uh huh.....

Talk about anything and everything!

Re: uh huh.....

Postby Arseny » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:49 am

Marquette wrote:^^^ Well, if the Great Streetcar Conspiracy in which GM, Firestone Tire and I believe Standard Oil was found guilty of buying up/into streetcar companies all over the US in order to kill the streetcar and have public transit switch to busses is possible, then yeah, I wouldn't put that past Big Oil either.

North America went from world leader to world chaser in rail transport...

(For the record, GM, for being found guilty in the streetcar conspiracy, was fined a grand total of $5000...)


Do you remember "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" movie? ;)
User avatar
Arseny
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:42 am
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: uh huh.....

Postby Marquette » Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:17 pm

Yes! I saw it in the cinema when it first came out, loved it!
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: uh huh.....

Postby LVG1 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:05 pm

Marquette wrote:North America went from world leader to world chaser in rail transport...


That depends on your point of view. It depends on the question what you interpret as an indicator for being a "leader" or "chaser".

Few years ago I red a report which compared freight transportation in the United States and in most (mainly western) European countries. The statistical figures said clearly that the railroad's share in the total freight transports of a nation is nowhere else as high as in the US.

If you consider this significance for the national transportation system, the US railroads are still a "leader"...
"Let's eat, grandpa."
Punctuation marks save lives!
User avatar
LVG1
 
Posts: 864
Images: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Guben / Gubin; Germany? Poland?—No, Lusatia!

Re: uh huh.....

Postby ConducTTor » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:14 pm

True. But the original context of this post was about fast passenger trains :)
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the powerful know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8293
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: uh huh.....

Postby LVG1 » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:52 pm

ConducTTor wrote:True. But the original context of this post was about fast passenger trains :)


Really?
It's about fast passenger trains?
So I don't know what is meant by "leader".
Or did North America have an entire network of "high-speed" diesel train connections in 1936 (just like Germany)? :grin:

But to keep a straight face:
High-speed lines are expensive and high-speed trains are expensive, both in building and in maintenance. Have a look at the high-speed networks worldwide. They are all situated in regions with high population density and connect large metropolises which are situated within a few hundret miles from each other. On larger distances or connecting smaller cities you won't attract enough ridership to pay for that all.
As far as my overview of the population densities in North America is complete, the North East Corridor is the only region in North America which offers the same conditions. And there you have the Acela Express.
Considering the circumstances, in my eyes it's quiet a bit unrealistic to expect more.
"Let's eat, grandpa."
Punctuation marks save lives!
User avatar
LVG1
 
Posts: 864
Images: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Guben / Gubin; Germany? Poland?—No, Lusatia!

Re: uh huh.....

Postby ConducTTor » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:11 pm

You make some very good points actually.

Prost!
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the powerful know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8293
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: uh huh.....

Postby Petercat » Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:32 am

Having ridden the MARTA train and the buses in Atlanta, I can't help but say... NO WAY!
I can run from trouble a lot faster in my car than I can on my feet.
Improve the quality of the ridership and maybe I'll consider it. But for now, concern for my personal safety rules it out.
Also, keep TSA away from the stations and depots.
"It's Peter, not Pete. Pete sounds like a bird fart.
User avatar
Petercat
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:04 am
Location: Savannah GA

Re: uh huh.....

Postby Marquette » Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:56 am

LVG1 wrote:
ConducTTor wrote:True. But the original context of this post was about fast passenger trains :)


Really?
It's about fast passenger trains?
So I don't know what is meant by "leader".
Or did North America have an entire network of "high-speed" diesel train connections in 1936 (just like Germany)? :grin:


In a sense, though these were regional. Trains like the Great Northern's Empire Builder, or the Pennsy's Broadway Limited, or the Seaboard Air Line's Orange Blossom Special routinely were running at over 120 km/h even back in the steam days, over 140 (and more, for certain trains) after moving to diesels.

So yes, we really did - and over much greater distances. Indeed - we had the world's fastest scheduled steam-powered trains - the Milwaukee Road and the Chicago & North Western had schedules that required running at 100 miles per hour...

But to keep a straight face:
High-speed lines are expensive and high-speed trains are expensive, both in building and in maintenance. Have a look at the high-speed networks worldwide. They are all situated in regions with high population density and connect large metropolises which are situated within a few hundret miles from each other. On larger distances or connecting smaller cities you won't attract enough ridership to pay for that all.


It may be an exceptional situation, but keep an eye on China's emerging high-speed rail net. Rather long distances there.

As far as my overview of the population densities in North America is complete, the North East Corridor is the only region in North America which offers the same conditions. And there you have the Acela Express.


Patently false. See below.

Considering the circumstances, in my eyes it's quiet a bit unrealistic to expect more.


No, it isn't at all.

Texas offers the same conditions, and indeed it probably won't be long until Dallas, Houston and San Antonio are linked by a triangle of high-speed rail. It's already been investigated since the 1980s. Why hasn't it happened? See below - politics and Big Oil.

The Pacific Coast is another one that will see HSR within the next 15-20 years or so - San Diego - Los Angeles - San Francisco - Portland - Seattle - Vancouver.

Quebec City - Montreal - Toronto (and possibly even on to Chicago) is another one that is definitely possible (and indeed had a high speed service in the 1960s/1970s/1980s - the Turbotrain and then the LRC or whatever it was called). I would not at all be surprised - if VIA Rail actually survives this Tory government until it gets kicked out in the next election - if high speed rail service resumes on this corridor in the next 20 years sometime.

They say that by 2030 or so, everything from Boston to Washington DC will be a single metropolitan area, with corresponding increases in population on the rest of the east coast. If /already/ they're looking at a south-eastern high-speed train from Charlotte to DC (and possibly Atlanta - Charlotte - DC if I remember right), then in the future it will be definitely more possible.

