Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you deal with access and availability of service for rural and or mountainous areas, that might be difficult to reach by rail, or unprofitable?
Based on the past, development and transportation was interconnected. Especially in the northeastern quarter, extensive rail networks linked widely spaced communities. Many rural and mountainous areas were served by rail - at least until the mid 20th century.
The bottom line : if no engineering breakthrough happens, the most efficient form of land transportation is steel wheel on steel rail.
The most efficient form of power for railroads is electricity.
If the data is correct, between rising demand for petroleum, and dwindling supplies, we must urgently begin to transition to alternatives to fossil fueled vehicles.
How we can meet our transportation needs, within that paradigm, is an exercise in engineering and logistics.
I'd prefer that private investment fund the renaissance of rail. However, it might be more efficient to use a public authority to own and operate the rights of way and track, and let private common carriers haul cargo and passengers. At least that might prevent duplication of effort that plagued the rail companies of the past.
Regarding mountainous terrain - rail based transportation dealt with steep mountainous areas with funiculars, cogwheel and other similar solutions to the problem of steep grade.
In the interim, while the rail network is rebuilt, we may have to consider frugal solutions. For example, to handle commuters, local companies might operate express shuttle buses to the nearest rail station. It would be more convenient than relying on public buses, faster, and more fuel efficient.
For inspiration, check out YouTube, and search on:
strassenbahn, trams, trolleys, streetcars, and funiculars.
Electrification is highly desirable for High Speed Rail, though it is quite costly.
All HSR systems are electric traction.
However, I agree that electrification of current mainline tracks will be costly.
But in the long view, that cost may be justified in reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.
The "bigger issue" is dealing with high population cities that lack rail mass transit.
I prefer private enterprise over public management (or mismanagement) of electric traction railway systems. The biggest gripe is that public mass transit needs subsidy.
Most bureaucrats dominated by partisan politics will set fares that reflect the power structure (and curry votes). This usually involves populist low fares and discounts to politically correct subgroups. But that does not insure increased ridership. A better way would be to set a slightly higher base fare, and as the occupancy of the car reaches set points, everyone gets a rebate on their fare. Perhaps the passenger can have a 10% rebate at three quarters full, a 25% rebate for full load, and a 50% rebate for standing room only (crush load).
Example: PCC Streetcar
Seating capacity 52 to 61, Crush load 100 (standing).
Fare per leg of route.
If a typical fare is $2, when the occupancy reaches 52, the fare drops to $1.80 ($93.60 collected). When occupancy hits 75, fare drops to $1.50 ($112.50 collected). At full load, fare drops to $1.00 ($100 collected). Full capacity is the most frugal operating point, moving the most people for the lowest cost.
If faced with an overcrowded car, at crush load, at least the passengers can receive a benefit, to offset their discomfort. And faced with the prospect of reducing their costs, stops to load more passengers would be viewed differently. It might even become a pastime, with an indicator showing current load. Once the number reaches a set point, a bell might ring, signifying that all the riders just got their rebate credited to their ticket account.
"Come ride with me!" may become the new slogan for bargain hunters.
It's time for America to "Get back on Track" - GO RAIL!
I agree with most of your presentation but I must ask if you have ever ridden on the #1 subway train in either rush hour or in the middle of the night? Based on my experience 25 years ago the first was very uncomfortable and the later very frightening.
I was told the privately owned NYC subway companies were bought out (dumped on the City after years of minimal maintenance) by the City because the companies did not envision any way to grow. They wanted growth instead of steady ROI. Similar problems led to the bankruptcy and eventual government of both the Pennsylvania and New Your Central Railroads that were once the premier companies in the US. They simply could not compete with trucks operating on government supplied roads.
Using myself as an example of exurban commuter I will apply the idea of electric rail to my situation. I would need a hybrid or straight electric car for the 4 mile trip between my condo and the train station. This could be done with existing technology as an electric car with a 50 mile range would serve 90% of my local travel needs. The 45 miles to Boston are currently being done in a 50 passenger diesel fueled bus traveling on an Interstate highway. The trip takes between 50 minutes and 2.5 hours depending on weather. Replacing the bus with a rail system would not save that much oil but might save time if the existing railroad museum calling itself the MBTA were drastically improved. The rights of way, but not the rails, still exist but providing room to park the commuter's would be difficult.
