PNWRMNMThe fact that no one is stringing wire is evidence that the expected return on investment is less than on other projects.
That would be correct!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd PNWRMNMThe fact that no one is stringing wire is evidence that the expected return on investment is less than on other projects.. That would be correct!
blue streak 1 Quite correct. The other projects mentioned earlier will provide a faster ROI. That IMHO is why so much of our infrastructure is slowly falling apart. There has to be a better solution ?
Streak
The class I freight carriers are in their best shape in decades and is certainly NOT falling apart. The news seems to be saying that highways are falling apart due to 'too low" taxes.
What infrastructure do you believe is falling apart?
Mac
PNWRMNM Henry, Bingo. It is the social engineers, who by definition are smarter than everybody else just ask them, who truly scare me. For the most recent example look at Obamacare. The social engineers have required the insurance companies to cancel over 5,000,000 policies that people bought in a relatively free market so that 2,000,000 people can be subsidized to buy "better" policys that cost more and have a higher deductible. That is the small first wave. Next year they will do the same social engineering to employer provided health plans. The government has no business in the social engineering business. It exists to protect our rights, and to protect our nation. Period. Mac
Henry,
Bingo. It is the social engineers, who by definition are smarter than everybody else just ask them, who truly scare me.
For the most recent example look at Obamacare. The social engineers have required the insurance companies to cancel over 5,000,000 policies that people bought in a relatively free market so that 2,000,000 people can be subsidized to buy "better" policys that cost more and have a higher deductible. That is the small first wave. Next year they will do the same social engineering to employer provided health plans.
The government has no business in the social engineering business. It exists to protect our rights, and to protect our nation. Period.
According to whom? You? I am a professional economist, but anyone with any basic understanding of economics or who has ever turned many pages of someone like Adam Smith (or John Locke), understands the basic untruthfulness of your statement. Here is Smith:
THE THIRD and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires too very different degrees of expence in the different periods of society.....THAT the erection and maintenance of the public works which facilitate the commerce of any country, such as good roads, bridges, navigable canals, harbours, &c. must require very different degrees of expence in the different periods of society, is evident without any proof. The expence of making and maintaining the public roads of any country must evidently increase with the annual produce of the land and labour of that country, or with the quantity and weight of the goods which it becomes necessary to fetch and carry upon those roads."
Etc.
You are an ideologue, and a rather dense one at that. Please keep the Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises Institute stuff off of the board.
PNWRMNM Henry, You clearly have no clue about how a capitalist economy works and how it maximizes human freedom. Now that we have run off into the weeds perhaps the OP will share with us what his real hypothesis is. Mac
You clearly have no clue about how a capitalist economy works and how it maximizes human freedom.
Now that we have run off into the weeds perhaps the OP will share with us what his real hypothesis is.
Henry understands "freedom" much better than you do, you are emphasizing only negative, juridical freedom ("freedom from") at the expense of positive freedom, the ability to make things happen, which requires access to resources. Without the latter we are free all right, free to starve.
PNWRMNM [The class I freight carriers are in their best shape in decades and is certainly NOT falling apart. The news seems to be saying that highways are falling apart due to 'too low" taxes. What infrastructure do you believe is falling apart? Mac
[The class I freight carriers are in their best shape in decades and is certainly NOT falling apart. The news seems to be saying that highways are falling apart due to 'too low" taxes.
May I respectfully point out that this thread started because of a question, and that question has been answered serveral times. What we have now is a different question: What kind of economic system or mixture of economic systems is best for the USA (and Canada?)? I really question whether such a thread belongs on this Forum. Granted, it does affect the kind of investments in railroads that will be made, but it affects just about everything else too!
Streak,
I am not aware of freight railroad bridge issues in terms of structural defecieny. There may be capacity issues but in Memphis, which I live not far from, there are two bridges carrying three main tracks which seems to be more than sufficient in terms of capacity.
Everything else you cite is government owned. It looks to me like Henry's short sighted capitalists are more future oriented than the government.
Dwight,
Thank you for that classic passage from Adam Smith, written about 1776 IIRC and true on its face at the time, which was the begining, or even before the begining of the industrial revolution with its attendant creation and accumulation of liquid private capital. The American railroads, as an industry, and as an institution, proved themselves quite capable of providing inland transportation until throttled by redistributionalist government.
Many of those functions Smith correctly stated could be performed only by the soverign, because only he had the resources, could be provided by private enterprise today. You might want to look at the history of the early state railroads for an example of government incompetence in the internal improvements game. We know how to voluntarily mobilize capital in ways that Adam Smith could not imagine. My preference for private action as compared to government is based on the generaly superior results of private action AND the lesser compulsion associated with private action as compared to government.
