On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:12:51 GMT, "krp" wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Some of the tracks are in horrible shape. If dimbulb's idea of
underground 300 MPH trains was built, they would have huge logistics
problems. The areas you need them to run to, and through are already
built up. it doesn't make sense to tear out a huge section of a town to
build an underground rail system.

WHY would they HAVE to do that?

You would need at least three sets of rails to allow for any
maintenance, and the closer the stops are to each other, the slower they
would have to go. You can't accelerate a train like you do a sports
car.

Of course you need 3, just like the Chunnel. In YOUR world that makes it
impossible????

I am not saying trains aren't a good idea, but it isn't as simple as
dimbulb suggests. A lot of engineering, geological studies, political
issues, and obtaining the right of way. the early railroads were
possible, because they were built on 99% open, federal land. The rail
roads were given the land, along with some on each side for them to
develop.

Well you can always INVEST obstacles to make anything impossible.

I have said for years that a lot more cargo needs to go by train
car. That would reduce the traffic on our main roads and highways, and
reduce fuel used for transportation of non perishable goods.

Wasn't that part of what I suggested? With a train the size of a 747 you
could have both cargo and passengers. AND arrange the configuration as
needed. The nice part of the train concept is that if you sell all the seats
or need to carry extra cargo - you just attach another car. Not that easy to
create another plane. The concept works because it is so FLEXIBLE.


One question comes to mind.

There was a reasonably effective railroad network in the United States
in the post WW II period. Then the railroads went bankrupt.

What has changed that makes a new railroad network more commercially
viable then the previous one?

If the concept is so flexible why did it go bankrupt?

Why do you propose a vastly more expensive rail network as a solution
to an already failed system?



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

One question comes to mind.

There was a reasonably effective railroad network in the United States
in the post WW II period. Then the railroads went bankrupt.

What has changed that makes a new railroad network more commercially
viable then the previous one?

If the concept is so flexible why did it go bankrupt?

Why do you propose a vastly more expensive rail network as a solution
to an already failed system?

http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm
http://conservationreport.com/2008/0...e-first-place/

--Winston

--

Don't *faff*, dear.

On Fri, 29 May 2009 10:51:25 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:12:51 GMT, "krp" wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:wNSdnYpIMcgtGIPXnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

Some of the tracks are in horrible shape. If dimbulb's idea of
underground 300 MPH trains was built, they would have huge logistics
problems. The areas you need them to run to, and through are already
built up. it doesn't make sense to tear out a huge section of a town to
build an underground rail system.

WHY would they HAVE to do that?

You would need at least three sets of rails to allow for any
maintenance, and the closer the stops are to each other, the slower they
would have to go. You can't accelerate a train like you do a sports
car.

Of course you need 3, just like the Chunnel. In YOUR world that makes it
impossible????

They ignore that you can go around many towns - or simply expand the
existing Rail Rights Of Way horizontally.

I am not saying trains aren't a good idea, but it isn't as simple as
dimbulb suggests. A lot of engineering, geological studies, political
issues, and obtaining the right of way. the early railroads were
possible, because they were built on 99% open, federal land. The rail
roads were given the land, along with some on each side for them to
develop.

Well you can always INVEST obstacles to make anything impossible.

I have said for years that a lot more cargo needs to go by train
car. That would reduce the traffic on our main roads and highways, and
reduce fuel used for transportation of non perishable goods.

Wasn't that part of what I suggested? With a train the size of a 747 you
could have both cargo and passengers. AND arrange the configuration as
needed. The nice part of the train concept is that if you sell all the seats
or need to carry extra cargo - you just attach another car. Not that easy to
create another plane. The concept works because it is so FLEXIBLE.

One question comes to mind.

There was a reasonably effective railroad network in the United States
in the post WW II period. Then the railroads went bankrupt.

The railroads were the only viable game in town pre-WWII. Trucks
and buses were too unreliable and slow, compared to rail.

Vehicle technology was not there, cars and trucks broke - a LOT.
Trucks still were running gasoline engines and manual braking (or
crude first-gen boosters), which could not handle the weight.

Tire technology was in it's infancy, stuill using cotton canvas for
the belt plies. If you got 10,000 miles on a set of car tires you
would be amazed, and with trucks it was more like 3,000 and they were
either bald or blown out. Some trucks were just getting the solid
tires off.

The highways were not yet developed to where they could compete -
many long steep grades and twisty switchbacks, since they followed the
contour of the land - no mass earthmoving could be done yet.

What has changed that makes a new railroad network more commercially
viable then the previous one?

If the concept is so flexible why did it go bankrupt?

Why do you propose a vastly more expensive rail network as a solution
to an already failed system?

Because the existing passenger rail system failed from outside
influences. The taxpayers buy the land for the roads and subsidize
the construction and maintenance of the highway system, the Railroads
have to buy the land (a lot of it was through eminent domain and
franchise, but somebody has to pay the lawyers) and build and maintain
their own systems.

And competing interests - Passenger service has to maintain a rigid
and rapid schedule to meet connections, but freight also has delivery
commitments and deadlines, albeit moving at about half the speed - but
there are severe pealties for the freight being late, where
passenf]gers they could blow off... Unless all the major arterials
are double-tracked or triple-tracked, you always have a freight
waiting on a passenger train, or vice versa. And the Reailroad has to
pay for the extra tracks, rebuilding all the bridges, punching through
new tunnels, etc.

The inter-urban streetcar / light rail was killed off by the transit
operators in search of a faster buck - Why maintain the rails when
buses use the subsidized 'free' roads? And when the major investors
that bought up the inter-urbans only to milk them dry and shut them
down were the companies that built new buses, made the tires and
refined and sold diesel fuel...

The fix was in and it was an open secret, but nobody cared till it
was too late.

-- Bruce --