I read an article in TRAINS Magazine recently describing an express freight that ran between, roughly, Spokane, Washing and Albany New York carrying perishable fruit and similar products. This train was featured as the best current railroading could do. This special train took almost 120 hours to travel 3000 miles. A heavy duty truck with two drivers could cut this time by 40 hours at least. IMHO 50 mph average is not high speed anything. Passenger automobiles could take even less time.
I agree that some form of guide way vehicles driven by, preferably nuclear and other non carbon based electricity, is going to be needed if our country wants to remain a competitive economy. As this desire is not evident anywhere in the US from Washington to Wall Street we will probably never make the capital investment needed to increase the efficiency. At least we won't while greater profits are being returned from China and supplying our endless petroleum wars.
I you want to see what can be done just look at Europe. The HSR from Paris to Moscow and from Copenhagen to Istanbul is astounding. Commuter trains are everywhere. The Swiss just completed drilling a 35 mile tunnel under the Alps to improve rail service. No wonder they are so competitive on the world market.
Jetgraphics- (long post)
I agree with most of your presentation but I must ask if you have ever ridden on the #1 subway train in either rush hour or in the middle of the night? Based on my experience 25 years ago the first was very uncomfortable and the later very frightening.
I've ridden the DC Metro.
Does hitchhiking through South Philly count as dangerous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
I was told the privately owned NYC subway companies were bought out (dumped on the City after years of minimal maintenance) by the City because the companies did not envision any way to grow. They wanted growth instead of steady ROI. Similar problems led to the bankruptcy and eventual government of both the Pennsylvania and New Your Central Railroads that were once the premier companies in the US. They simply could not compete with trucks operating on government supplied roads.
That is opposite of what is reported here:
The Third Rail - Back to the Future - page 1
The End of Innovation
New York City politics was not standing still, however. Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who had taken office in 1933, was no friend of streetcars, of elevated lines, or of private ownership of transit. He pressed relentlessly for “Unification,†the City takeover of the BMT and IRT. The IRT was happy to go out of business but the BMT fought almost to the last.
On June 2, 1940, the BMT was in City hands. Of the fleet of 50 Bluebird cars ordered, five were under construction by the Clark Equipment Company. It was the City that took delivery. The cars ran, but theirs was a lonely existence, for the rest of the order was cancelled. The stolid Board of Transportation was in the driver’s seat.
After the Fall
After taking over the private companies, not only did the innovations of the BMT end, but the City lost its taste for subway building. The IND “Second System†of 1929 remains unbuilt. The private lines that attracted IND competition were abandoned, several immediately and more as the years went on. Major improvements have been proposed periodically and in 1950 a $500M bond issue was passed, ostensibly to build the Second Avenue Subway. But despite revived plans from time to time, including an ambitious program proposed in 1968, the Second Avenue Subway remains unbuilt and most other plans are pipedreams.
- - -
Penn Central died from complications of merger surgery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Using myself as an example of exurban commuter I will apply the idea of electric rail to my situation. I would need a hybrid or straight electric car for the 4 mile trip between my condo and the train station. This could be done with existing technology as an electric car with a 50 mile range would serve 90% of my local travel needs. The 45 miles to Boston are currently being done in a 50 passenger diesel fueled bus traveling on an Interstate highway. The trip takes between 50 minutes and 2.5 hours depending on weather. Replacing the bus with a rail system would not save that much oil but might save time if the existing railroad museum calling itself the MBTA were drastically improved. The rights of way, but not the rails, still exist but providing room to park the commuter's would be difficult.
Based on data collected, by Strickland, there's significant savings with electric rail over diesel bus.
Due to current laws and taxes, most railroads are operating at less efficiency and lower performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
I read an article in TRAINS Magazine recently describing an express freight that ran between, roughly, Spokane, Washing and Albany New York carrying perishable fruit and similar products. This train was featured as the best current railroading could do. This special train took almost 120 hours to travel 3000 miles. A heavy duty truck with two drivers could cut this time by 40 hours at least. IMHO 50 mph average is not high speed anything. Passenger automobiles could take even less time.
