$98 per barrel oil

"Wolfgang Schwanke"

Is that you, MX? Another sock puppet, MX? Really!

Merrily we troll along, troll along, troll along.
--
Jim in NC

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

But trying to install an electric rail system now
would be next to impossible.

It would take a huge effort comparable to the buildup of the highway
system, but why impossible?

Perhaps not impossible, but just the environmental impact analyses required
would result in decades of delays.

plus think about the carbon footprint from the actual process of
building an electricl rail system.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

wrote in :

Like everyone else, only if they absolutely have to as tunnel are
expensive.

They are. But building a highway system with all the accessories you
need to keep it running isn't exactly a bargain either. And that
includes tunnelsl actually.

But the highway system is already built. It's not a comparison of
two alternatives (highway vs rail) starting from a clean sheet of paper.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

Someone argued that you need oil for ground transport, and several
others objected that rail doesn't need oil. Then several other people
objected in return arguing that the US was way too big for a railway
network. But so far nobody explained why sheer size should be an
obstacle at all, especially if it's possible to build a dense road
network through the same country.

Another consideration is population density. There are large areas of
the USA where there are so few people that a rail system can't
achieve the efficiencies enjoyed by big cities.

A dense road network (which is not the dense in many areas) can be
appropriately sized for the amount of traffice expected. An 8 lane
highway is somewhat less than four times as expensive per mile as a
2 lane highway. A rail system costs the approximately the same
per mile whether it needs to carry lots of people or just a few, right?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:43:22 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:

To put enough railroad tracks in the US to have even half the density of
tracks per square mile as the railroads have in Europe, or half the tracks
per population density in Europe, or half the _any_ way you want to measure
it, would take the gross domestic product -the ENTIRE- gross domestic
product of the WHOLE US for a whole decade, and still not have put a dent in
the project.

We could always concentrate on a regional thought process where
railroads make sense...

Here in the Northeast, rails have made great sense for decades for
commuters. You can take the train from downtown NYC to Philly or DC
faster than you can fly on an airliner. Coast to coast, or intercity
passenger rail in Nevada, the Carolina hills, or Iowa? Not so much
sense there.

But for freight? Enormous amounts of bulky cargo, like cars, fuel
oil, propane, UPS trailers, multi-modal containers full of Chinese
goods, mail, building materials, etc... move daily by rail , all the
way across this big F'n country. When you see towns like Dunkirk, NY
on a UPS tracking manifest, you can be positive your package is on a
train. Lots of stuff destined for the east coast arrives from China
at west coast ports.

Rails make enough economic sense that 100 year old bridges and tunnels
are being rebuilt at great expense, so double stack container trains
can run directly in and out of North Jersey and South Eastern NY.
Each train has the potential to take 100's of trucks off the road
along the overcrowded feeder roads.

Short freight runs can make lots of sense, too. In my enviro-weenie
part of Connecticut, some towns have sewer systems with no processing
plant. Nobody wants to build new sewage plants along the banks of the
CT River or the shores of Long Island Sound. Where does the
collected crap go? Into large tank cars, which are delivered to a
distant processing plant several times a week. Three trains a week
along the Providence and Worcester Railroad replace at least 100 truck
trips along crowded highways, with lower fuel and labor costs. Locals
call this train "The Sewer Chief"! G

"B A R R Y" wrote

We could always concentrate on a regional thought process where
railroads make sense...

I have no problem with that concept. But...

Here in the Northeast, rails have made great sense for decades for
commuters. You can take the train from downtown NYC to Philly or DC
faster than you can fly on an airliner. Coast to coast, or intercity
passenger rail in Nevada, the Carolina hills, or Iowa? Not so much
sense there.

Yes, but you still probably need to use a car to start the trip from the
suburbs into the cities, because there is no rail feeder system to get the
people collected from wide and far to take the lines into the cities.

Unless it is a pretty long distance from the suburb to the city, it makes
less sense to drive to the station, find a place to park, walk to the
station, and wait for the train. After doing all of that, it almost is
faster to stay in the car for the entire trip, unless like I said, it is a
pretty long distance.

But for freight? Enormous amounts of bulky cargo, like cars, fuel
oil, propane, UPS trailers, multi-modal containers full of Chinese
goods, mail, building materials, etc... move daily by rail , all the
way across this big F'n country.

But yet, the rail freight needs to be subsidized, to stay competitive.

Where does the
collected crap go? Into large tank cars, which are delivered to a
distant processing plant several times a week. Three trains a week
along the Providence and Worcester Railroad replace at least 100 truck
trips along crowded highways, with lower fuel and labor costs. Locals
call this train "The Sewer Chief"! G

That is a new piece of trivia, to me! Sounds like a perfect job for trains;
hauling a bunch of ****! g
--
Jim in NC

Morgans writes:

You just don't get it.

To put enough railroad tracks in the US to have even half the density of
tracks per square mile as the railroads have in Europe, or half the tracks
per population density in Europe, or half the _any_ way you want to measure
it, would take the gross domestic product -the ENTIRE- gross domestic
product of the WHOLE US for a whole decade, and still not have put a dent in
the project.

This country IS BIG......WAY ****ING BIG ! ! !

Why can't you Europeans get that through your damn heads?

Perhaps because it isn't true.

Highways are far more expensive per mile than railways, and yet the United
States is covered with them, so clearly cost is not the obstacle to a denser
railway network in the U.S. Part of it is a fondness for automobiles and
trucks, and part of it is the Not Invented Here syndrome.

The United States _did_ have quite a railway system at one time, and you could
go just about anywhere on passenger trains. But the railways couldn't make
the profits they wanted with passenger service, and so they abandoned it.
European systems often operate at cost or at a loss, on the theory that a good
railway infrastructure amortizes its cost in intangible ways. The U.S. wants
to see a direct bottom-line profit from every activity, and the idea of
something being generally good for the country rarely seems to occur to
anyone.

Bob Noel writes:

Another consideration is population density. There are large areas of
the USA where there are so few people that a rail system can't
achieve the efficiencies enjoyed by big cities.

But exactly the same thing can be said of a highway system. An interstate
leading to some tiny village is just as much a waste as a railway passing
through it, only the highway is (much) more expensive.

A dense road network (which is not the dense in many areas) can be
appropriately sized for the amount of traffice expected. An 8 lane
highway is somewhat less than four times as expensive per mile as a
2 lane highway. A rail system costs the approximately the same
per mile whether it needs to carry lots of people or just a few, right?

Yes, which means that in all but the lightest traffic areas, a railway is more
economical to build. It doesn't take much to lay ballast and track; it's only
a bit more complicated than a two-lane road.

Morgans writes:

Yes, but you still probably need to use a car to start the trip from the
suburbs into the cities, because there is no rail feeder system to get the
people collected from wide and far to take the lines into the cities.

Railways can serve city centers _and_ suburban stations.

But yet, the rail freight needs to be subsidized, to stay competitive.

No, it does not. Rail freight is very profitable. Ask the Union Pacific,
which has been making big money at it for decades.

Morgans writes:

Is that you, MX?

No. Wolfgang Schwanke has been posting under that name for some twenty years,
and he disagrees with me more often than not.

As hard as it may be to accept, it's possible for more than one person on
USENET to disagree with you.