The railroads are in the best shape ever. And in good capitalist style they are building and rebuilding and preparing for their futures. But they also have asked for government help in several instances. NS, for instance helping ease truck traffic on I80 in Virginia by increasing rail capacity. However, as shown by the English group who wanted CSX to stop putting money into rebuilding and reequipping and pay investors more instead, businesses, especially in this discussion, railroads have to be careful and not project too far into the future in fear of stockholder revolts. So, do you want a railroad in 2050 or a bank account in the Caymans? That appears to be the American Capitalist's dilemma, the question that has to be asked and answered. Daily.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
As a mere observer, I can only say that our resident professional economist and retired journalist are on the right track!! [pun intended] Familiarity with empiricism and academic history is also helpful in a rational discussion that doesn't revert to sound bites from radio heads and ideological "think" tanks.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 The railroads are in the best shape ever. And in good capitalist style they are building and rebuilding and preparing for their futures. But they also have asked for government help in several instances. NS, for instance helping ease truck traffic on I80 in Virginia by increasing rail capacity. However, as shown by the English group who wanted CSX to stop putting money into rebuilding and reequipping and pay investors more instead, businesses, especially in this discussion, railroads have to be careful and not project too far into the future in fear of stockholder revolts. So, do you want a railroad in 2050 or a bank account in the Caymans? That appears to be the American Capitalist's dilemma, the question that has to be asked and answered. Daily.
And as The Childrens Fund found out in the financial troubles of 2007-2009 - CSX had a much more secure financial footing than TCF, which was forced to sell off it's stake in CSX and many other targets to placate it's own investors.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
IGN,
One other advantage of electrification over LNG is the higher thermal efficiencies possible with combined cycle plants. While there is the line loss for electrification to contend with, LNG also requires a fair amount of energy to liquify natural gas.
- Erik
PNWRMNM Bingo. It is the social engineers, who by definition are smarter than everybody else just ask them, who truly scare me. For the most recent example look at Obamacare. The social engineers have required the insurance companies to cancel over 5,000,000 policies that people bought in a relatively free market so that 2,000,000 people can be subsidized to buy "better" policys that cost more and have a higher deductible. That is the small first wave. Next year they will do the same social engineering to employer provided health plans. The government has no business in the social engineering business. It exists to protect our rights, and to protect our nation. Period. [snip] Dwight, Thank you for that classic passage from Adam Smith, written about 1776 IIRC and true on its face at the time, which was the begining, or even before the begining of the industrial revolution with its attendant creation and accumulation of liquid private capital. The American railroads, as an industry, and as an institution, proved themselves quite capable of providing inland transportation until throttled by redistributionalist government. Many of those functions Smith correctly stated could be performed only by the soverign, because only he had the resources, could be provided by private enterprise today. You might want to look at the history of the early state railroads for an example of government incompetence in the internal improvements game. We know how to voluntarily mobilize capital in ways that Adam Smith could not imagine. My preference for private action as compared to government is based on the generaly superior results of private action AND the lesser compulsion associated with private action as compared to government. Mac
[snip]
I listed Smith becasue the Austrian-school economics you are advocating claims to be his "true" followers. But I can also list a modern economist, one who is vehemently opposed to the Austrian School. Is Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman modern enough for you? This isn't a healthcare website, but you brought it up first: Krugman tears apart the idea that markets are always the most efficient way of delivering goods. And regarding healthcare, the government-run, taxpayer financed Canadian healthcare system is both cheaper and better than the primarily for-profit US healthcare system (as is almost any other system). Krugman talks mostly about market-mechanisms not working in healthcare delivery, but another issue is overhead, for things like insurance company employees, executive salaries, corporate profits, etc, all of which are missing from the Canadian, government run system, in which doctors, not insurance company officials, make all the decisions about care. One statistic I saw is that the total number of bureaucrats in the Canadian system is equal to what only one company in one small state, Anthem Blue Cross in Connecticut, caries. In Canada, overhead is about 4% of total spending, whereas in the US it is around 17%.
As for "lesser compulsion", ask someone who has ever argued with an insurance company that wouldn't pay for an operation what that was like.
Again, I think this whole thing has gone way off topic, but some Canadians seem to have a different opinion of their health care than you do. Long waits for important treatment being the main complaint.
daveklepper Again, I think this whole thing has gone way off topic, but some Canadians seem to have a different opinion of their health care than you do. Long waits for important treatment being the main complaint.
