Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:07 am Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
norwayhermit wrote:
One of the things I think we've grown addicted to as a part of our oil addiction is high-speed transportation, I see continued reference to it off and on in this thread, and I wonder about the prudence of this line of thought. Do we really need to be able to get everywhere in no time at all?
I believe the answer to this question is 'yes', we really do need high speed transportation.
Here in Japan I enjoy not just easily available (both in space and frequency of schedule) trains but also high speed trains.
It makes a difference.
Which is why the Japanese invented theirs.
I had a Malaysian friend here who had an engineer friend who was interested in selling a high speed train idea to anybody in the US, but especially looking at an LA - Vegas run. I tried to tell my friend that while it would be wonderful it would fail, because people in LA and Vegas will still need autos at either end, to go anywhere in the target city.
The only reason the Shinkansen can exist here is that the local railways are completely mature and serve virtually all the country.
I do like your idea though that steam engines can be an intermediary between petroleum based engines and full electric railways, especially for a large country like the US. It will take time to electrify a significant portion of the thousands upon thousands of miles of existing track right of way. It will be an even larger task making dual lines (for passenger travel).
However, what I'd suggest is not your grandfather's steam engine, but a modern heat transfer design, using anything that will burn but not necessarily expelling hot water steam to the outside (thus wasting energy.)
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
Oh, don't worry this thread will never die and neither will the RR's for the foreseeable future! The US freights are making money hand over fist these days...coal has been a big factor. Isn't that ironic...the Norfold Southern making record profits and GM on the verge of bankruptcy? Think we're not going in reverse a bit? They oldtimers always said the 21st century would be like the 20th...only in reverse. Although, I was recently informed that the US will not build a significant mass transit network in our lifetime since we now have ethanol. I guess this guys knows something I don't.
Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 1189 Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 12:05 am Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
I personally think trains will be hugely useful in the near term future. Much of the track is still useable, and goes towards infrastructure that we spent almost as much time building up as we did tearing it down for car culture.
My fav example is the track going to the Oscar Mayer plant in Madison WI. They used to do the entire operation at this plant, from the cows walking off the train to the products being sold at the plant and transported back down the very same track. It was put at this location entirely because of the rail line, and everything that was needed for plant operation was at the plant.
Now, just about half the plants functions no longer happen, and those that still exist are happening using truck transport, because it's cheaper. Since Kraft took over oscar meyer, outsourcing has been the name of the game. I think that's about to come to a screeching halt with peak oil. Quite simply, it won't be economically viable anymore to transport things huge distances just to avoid paying the person at your plant to do them when you can pay a discounted amount for someone making alot less at a non union plant to make them. This isn't a bitch by a union person either, I am not a union member. But I find it amusing when I hear people talking about this and that, calculate in peakoil, and get to watch all their business projections which screwed people out of good paying jobs go down the toliet.
In a way, I think peakoil will bring about a renewal of the manufacturing sectors of the US. Most of them where built with rail in mind. And when it is no longer viable to bring things over from other countrys in large scales, hey, we'll have to make the stuff ourselves. _________________ Azreal60
Joined: Jul 25, 2004 Posts: 681 Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
azreal60 wrote:
I personally think trains will be hugely useful in the near term future. Much of the track is still useable, and goes towards infrastructure that we spent almost as much time building up as we did tearing it down for car culture.
I have to agree with you, there. The Natioanl Highway System would have been utterly unviable, without the pre-existing railways which built the business up to the stage where expensive-as-all-Hell roads could take over - but only with a massive tax-payer subsidy.
Quote:
My fav example is the track going to the Oscar Mayer plant in Madison WI. They used to do the entire operation at this plant, from the cows walking off the train to the products being sold at the plant and transported back down the very same track. It was put at this location entirely because of the rail line, and everything that was needed for plant operation was at the plant.
Yep, that used to happen an awful lot, right the way around the world: industrial plants were located near to fast efficient rail networks...and the trains (mostly steam) were fast and frequent. These days, they are diesel, and are slow and expensive.
Quote:
Now, just about half the plants functions no longer happen, and those that still exist are happening using truck transport, because it's cheaper. Since Kraft took over oscar meyer, outsourcing has been the name of the game.
That stupidity started with Good Ole Ayn "Selfishness Is A Virtue" Rand's Best Disciple: Margret Thatcher. And Maggie's best friend was one Ronald Ray Gun. Economic Rationalism: Ayn Rand's Greatest Triumph.
Quote:
I think that's about to come to a screeching halt with peak oil. Quite simply, it won't be economically viable anymore to transport things huge distances just to avoid paying the person at your plant to do them when you can pay a discounted amount for someone making alot less at a non union plant to make them.
