Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 23:31:37 -0400 From: "Nutmegger" <nutmegger_7717nopsamo.com> Subject: Re: GM to increase SAAB lineup
<davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote: > Someone who looks an awful lot like Mark Gerritsma schreef: > > >> I don't know if trains would work as well for commercial shipping > >> here, as they do in say Europe. The distances involved are awfully > >> large here. Passenger rail works between, say, Brussels and Paris, > >> but from Milwaukee to Denver, it's not a great option. > > > In this case a bad example , because between Brussels and Paris there > > is a high speed rail link (186 mph) between the two cities. High speed > > passenger links work up to about 600 mi. If you go beyond that an > > airplane would be faster. > > Yes, but that's my point - the distance makes it less workable in the USA. Well, I'm confused a bit because here we have the Vermont Rail which goes up to Canada and it is used daily to transport lumber and (I don't know what) in tanks. It runs right behind my house, so I actually see it. And, when I was in Canada, I noticed they make more use of trains than the US, they were running all the time. > > > Trains do not work well at all for commercial shipping in Europe. At > > every border the locomotive has to be replaced (different safety > > systems and overhead wire voltages) and especially at transit stations > > lots of time is lost. The extra costs of road shipping is usually far > > outweighed by the shortenend delivery time. > > That whole rail size and voltage thing hasn't been standardized _yet_? > I'm surprised at that. I believe you, mind you, but I'm just shocked. I think it has here anyway, from what I've seen by me. > > >> Maybe not > >> relevant when you're shipping stuff rather than people, I don't > > know. > > > Goods in transit represent value. This values cannot be use for > > something else. Thus you want to limit shipping time to an as short as > > possible period. But there also has to be a correlation betweem > > shipping time and effort required. > > Right - that's the nice thing about a free-market economy; the cost in > dollars/euros/whatever takes all this into account. If something ends up > being cheaper in cash, it's a less costly alternative all-around. > > Infrastructure costs enter into it as well, but I'm not sure how the cost > of maintaining a rail line compare to the costs of maintaining roads, relative > to the value of the goods transported on them. The flexibility of a truck > being able to go anywhere, vs. a train needing to stay on the rails, may > enter into it too. Interesting question. Yes, very much so. I envision a big improvement in moving freight and even more people in our country with the rail, but.....I also know it won't happen in my lifetime. They are pulling up track left and right around here and making them bike paths. Also, Amtrak is not doing good, the Metro into NYC has also had many of it's own problems.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
