$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.

Morgans wrote:

wrote in message
...
Montblack wrote:
("Judah" wrote)
So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in
(industrial) China?


Phenomenal growth and potential for more growth.

Phenomenal growth by selling at a loss with potential for a total
economic crash.

China can't sell at a loss long enough to drive all the competition
out of business, part of it maybe, but not all of it.

You think China is selling for a loss? That isn't my take of it.

They sell cheap because they are labor intensive, and their labor is dirt
cheap... Pennies on the dollar of what employers in the US pay. Add to
that, they have little control on emissions, and disposal of hazardous
waste. There is no OSHA to look out for employee work conditions, and they
are in many cases deplorable. On top of it, they use the cheapest material
to do the job, and mostly, cheaper materials than are needed to do the job.
Much of their steel is of such low quality, that it is unsuitable for any
heavy use for any reasonable period of time.

Eventually, all of these things will turn around. Just as how in the 60's
"Made in Japan" meant that it was probably junk, they turned it all around,
to the point that their goods are generally very high in quality. The cheap
production turned to another developing part of the world, and the cycle
repeats itself.; again and again.

That's part of it, but if Chinese companies were selling at a profit
they would be able to service their bank loans, which they can't.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

writes:

That's part of it, but if Chinese companies were selling at a profit
they would be able to service their bank loans, which they can't.

I've seen worse: The American government cannot survive without borrowing from
the Chinese.

"Mxsmanic" wrote

Actually, you'll cross half the continental United States in a full day of
continuous driving.

It is good to know you are as geographically challenged, along with your
other challenges.

New York to Los Angels is 2,778 miles, and expedia lists it as 39 hours 55
minutes.

So in round numbers, driving that distance means you will be averaging 70
miles per hour.

Somewhere in there, you have to eat, take restroom breaks, fuel the vehicle,
and deal with traffic.

Most people on a long trip can average no more than 60 mph, for stops, not
including sleep.

That takes the drive time up to over 46 hours.

So you only need to sleep for 2 hours out of the 48 hours to drive across
the country. What a man!

Why don't you take that trip sometime? I'll not lose any sleep about them
finding you run off the road, asleep at the wheel.

Oh, never mind - you don't drive.
--
Jim in NC

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

That's part of it, but if Chinese companies were selling at a profit
they would be able to service their bank loans, which they can't.

I've seen worse: The American government cannot survive without
borrowing from the Chinese.



Seen worse? What, in your magic eight ball?


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.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote
Not really. Europe as a continent is a bit larger than the USA.

The straight line distance between Paris and Berlin
~450 miles. In the US that would get you from New York to Detroit.

Oh, so what all are you going to include; All of the old Soviet Union,
Siberia, the Middle East? Why don't you go for Asia, and North Africa, too.
--
Jim in NC