2006 - The Year of Re-Regulation of Railroads?

[TomDiehl]

Correct on that one this is the same person that stated on an another thread stated that the current trailers out on the road could handle being loaded to a gross weight of 97000 lbs.  I think not I am a former driver and mechanic and know for a fact that the normal trailer out there would flat our buckle under the weight and also baukrupt all the large carriers from the expense of replacing the current trailers.

Most Western states now allow 105,500 GVW.  Some like Montana allow 129,000 GVW.

Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) includes the weight of the tractor. A separate figure from the gross weight of the trailer.

[Anonymous]

Correct on that one this is the same person that stated on an another thread stated that the current trailers out on the road could handle being loaded to a gross weight of 97000 lbs.  I think not I am a former driver and mechanic and know for a fact that the normal trailer out there would flat our buckle under the weight and also baukrupt all the large carriers from the expense of replacing the current trailers.

Most Western states now allow 105,500 GVW.  Some like Montana allow 129,000 GVW.

[edbenton]

Correct on that one this is the same person that stated on an another thread stated that the current trailers out on the road could handle being loaded to a gross weight of 97000 lbs.  I think not I am a former driver and mechanic and know for a fact that the normal trailer out there would flat our buckle under the weight and also baukrupt all the large carriers from the expense of replacing the current trailers.

[Anonymous]

 

(1/28/06) 

Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...

____________________________ 

2/4/2007

Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated.

 

What a shock.

 

Perhaps if the perfect storm would just blow FM back to his own private Idaho and knock out his internet service we would have some peace instead of the same old tired arguments which have little to do with regulation re-regulation or anything about railroads in the real world. FM needs to stick to his layout and DDC console and leave the real railroading to the railroaders and our Ilk... LOL...

LC 

And the insult orgy is reborn! 

I guess the real question is which event will occur first -  Reregulation of the railroads, or LC getting kicked off this forum permanently.

[Anonymous]

 

(1/28/06) 

Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...

____________________________ 

2/4/2007

Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated.

 

What a shock.

 

Which is why the topic title included a question mark.  That'd be one of these things - .

The gist of the subject is still valid if not more so, given that the Democrats have taken back Congress, thus making re-regulation even more likely. 

Seems we have a new Temperary Troll for the forum!  Welcome, "Signal Overlap" !  Hope you last longer than the last temp troll. 

[doghouse]

 

Wouldn't be as enteraining, though. 

[Limitedclear]

 

(1/28/06) 

Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...

____________________________ 

2/4/2007

Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated.

 

What a shock.

 

Perhaps if the perfect storm would just blow FM back to his own private Idaho and knock out his internet service we would have some peace instead of the same old tired arguments which have little to do with regulation re-regulation or anything about railroads in the real world. FM needs to stick to his layout and DDC console and leave the real railroading to the railroaders and our Ilk... LOL...

LC 

 

[Anonymous]

 

(1/28/06) 

Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...

____________________________ 

2/4/2007

Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated.

 

What a shock.

 

[Overmod]

This thread has become a little microcosm of why I stopped reading these boards.

You don't use GPS from satellites alone for railroad-signal location; you use NDGPS with appropriate ground-based beacons. "Radar" detection of impending collision is (with all due respect) an extremely dumb idea on most mainlines... by itself and as a primary sensor technology. Since there doesn't seem to be much 'thinking' about ATC evident here, I leave the solution 'for the readers' as to precisely why. Any of the current engineering methods of providing continuous PTC (or even PTS) involve better methods of assuring appropriate separation at appropriate train speed (admittedly most aren't fully autonomous using 'out-of-the-box technology from auto parts stores')...

I think this topic got raised because FM was being rhetorical about the tech methods that could (at least theoretically) be used to increase average train speeds. Continuous PTS/PTC will certainly optimize the number of trains you can have on a given line, and the speeds with which those trains can operate safely. I do believe that Ed, LC et al. are more correct in thinking that yard and terminal-related delays, and various crew-law situations, are far more significant causes of statistically slow speed numbers -- but we might then consider whether some form of "external action" might be either useful or expedient in solving either those issues or some of the underlying problems. I doubt sincerely that "regulation" could do that (reminds me of the old saw about what the new flight CO ordered when he found out that the #1 cause of aircraft damage at his new training command was 'hard landings') but it might be interesting to see what might be done, for example, to optimize infrastructure and operations management to facilitate clean and quick crew changes -- you would think that railroads would think this important enough to do it themselves, but I still see those little rental vans backing through mud puddles and over trackside debris to meet trains that have been standing for over an hour with clear track ahead...