I agree this has gone way off topic, but must point out that it was sent there by someone else,
You are deluded if you believe that Canadians as a whole would want any system other than the one they have, with the possible exception of the very rich, who would like to be able to cut to the front of the line as they do here. Canada bans two-tiered healthcare, mandating that the rich wait as long as the poor. Do you know who Canadians voted the greatest Canadian of all time in a CBC poll a few years back? Tommy Douglas,Premier/Champion of Universal Health Care.
Our system is very good for those who can afford it, just as a Ferrari is a very good car for those who can afford it, but it wouldn't make sense to spend our total transportation budget on Ferraris and assign them to the few who can afford it. We are the only country in the developed world without universal healthcare and that still mostly relies on private, for profit health care paid for with private, for-profit insurance.
Another strike against freight electrification is the difficulty of financing locos, since there is no resale market. When past freight electrifications were shut down, there was virtually nothing to do with the locos other than to scrap them. Whereas diesels can more readily be financed or leased.
Another factor that works against electrification is the fact that two separate motive power pools would have to be maintained. It is reasonable to assume that only heavy-traffic mainlines would be electrified, leaving secondary mains, branches and yard and transfer operations to diesel operation.
A couple of questions for the pros:
1) Is there a property tax issue concerning electric infrastructure?
2) Would diesels MUed to a power/converter slug allow electric operation?
zh,
Yes. More asset means more tax, subject to the vagarities of state law of course.
Not quite sure what you have in mind, but MILW figured out how to run diesels ahead of electrics with the electrics controlled by diesel MU cable.
I think what he is asking is if diesels could be used as electrics by having an electric (or even just a car with a pantograph) pass current to the diesel's traction motors through the same type of connection used to connect slugs to their mothers. I'm interested myself.
NorthWest I think what he is asking is if diesels could be used as electrics by having an electric (or even just a car with a pantograph) pass current to the diesel's traction motors through the same type of connection used to connect slugs to their mothers. I'm interested myself.
I have read that General Electric has stated that they could build a Dual Mode (Pantograph/Diesel Electric) Evolution series locomotive if a buyer was interested.
IIRC, this was in response to Norfolk Southern conducting studies on electrifying the Crescent Corridor.
They may also have had mind the proposed electrification of the Alameda Freight Corridor to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (although that plan does not seem to have current support for the two "tenant railroads:BNSF and UP)
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The complaints I heard are not from wealthy people. Possibly the isssue should be setled by Canadian posters.
Another consideration, besides catenary, is the cost of the electric generation and transmission infrastructure. In the old days the utility may have been able to spread some of the costs to general ratepayers, but since utility deregulation, I think the costs will probably fall to the railroad.
DwightBranch daveklepper Again, I think this whole thing has gone way off topic, but some Canadians seem to have a different opinion of their health care than you do. Long waits for important treatment being the main complaint. I agree this has gone way off topic, but must point out that it was sent there by someone else, You are deluded if you believe that Canadians as a whole would want any system other than the one they have, with the possible exception of the very rich, who would like to be able to cut to the front of the line as they do here. Canada bans two-tiered healthcare, mandating that the rich wait as long as the poor. Do you know who Canadians voted the greatest Canadian of all time in a CBC poll a few years back? Tommy Douglas,Premier/Champion of Universal Health Care. Our system is very good for those who can afford it, just as a Ferrari is a very good car for those who can afford it, but it wouldn't make sense to spend our total transportation budget on Ferraris and assign them to the few who can afford it. We are the only country in the developed world without universal healthcare and that still mostly relies on private, for profit health care paid for with private, for-profit insurance.
There are design trades in everything, from healthcare systems to railroad electrification. And the two topics are inter-related. That the U.S. has a high per capita expenditure on healthcare may have something to do with why we scrimp and make do with infrastructure projects -- such as not building more railroad electrification.
One participant starts dissing "capitalism" as being short-sighted and short-time return oriented at the expense of doing socially worthwhile things -- like railroad electrification. Someone suggests the Ferrel Gummint needs to fund the overhead wire, which gets someone else going about "government interference in the market", which gets others going that this thread has gotten off-topic political. Is it not off-topic to advocate for government infrastructure investment, but it becomes off-topic if someone expresses reservations about expanding the role of government, in this case to provide railroad electrification?
Another person weighs in about the Canadian healthcare system, and yet someone else has to set the record straight on that and other healthcare systems of industrial trading partners. Does the record need to be set straight on the latest not-quite-straight attempt at straightening of the record? As was said before me, I am " sent there by someone else."
