than spend it on HSR. HSR is great in Japan or Europe, it lends itself well to the shorter distances with heavy populations. Not the USA. Okay Amtrak / passenger lovers, fire away with your romantic notions or the great high speed passenger trains of tomorrow. Oh the life! I prefer to ride the reality train.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Hmmmm. So many new topic ideas..... 1. "Does head to head competition force railroads to operate at a loss?" 2. "Do grain cars just 'sit around' at any time of the year?" 3. "Is head to head competition for railroads really socialism in disguise?" 4. "Is it realistic to suggest that brand new railroads can be built in this day and age?" 5. "Is market based pricing via competition really just a 'fantasy'?" 6. "Will captive rates force coal-fired power plants to shut down, or convert to NG?" ........so little time. I would suggest you start some new threads if you feel you have some expertise or at least some piquie in these various issues. In the meantime, do you have any opinions on "HSR: Freight or Passenger?"?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So you have no opinions on HSR? Well, I guess we should all be thankful for that! In the meantime, wanna put YOUR notions up for independent topic analysis?(insert chicken smilie here)
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well, since you won't start a new topic on some of your *ideas*, I guess I'll start them for you....... http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51849 http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51851 ...perhaps more later, like the question as to why an average Joe such as FM doens't just build his own railroad!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Question for Tom and LC: When the original transcons were built, did they indeed put their own money where their stated ambitions lay, or did they utilize some form of corporate welfare to incentivize the construction?
QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Question for Tom and LC: When the original transcons were built, did they indeed put their own money where their stated ambitions lay, or did they utilize some form of corporate welfare to incentivize the construction? Much lies hidden beneath those words, Why infect what is basicly a civil engineering question with economic and political opportunities with economic and political drivel to an engineering thread. I think you might not have enough to do with your time - PL
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Question for Tom and LC: When the original transcons were built, did they indeed put their own money where their stated ambitions lay, or did they utilize some form of corporate welfare to incentivize the construction? Much lies hidden beneath those words, Why infect what is basicly a civil engineering question with economic and political opportunities with economic and political drivel to an engineering thread. I think you might not have enough to do with your time - PL PL, do you know of any railroad projects that aren't being aided by the feds? The question posed was why someone doesn't build a new railroad into an area where current profit margins suggest a supply/demand disequilibrium. Give me (or anyone else with vision and ambition) an equivalent package of federal aid analagous to the original land grants and lack of frivoulous lawsuits, and I (or anyone else with vision and ambition) would gladly build a new rail line into any area that shows profit potential. Without that federal incentive package, nothing will get built by anyone anytime, no matter how much ca***hey are sitting on.
QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Question for Tom and LC: When the original transcons were built, did they indeed put their own money where their stated ambitions lay, or did they utilize some form of corporate welfare to incentivize the construction? Much lies hidden beneath those words, Why infect what is basicly a civil engineering question with economic and political opportunities with economic and political drivel to an engineering thread. I think you might not have enough to do with your time - PL PL, do you know of any railroad projects that aren't being aided by the feds? The question posed was why someone doesn't build a new railroad into an area where current profit margins suggest a supply/demand disequilibrium. Give me (or anyone else with vision and ambition) an equivalent package of federal aid analagous to the original land grants and lack of frivoulous lawsuits, and I (or anyone else with vision and ambition) would gladly build a new rail line into any area that shows profit potential. Without that federal incentive package, nothing will get built by anyone anytime, no matter how much ca***hey are sitting on. I will hold with my original statement on on the matter of engineering and its challenges. If however you would also consider such things as the geography, allignment, grades, service possibilities, and the peacable effect of commerce between nations that otherwise may be fighting as a good discussion topics I feel that the forum may just be a more informed as well as a more interesting place from the point of view of railroad possibilities and not politics as usual. But again this is just an idea that I would hope you would find worthy of opinion not just of yourself but of others that read and participate here. For what its worth - PL
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.