Just for the record, I believe much of the last few pages of this thread involves a grammatical misunderstanding -- if you use the word "supplant" instead of "supplement", you get a better idea of what FM is almost certainly thinking with regard to "lineside signals", and it seems possible that this is the source of much of the resulting semantic 'confusion'. (Tongue-in-cheek: it might not be surprising to see this from someone who consistently misspells "supercede" even after having been given the correct spelling in the original post... he can even go back and find it, since he seems so good at locating and quoting the precise text of original material in this thread... ;-})

BLOCK signals are not really the issue when it comes to 'lineside' signals -- I think it has been well established (aka 'beaten to death') that block signals don't represent anything meaningful about train dispatching or actual authority to occupy track; they only serve as indicators of track occupancy or problem ahead of a given movement, with the implied sense that there be guaranteed space for the heaviest/slowest permitted train to stop. Perhaps I am overly naive in assuming (as I do, since I know something about the system architectures involved) that proper PTC systems inherently involve effective links to things like track-integrity sensors, lineside fences, etc. so that the in-cab signals will immediately reflect civil as well as operating problems at least as quickly and as well as fixed signals would. It does, however, seem clear to me that most of the 'need' for ABS (and its inherent 'hard' limitation on capacity) goes away with working continuous aspect, with or without enforced PTS... which I understood as being the original point FM was trying to make back there.

I won't take up the short vs. long train issue, except to disagree strongly with the idea that long trains have to be 'slower' than short ones, or conversely that a bunch of short, fast trains a la Perlman-in-the-West are going to "solve" low average mph. Didn't we beat that issue to death at least twice a while back? In a world with DPU, the rules are different -- of course, that assumes you actually use the technology when and where needed, and in an effective manner. But much more importantly, if you want point-to-point speed increased, by far the most important thing to do is arrange for expedited removal of 'delays' in what happens to the trains when they get where they're going (in other words, at yards or other terminal facilities). That has little to do with FM's point that, when possible, trains might be run as close to track speed as possible when actually operating over the road (which is valid, without getting into issues about whether max *permitted* speed on a given piece of line translates into a consideration about what 'track speed' for a given train might be, which I think is considerably less valid).

Left open amid all the name-calling and general cheap-shottery is at least one issue germane to the original topic: Does an outside agency (almost certainly some representative of a government) have either the authority or the right to *require* railroads to engage in more efficient operations or procedures on their "own" property? That remains an interesting topic (at least to me) -- technically, legally, and financially. Perhaps those of us who are not too childish at heart might take this up in a somewhat better-reasoned fashion.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

From this thread, page 6 post 6 from the same user:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

1. I would grant you that GPS is a lot cheaper than installing new CTC/ABS.
2. GPS could work in conjunction with EOT radar and lead unit radar detection, which would be activated if a lead consist slows below a safe speed range, or if it stops on the main, and would deactivate once a consist clears a siding. The point is, GPS wouldn't necessarily have to work alone to achieve the desired capacity improvements.

Note item 2.

Since you missed it the first time.

[Anonymous]

Tom,

Would you kindly post the link to where I ever said GPS should supplement current lineside signals? That is counter to the whole notion of using GPS in the first place, e.g. GPS should replace lineside signalling for managing fleet operations from a centralized dispatch.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom,

You have purposefully misrepresented what I said. You know it. Everyone who reads through this thread knows it.

I never ever said GPS should supplement lineside signals. You are the one who implied that, not me.

The quote from your own post seems to disagree with your statement. You quickly moved away from the notion that they should superceed the lineside signals.

The idea that your thoughts could be influenced by other's inputs is not intended to be an insult. MANY times, I've participated in an open exchange of ideas, where merits and pitfalls of different thoughts are openly discussed. The fancy buzzword for that is "brainstorming." Somewhere, in the mix of thoughts, experiences, and practicality, is a solution to just about every problem. Ideas and thoughts are easy to change, and should be, to meet the needs of the individual problem.