Whether the Canadians like what they have I suppose is arguable. That the Canadian system has long wait times is demonstrable with data, and maybe people in Canada put up with the waits instead of staring into the abyss of the U.S. system, which receives "medical tourists" from Canada, I don't know.
It is suggested, however, that the U.S. is an outlier among its industrial trading partners in not having universal healthcare, even going so far as to suggest that adequate healthcare is only available to "the few" in the U.S..
Where do I begin? The U.K.'s National Health Service, I guess, is something close to "socialized medicine" where the government operates the hospitals and clinics? But there is a two-tiered-ed ness to the British system as I understand that persons of means can go to private doctors? The Canadian system is what we call "single payer", so the clinics and hospitals supply medical services and receive government reimbursement, but their system requires everyone to wait in line. Or travel to the U.S..
As to the U.S. not having universal healthcare and relying on private, for profit providers, isn't the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act supposed to bring about universal healthcare? And isn't the healthcare system in many of the European countries different from the U.K. and Canada and more like a mandate to purchase a healthcare plan, that is somewhat but not completely unlike "Obamacare"?
And to the extent that Obamacare appears to be a work-in-progress with respect to universal coverage, are not most persons in the U.S. covered under some kind of health plan, either employer provided, Medicare (a semi-Canadian style single-payer plan for the over-65), and Medicaid for people qualifying on account of low income?
So isn't the suggestion (I suppose a person will come back at me with "I didn't say that", but it is strongly implied through the chain of analogies), the suggestion that healthcare in the U.S. is reserved for a lucky few is just plain wrong? That the purpose of Obamacare is to include the unfortunate few without a healthcare plan into what is regarded overall a pretty good U.S. healthcare system, maybe using mandated coverage and government assessment of what works in medicine and what expensive medical procedures are one step removed from shamanism ("witch doctors") so as to "bend the cost curve", freeing up money for worthwhile things like -- railroad electrification?
And if so many wrong things are stated about comparative healthcare delivery in the industrial countries, what does it say about the correctness of views expressed on railroad electrification?
There are many cultural, political, economic, and historical factors that go into why the healthcare system is the way it is and also go into why the state of electrification on U.S. railroads is what it is. To start with "the railroads are short-sighted short-term investment oriented, the government needs to step in" is not only a simplistic answer, it is overtly political, and persons with differing political perspectives should be allowed to respond?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
NorthWestI think what he is asking is if diesels could be used as electrics by having an electric (or even just a car with a pantograph) pass current to the diesel's traction motors through the same type of connection used to connect slugs to their mothers. I'm interested myself.
I'd like to bump this. The NYC Subway IIRC doesn't allow their diesels to be electrically connected to the MOW subway cars. A large part of this is the accidental bridging of an isolated third rail section, but some is related to the safety of transferring the 600 volts.
zkr123How come no other line has been electrified yet? It's been almost 60 years since Milwaukee road tore down the cross-country wires. It doesn't make sense.
Of course it makes "sense". Otherwise there would be electrified lines.
Virtually all trains move by electric traction. Electric motors turn the wheels of the locomotives. It all comes down to where it is most efficient to generate the electricity. So far, in the US, Canada and Mexico it has, with small exceptions, proven most efficient to generate the electricity on the train with diesel-electric locomotives.
The alternative, stringing overhead wire and using large power plants to generate the electricity, has been considered and evaluated. It was not selected. I imagine electrification is still examined from time to time. It keeps not being selected for use here.
Electrification is not a goal in and of itself. Efficient transportation is a goal.
The diesel builder keep improving their products. Natural gas in lieu of diesel is being tested again. The most efficient system will prevail.
daveklepper The complaints I heard are not from wealthy people. Possibly the isssue should be setled by Canadian posters.
No, it can't be "settled" by the comments of a handful of Canadians on an American message board. Show me polls, scientific polls with adequate sample size for a population of 35 million that show that Canadians do not like their system and would prefer an American style for-profit system. Hint: you won't find any. I provided this link before with examples of polling that show the preference for the Candian system to be between 80 and 90 percent, and the fact that the person voted "The Greatest Canadian" by Candians in in a CBC contest is the former Premier of Saskatchewan whose main claim to fame is setting up universal healthcare should be an indication of how popular it is. Otherwise what you are presenting is anecdotal (and thus unacceptable as evidence) at best, and a reflection of your own biases at worst.
I do not consider myself an expert on this issue, and I am willing to except your opinion as at least as valuable as those of my complaining Canadian friends. We are way off topic. Canada seems even slower to electrify than the USA. At least we have seen New haven - Boston in our time, and will probably at least see SF-Gilroy, possibly also New Haven - Springfield.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.