I agree that some form of guide way vehicles driven by, preferably nuclear and other non carbon based electricity, is going to be needed if our country wants to remain a competitive economy. As this desire is not evident anywhere in the US from Washington to Wall Street we will probably never make the capital investment needed to increase the efficiency. At least we won't while greater profits are being returned from China and supplying our endless petroleum wars.
I you want to see what can be done just look at Europe. The HSR from Paris to Moscow and from Copenhagen to Istanbul is astounding. Commuter trains are everywhere. The Swiss just completed drilling a 35 mile tunnel under the Alps to improve rail service. No wonder they are so competitive on the world market.
As petroleum becomes more expensive, and less available, DESIRE for an alternative will shoot up.
If the government got out of the way, and stopped subsidizing / meddling, private enterprise would rebuild rail transportation, ASAP.
Of all forms of land transportation, it's the most cost effective, all things considered.
The pessimistic / cynical view is that nothing constructive will be done, until AFTER the collapse of the Federal government.
Hopefully, whatever replaces it, will have more sense ... common sense.
In a major speech on energy Wednesday, March 30, 2011, in Washington, President Barack Obama set a goal for the nation of a one-third reduction in oil imports by 2025.
Obama called for a balance of energy efficiencies and a boost in domestic energy production. (?) He urged expanded use of natural gas, increased production of biofuels and tougher fuel efficiency standards for trucks.
As usual, the partisan political solution is to muddy the waters, meddle, and impede any progress toward a solution.
Worse, an apparent ignorance of basic Physics is present. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. You cannot "produce" energy. You can acquire fuel and utilize its embodied energy to do work, but you only change the energy from one form (ex: chemical) to another form (ex: kinetic).
If government wished a solution to be found, the first thing it should do is cease all subsidies and penalties (aka "meddling"). The actual costs would spur vast changes.
Frankly, the most effective change would be to transition FROM the automobile paradigm, regardless of the fuel used. Automobiles, for all their advantages, are a terrible drain on resources and waste far too much in the performance of their allotted task - moving people and cargo.
Political dictates of higher fuel mileage is but another absurd solution. For they ignore the more important factor : passengers moved per unit fuel. A fully loaded ten passenger vehicle consuming 15 gallons / mile, is performing at 150 passenger-miles/gallon. Whereas a "green" 50 MPG single occupant commuter is consuming three times as much fuel to get the same job done.
When it comes to "real world" thinking, government lacks it. Unfortunately, until the government is extricated from its current abuse of power, the inevitable conclusion is continued importation of fuel, and the resulting economic collapse.
On the other hand, if BHO (or his advisors) had some training in Physics, Mechanical engineering or common sense, they might have recognized that when it comes to land transportation, the most efficient, frugal, durable and effective mode to move cargo and passengers is electric traction rail, in all its forms.
President BHO is not the government. He can recommend, propose solutions and encourage dependency on oil. If it were up to him, I can guarantee you would see a push for massive electric railroad infrastructure, along with high speed rail connectors across America (and you have). But, do you think the idea bodes well with the political reality in the USA?
It is only realistic to let nature take its course on some aspects, while promoting the idea of conservation and devising ways to reduce dependency on oil. Americans are going to learn it, and as it should be evident... the hard way.
I'd rather preserve individual freedom over a fascist transportation system.
I hate it when groups are free but individuals aren't.
Individuals shouldn't have to be railroaded.
Individual freedom demands greater choice. No? Individuals would always be free to die from their thirst for oil, if not fighting for it as a "must have resource", while others who would rather not, could support and use (the inevitable) railway network?
While Jetgraphics and I agree on the basic need for a electric rail transportation system in this country we do disagree on ownership. I prefer government ownership of natural monopolies because of the lack of competition and government management because of far lower salaries and bonuses. I also believe this government owned and operated system should be protected from political interference with their operation. They would effectively be nonprofit businesses owned by the public and operated for the public.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