[Anonymous]

Tom,

You have purposefully misrepresented what I said. You know it. Everyone who reads through this thread knows it.

I never ever said GPS should supplement lineside signals. You are the one who implied that, not me.

What I have said (and I will paraphrase for you) is that consist-centric signalling aka radar and radar detection (simple, cheap stuff, you can buy it all at your local Schucks or Napa auto parts stores) can be the solution to the lack of pin-point accuracy of state of the art centralized control aka GPS. The GPS lets distpatch know where everyone is, the radar/radar detection lets the road crews know how close they are to the next/following consist is.

Block signals are old hat, and as such they could be eliminated, if indeed their usefulness in detecting and warning of rail malformities is not consistent.

[edblysard]

Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

pron. Scots
The same. Used following a name to indicate that the one named resides in an area bearing the same name: Duncan of that ilk.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ilke, same, from Old English ilca. See i- in Indo-European Roots.]
Word History: When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, “kind or sort,” is actually quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning “of the same place, territorial designation, or name.” This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning “Guthrie of Guthrie.” “Same” is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.

Not sure which usage he is trying for...the simple one or the verbose one....knowing Dave, I would guess the latter...

Ed

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl



So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals."

Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

Bad Tom, no biscuit.

Bad Dave, poor reading of your own posts.

Tom,

This is how incredibly stupid you really are:

This is what I originally said:

QUOTE: Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

As you or anyone with more than 5 braincells can clearly see, I did not deny using the term "'superceed signals' ". I did deny using the term "supplementing signals", because I did not say it. You rather claimed that I said it, then you go to the trouble of cut and pasting the "superceed" quote, and use that to aver the non-existent "supplement" quote.

What I did say in subsequent posts was a questioning of whether there would be a need for lineside signals soley for the purpose of indicating broken rails or other rail relay disruptions. That has nothing to do with "supplementing" GPS for the purpose of streamlining train operations, which is the path you've trod.

And again, why is it you feel a need to misrepresent posters to obfiscate the subject matter? Either you have an opinion on options for streamlining operations, or you don't. Why not just leave it at that?

I stand by the truth, which is that you make up quotes attributed to others, when in fact they did not say them, and you do so to skew the discussion away from the subject. Perhaps you are hoping to induce yet another Bergie lockdown?

And you wouldn't qualify as an ilk, you've got a lot of subhuman pissing and hissing to do before you can get that membership.

Cheers!

OMG Dave you get more funny with each post.

1. Both quotes are attributed correctly to you. Directions to the original posts are given.

2. You DID make a post about having "GPS superceed signals."

3. You made another post stating that "GPS could be used in conjunction with (a synonym of supplement) radar positiong or other traffic control methods.

4. I said you moved from superceed to "supplement signals," not supplement GPS, which makes no sense how it would make dispatching or traffic control more efficient. The signal system is still the primary traffic control system because the technology of GPS isn't advanced enough to make it a safe system for superceeding signals, or add enough information to the traffic control system to make the expense worth while. In your post where you tell me that I can't have a biscuit, you even admit that lineside signals won't be eliminated. Where is the savings? How many MORE things are you going to put in front of the engineer to watch? MORE chances for operator errors?

5. You've resorted to juvenile name calling, which is a good indication that you've run out of "facts" to offer.

6. I'll leave it to Ed to define "ilk" for you.

7. Your quotes are there for all to read, so spinning the info won't do you much good. Nothing was "misrepresented."

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl



So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals."

Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

Bad Tom, no biscuit.

Bad Dave, poor reading of your own posts.

Tom,

This is how incredibly stupid you really are:

This is what I originally said:

QUOTE: Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

As you or anyone with more than 5 braincells can clearly see, I did not deny using the term "'superceed signals' ". I did deny using the term "supplementing signals", because I did not say it. You rather claimed that I said it, then you go to the trouble of cut and pasting the "superceed" quote, and use that to aver the non-existent "supplement" quote.

What I did say in subsequent posts was a questioning of whether there would be a need for lineside signals soley for the purpose of indicating broken rails or other rail relay disruptions. That has nothing to do with "supplementing" GPS for the purpose of streamlining train operations, which is the path you've trod.

And again, why is it you feel a need to misrepresent posters to obfiscate the subject matter? Either you have an opinion on options for streamlining operations, or you don't. Why not just leave it at that?

