$98 per barrel oil

"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.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.

What, you friends with the union pacific, or did you just get a new Thomas
th eTank engine set?

Bertie

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