The exchange rate is the real killer - the Chinese Renmimbi Yuan was re-valued a little while ago - from 8.006 Renmimbi Yuan to one US dollar to (wait for it, drumroll, please) 7.996 Renmimbi Yuan to one US dollar. If you are trying to compete against a fixed exchange rate (as versus a floating one, like what the US dollar is against everyone else) and that exchange rate is set to 1/8th that of your own curency, you cannot possibly compete. Nothing to do with WAGES, I can assure you.
Indeed, old Henry Ford made billions (in today's currency) by paying his workers 300% MORE than the average wage. That's ALL workers, too.
Quote:
In a way, I think peakoil will bring about a renewal of the manufacturing sectors of the US. Most of them where built with rail in mind. And when it is no longer viable to bring things over from other countrys in large scales, hey, we'll have to make the stuff ourselves.
Yes, I hope you guys get the chance to do so. _________________ .
"To Get Rich you have to:
China is shipping so many goods to the United States that the Chinese often find it cheaper to build new containers with low-cost labor and leave their empty ones in the United States than send them home empty.
But more on topic, the story points out that west coast ports are so full of Chinamart goods that shippers are looking to East coast ports and railroads to handle more of the traffic.
It would certainly be ironic for China-Mart to be responsible for a resurgence of and increased investment in rail.
Union Pacific and BNSF together will spend about $100 million to add more than 40 miles of third- and fourth-line track in the Southern Powder River Basin.
And for my final offering, gas prices are already leading to talk about a new passenger service in my backyard. Interesting as they just last year pulled the last local service in Joplin – we are halfway between Joplin and Springfield and the Frisco line is about a mile from us thought the terminal in the nearby town was razed long ago.
I mentioned in a post a while back that I saw some interesting changes in momentum and of course was shot down. But as my tag says the ripples are certainly unpredictable. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Joined: Jul 25, 2004 Posts: 681 Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
freetoken wrote:
norwayhermit wrote:
One of the things I think we've grown addicted to as a part of our oil addiction is high-speed transportation, I see continued reference to it off and on in this thread, and I wonder about the prudence of this line of thought. Do we really need to be able to get everywhere in no time at all?
I believe the answer to this question is 'yes', we really do need high speed transportation.
Here in Japan I enjoy not just easily available (both in space and frequency of schedule) trains but also high speed trains.
It makes a difference.
Which is why the Japanese invented theirs.
The Japanese beat everyone ELSE to it, too!
Quote:
I had a Malaysian friend here who had an engineer friend who was interested in selling a high speed train idea to anybody in the US, but especially looking at an LA - Vegas run. I tried to tell my friend that while it would be wonderful it would fail, because people in LA and Vegas will still need autos at either end, to go anywhere in the target city.
Not so much as fail because of that reason but fail because of the lack of "public mindedness" that traditional American Society had, and Modern Western Society has had taken away from it.
Quote:
The only reason the Shinkansen can exist here is that the local railways are completely mature and serve virtually all the country.
While true, the experience of the Los Angeles railway (YUP, rail!) shows that one doesn't need to have a "mature" railway network in order to have a successful service.
Quote:
I do like your idea though that steam engines can be an intermediary between petroleum based engines and full electric railways, especially for a large country like the US.
LOL, I'm hoping for the steam to be sen as the "final step", LOL, as they can do an awful lot more things than merely tow loads. Municiapl garbage classification, for example (where they use steam to separate the palstics from the organics (ie: non-plastics).
Quote:
It will take time to electrify a significant portion of the thousands upon thousands of miles of existing track right of way. It will be an even larger task making dual lines (for passenger travel).
In a Post Peak Oil world, I doubt such electrification will even be possible, but perhaps. But what do you do with the lightly trafficked lines? Electrify something like a wheat line where the produce comes along for a few weeks out of the year...? The return on one's energy input is woeful. Even in Japan there are railways that get used infrequently. They are the ones that use diesels right now, simply because it's neither economic nor efficient to electrify them.
As for the idea that all the major lines in the US are still single track....I'd say even the transcontinental lines are now at least dual track almost all of the way. I'd have to defer to those who're more knowledageable about that, but I'd say that at least 90% of the major lines in the US are dual, triple, quadruple or even quituple tracks (in decreasing perentages, if you follow me). Putting it more clearly: 10% of the major lines are still single track.
Quote:
However, what I'd suggest is not your grandfather's steam engine, but a modern heat transfer design, using anything that will burn but not necessarily expelling hot water steam to the outside (thus wasting energy.)
I would also not suggest Grandad's ideas though they achieve high marks for sheer robustness: most diesel have a commerical life (always shorter than their actual working life) of 15 to 18 years. Most steam locomotives have a commercial life of 45 years or more. In any case: learning from modern power station practice is the way to go. If you wish to learn more about modern steam, please go to:
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
ubercynicmeister wrote:
As for the idea that all the major lines in the US are still single track....I'd say even the transcontinental lines are now at least dual track almost all of the way.