The interest is there, the ridership potential is there, and the profit potential is there... just the political incentive is a bit lacking, mainly due to the lobbyists from Big Oil and the auto industry. And the railways. Acela only happened because Amtrak owns the Northeast Corridor trackage; anywhere else, they're running on trackage owned by the freight railways, who all wish Amtrak would just disappear completely. They are the reason Amtrak has no high-speed locomotive-hauled schedules outside the NE corridor, not the lack of potential ridership. All Amtrak trains are regarded as lower priority than a third class local freight train.

All of the above is why it's most likely that the next one to happen will be on the 'communist hippie ecotopic' West (aka Left) Coast. But it *will* happen.
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: uh huh.....

Postby LVG1 » Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:20 pm

Marquette wrote:It may be an exceptional situation, but keep an eye on China's emerging high-speed rail net. Rather long distances there.


Long distances? Yes.
But do you know the size of Chinese metropolises? Compared to them, American cities look like villages.
More people => more ridership.
Additionally, in China the aviation and freeway networks are still in their infancy. And automobiles are luxury that hardly anybody can afford.

So China is indeed "an exceptional situation" and something that you hardly can compair to the US.

Marquette wrote:Texas offers the same conditions, and indeed it probably won't be long until Dallas, Houston and San Antonio are linked by a triangle of high-speed rail.


Okay, may be that's an option.

Marquette wrote:The Pacific Coast is another one that will see HSR within the next 15-20 years or so - San Diego - Los Angeles - San Francisco - Portland - Seattle - Vancouver.


I can imagine San Diego – San Franciso.
But the rest of the line is "small" cities, long distances. Hardly anything that will be worth it.

Marquette wrote:Quebec City - Montreal - Toronto (and possibly even on to Chicago) is another one that is definitely possible (and indeed had a high speed service in the 1960s/1970s/1980s - the Turbotrain and then the LRC or whatever it was called).


This could also be an option although the distances between the larger cities seem to be quite a bit long to me.

Marquette wrote:They say that by 2030 or so, everything from Boston to Washington DC will be a single metropolitan area, with corresponding increases in population on the rest of the east coast. If /already/ they're looking at a south-eastern high-speed train from Charlotte to DC (and possibly Atlanta - Charlotte - DC if I remember right), then in the future it will be definitely more possible.


You talk about future. I talk about present.
Charlotte is relatively small, Atlanta relatively far away. Let's see what the future is going to bring.

Marquette wrote:...and the profit potential is there...


Do we speak about the same thing? High-speed rail?
I'm not aware of any high-speed network that can pay for itself and can work without financial aid from the state. You can't really think, there was "profit potential" in high-speed rail.

Marquette wrote:All of the above is why it's most likely that the next one to happen will be on the 'communist hippie ecotopic' West (aka Left) Coast. But it *will* happen.


May be. I'm no clairvoyant.

By the way:
Did you know that the most famous communist was Captain James T. Kirk of the starship Enterprise?
"Let's eat, grandpa."
Punctuation marks save lives!
User avatar
LVG1
 
Posts: 864
Images: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Guben / Gubin; Germany? Poland?—No, Lusatia!

Re: uh huh.....

Postby Marquette » Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:04 pm

LVG1 wrote:
Marquette wrote:It may be an exceptional situation, but keep an eye on China's emerging high-speed rail net. Rather long distances there.


Long distances? Yes.
But do you know the size of Chinese metropolises? Compared to them, American cities look like villages.
More people => more ridership.
Additionally, in China the aviation and freeway networks are still in their infancy. And automobiles are luxury that hardly anybody can afford.

So China is indeed "an exceptional situation" and something that you hardly can compair to the US.


True. And yes, the freeway networks leave much to be desired, in fact from my experience with them, they're fairly minimal. The way to get around is by rail or flying, though the latter is massively expensive compared to trains.

Marquette wrote:The Pacific Coast is another one that will see HSR within the next 15-20 years or so - San Diego - Los Angeles - San Francisco - Portland - Seattle - Vancouver.


I can imagine San Diego – San Franciso.
But the rest of the line is "small" cities, long distances. Hardly anything that will be worth it.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're unfamiliar with the situations here. Sure, Portland is small, but Seattle and, more so, Vancouver, are significant cities. Vancouver is, after LA, the most important city on the west coast, a vital sea port and Canada's (and the northwest's) gateway to Asia.

It may not be big population-wise, but it is enormous in importance.

Marquette wrote:Quebec City - Montreal - Toronto (and possibly even on to Chicago) is another one that is definitely possible (and indeed had a high speed service in the 1960s/1970s/1980s - the Turbotrain and then the LRC or whatever it was called).


This could also be an option although the distances between the larger cities seem to be quite a bit long to me.


As I said, the service already existed in the past, and was quite successful while it was in operation. Even now, with regular trains, it is very busy along the entire corridor Quebec City - Montreal - Toronto - Windsor.

Marquette wrote:They say that by 2030 or so, everything from Boston to Washington DC will be a single metropolitan area, with corresponding increases in population on the rest of the east coast. If /already/ they're looking at a south-eastern high-speed train from Charlotte to DC (and possibly Atlanta - Charlotte - DC if I remember right), then in the future it will be definitely more possible.


You talk about future. I talk about present.
Charlotte is relatively small, Atlanta relatively far away. Let's see what the future is going to bring.


True, Charlotte isn't big. But it *is* the second most important financial centre in the US!

There's more to things than population.

Marquette wrote:...and the profit potential is there...



By the way:
Did you know that the most famous communist was Captain James T. Kirk of the starship Enterprise?

[/quote]

How so?

But, if the United Federation of Planets is communist, in that one situation, I'd be happy to be a communist... :)
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests