$98 per barrel oil

writes:

Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.

You don't need that many places.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.

You don't need that many places.


How would you know mr never-leaves-his-bedroom?


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.

You don't need that many places.



Fjukkwit,.


Bertie

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote in :

wrote in :

Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.

Tunnels and bridges are a good idea.

Regards


Actually, you can "stretch" the grade by using an elongated "S"
pattern to the rails. You do, however, need a wider space for the
track. The key is how many feet per mile (or meters per kilometer if you
prefer) that the track rises. By using an elongaged "S" pattern, the
length of track is greater for a given straight line distance, effectively
lowering the gradient which is what the friction between the wheels and
track require. A good example can be seen on the tracks between Sacramento
and Reno in the area of the Donner pass.

Of course the other solution to gradient is cogging.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

There are railway lines all across the Alps, and the rail densitiy on
the Norwegian Fjell isn't bad for a country with such a low population
density. It's certainly doable if one really wants to.

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?

Forget about it...unless you want to pay for it...then go right ahead.

Sheesh. Get a clue.
--
Jim in NC

P.S. Sorry for offending those of you with sensitive ears, and being the
rude American. I don't usually talk like this, but I couldn't take one more
clueless comment about how we should put in railroads like it works so well
in Europe. Not one more.

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:

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.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:43:42 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:

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.

There are busses, and some folks get dropped off by a spouse. The
lines that serve my area, Metro-North and Shoreline East, have
extremely heavy ridership.

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.

Unless it's NYC traffic and parking fees. It's not the distance that
matters.

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

In some areas, with underused branch lines, that is certainly true.
Rising fuel prices and increased highway congestion, and their effects
on trucking costs, may change that.

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

It's a crappy job, but someone has to do it. G

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.