Here are the current double-tracked lines, in an image pulled from Trains Magazine earlier this year. Notice how underdeveloped the network looks compared to the dual-lane carriageways of the interstate system. The difference is purely due to our government's handiwork, of course.
_________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Joined: Jul 25, 2004 Posts: 681 Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
emersonbiggins wrote:
ubercynicmeister wrote:
As for the idea that all the major lines in the US are still single track....I'd say even the transcontinental lines are now at least dual track almost all of the way.
Here are the current double-tracked lines, in an image pulled from Trains Magazine earlier this year. Notice how underdeveloped the network looks compared to the dual-lane carriageways of the interstate system. The difference is purely due to our government's handiwork, of course.
Thanks for that! As I said most of the trasnscontinental run is double-track. I wish I could show you the one for Australia online, but I don't know of any to exist...have to you gone to the Solar Steam Locomotive Page, yet?
I DOUBT sincerely that a trans-continental run could be done (except in Summer) ...but what about LOCAL runs? This type of technology would be utterly ideal for trams / light rail where the cost of electrifying is seen as a barrier.
But I gotta go....looks like I have anemia and need some blood tests to figure out what's wrong with me.
WOOOHOO, ahh, the medical merrie-go-round! _________________ .
"To Get Rich you have to:
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
I just got back from Europe (Germany/France/Switzerland/Italy), and these guys have the right idea. We took the train to get around in these countries and it is a great way to travel. You can get just about anywhere on these trains. We had a Eurail pass so you could hop on any train you wanted to. Everyone takes the trains there because they are safe, comfortable, and extremely affordable. Trains like the TGV, ICE, and Eurostar Italia get you city to city quicker than a car. It really frustrates me here that the government seems to have an irrational hatred of Amtrak and proposed high speed rail lines. The California assembly delayed the vote for high speed rail until 2008.
My proposal (which would never occur in America): tack on 20-40 cents for a federal gas tax that would fund rail travel improvements including dedicated freight and passenger corridors, electrification of rail lines, and goverment subsidies for high speed rail and higher density local lines. If we built an efficient rail system, people would actually use it.
Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 1189 Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:24 am Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
So if it's never going to occur, why propose it?
Sad to say, I have to agree with you. But don't totally count out americans. The fact they have current problems with figuring out smart ways to go about things doesn't mean they'll be dumb for all time. It's just a matter of will they be long enough for energy supplies to go down enough to make further large projects less viable. That's the real question. _________________ Azreal60
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
I happen to like trains a lot. I rode them through most of my childhood until the mid-1970's. Minneapolis is finally building light rail which I believe has been moderately successful. Have any of you looked at Personal Rapid Transit? It's proponents claim greater energy efficiency for urban transport than light rail and better coverage of an area. Some websites include the one for ULTRA PRT (first application at Heathrow airport), skyweb express, etc. What do you think?
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
rdberg1957 wrote:
I happen to like trains a lot. I rode them through most of my childhood until the mid-1970's. Minneapolis is finally building light rail which I believe has been moderately successful. Have any of you looked at Personal Rapid Transit? It's proponents claim greater energy efficiency for urban transport than light rail and better coverage of an area. Some websites include the one for ULTRA PRT (first application at Heathrow airport), skyweb express, etc. What do you think?
I think it's a scam in the mold of Amory Lovins, selling products that aren't commercially proven to a public that is largely reticent about accepting them. I would like to see a working PRT system, though, but I'm not holding my breath. _________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
So, is a Dems victory in the Congress indicative of a brighter future for high-speed rail? After all, it was when the dems were last in power that the original ISTEA corridors were established (and, quite frankly, addressed), and I can definitely see that a progressive shift in Congress being beneficial for finally addressing the critical failures of the motoring utopia.
Probably just wishful thinking... _________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: [Transportation] Trains (was - The Future of Railroads)
ubercynicmeister wrote:
Quote:
It will take time to electrify a significant portion of the thousands upon thousands of miles of existing track right of way. It will be an even larger task making dual lines (for passenger travel).
In a Post Peak Oil world, I doubt such electrification will even be possible, but perhaps.
Sorry to pull up an older post, but I'm curious about this.
Most locomotives are currently diesel-electric, carrying a large diesel engine to turn a generator to power an electric traction motor.
Most coal for electric power generation is delivered via rail. So most locations on railways could probably be supplied with coal.
For the near term we have lots of coal here in the US.
If it were necessary, I wonder if it would be practical to manufacture a coal-fired electric generator (possibly closed-loop to avoid consuming large quantites of water) that could be patched into existing locomotive electrical systems to power the motor.
Pretty simplistic idea, I know. I don't know anything about locomotive engineering, but the idea is to save the cost of replacing thousands of locomotives while leveraging the relationship between coal and railways.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