I stand by the truth, which is that you make up quotes attributed to others, when in fact they did not say them, and you do so to skew the discussion away from the subject. Perhaps you are hoping to induce yet another Bergie lockdown?

And you wouldn't qualify as an ilk, you've got a lot of subhuman pissing and hissing to do before you can get that membership.

Cheers!

[TomDiehl]

And Dave/futuremodal is strangely silent.

[?]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

The man is in like Flynn...
Anyone who is that persistent, plus being a PITA, has to be Ilk material!

Ed

[:D]

I accept!

[edblysard]

The man is in like Flynn...
Anyone who is that persistent, plus being a PITA, has to be Ilk material!

Ed

[PNWRMNM]

Ed,

I nominate Tom Diehl to membership in the loyal order of Ilk. What say you Grand Exalted Ruler Ed?

Mac

[TomDiehl]

There have been MANY times I was nominated for the PITA club.

[PNWRMNM]

Tom,

Nice job. Glad to see someone trying to keep FM somewhere near the facts. If Ed does not offer you membership in the Ilk Club, FM will likely soon declare you one.

Mac

[edblysard]

Yeah, but your still gonna give him a biscut...or at least a chew toy to keep him occupied, right?

Ed[8D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl



So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals."

Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

Bad Tom, no biscuit.

Bad Dave, poor reading of your own posts.

[TomDiehl]

From this thread, page 6 post 6 from the same user:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

1. I would grant you that GPS is a lot cheaper than installing new CTC/ABS.
2. GPS could work in conjunction with EOT radar and lead unit radar detection, which would be activated if a lead consist slows below a safe speed range, or if it stops on the main, and would deactivate once a consist clears a siding. The point is, GPS wouldn't necessarily have to work alone to achieve the desired capacity improvements.

Note item 2.

[TomDiehl]

From this thread, page 5 post 4, some user named "futuremodal" posted this:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

(4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.

Note the first line "GPS to superceed lineside signals"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl



So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals."

Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.

Bad Tom, no biscuit.

The proper way to paraphrase what I said is that the GPS can be the primary central dispatch system variable, and the radar/radar detection system would be used with each consist under the observation of the engineer. If a train gets within a certain distance of another (as exhibited by the GPS data), the radar/radar detection system would kick in.

And yes, this system could eliminate lineside signals for the most part, but you'd still want a way to detect broken rails, et al.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

FM, I think you're missing the point about DME. For better ot worse, de-regulation has been the trend since the 80's. DME shows the market is working.....

Except if the market was really working, DM&E (and any other railroad company who could conceivably stretch their rails into the PRB) would have been able to build their extension entirely with private funds.

The question then is what is the primary reason for this need for government backing for rail projects? Is it perhaps that railroads have never really had the private sector viability capable of a nationwide network (otherwise why did we need the land grants and why do we need the anti-trust exemption)? Should a nation's rail network be reflective of it's total multi-modal package of infrastructure, rather than trying to exemplify a quasi-private sector investment?

What we do know is this: The current private closed access rail system does not engender the ideal of a genuine working free market, either historically or presently.

Loan guarantees aren't direct subsidies and there's an alphabet soup list of them available. Everything from SBA and FHA backed loans to the FDIC and PBGC insurance programs. People sometimes think of them as bailouts, but like land grants, what they do is lower the risk premium companies pay for capital. They may mean the difference between selling investment grade bonds and junk bonds.

Capital markets today are focused on short term returns rather than long term growth. The large number of 401Ks and mutual funds is partly to blame along with Federal tax policy that favors earnings instead of long term capital gains.

[Anonymous]

Personally I don't see how government ownership of the track is any different than government (or public) ownership of roads and airports. I do agree that ownership of the operating companies should be left in private hands. This would provide more competition because there would be greater ease of entry into the business since upstarts would not have to build their own infrastructure. This would put rail, road and air on more equal funding footings. It would lead to a more rational network with more double track and less duplicate single track between major centres. Who knows, Amtrak or its successor might actually run on time depending who was doing the dispatching for the system. Of course the railroads wouldn't like this but on the other hand they are slow to dig into their own pockets to do any substantial expansion of the system. On the other hand they are probably all willing to accept money from the public ( government) domain for improvements as long as there are no strings attached.