What does the US Produce?

[Fulanito de Tal]

What is produced in the US?

Military equipment
Computers
Aerospace stuff
Food
Finance

Anything else?

It seems like the US, besides food, does not produce general commodities. This leads me to believe that the rest of the world has to trade with the US at whatever price the US wants or it will militarily intervene.

What country produces the most amount of stuff useful to us workers? Things such as clothes, cars, beds, clocks, etc.

[wunderbar]

Entertainment.

[jake williams]

Chemicals, including pharmaceuticals.

Tbh people exaggerate how much of what is consumed in the US is made in China. Manufacturing has definitely increased in developing countries and probably slightly decreased in developed countries in absolute terms, but it gets overstated. It's certainly decreased in relative terms, and become more labour-efficient (which means people lose jobs), but it still very definitely exists.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

What is produced in the US?

Military equipment
Computers
Aerospace stuff
Food
Finance

Anything else?

It seems like the US, besides food, does not produce general commodities. This leads me to believe that the rest of the world has to trade with the US at whatever price the US wants or it will militarily intervene.

Off the top of my head I can think of factories in my area that produce things like furniture, pick-up trucks, and windows. So not everything has been outsourced, for now at least.


What country produces the most amount of stuff useful to us workers? Things such as clothes, cars, beds, clocks, etc.

Probably China.

[Moopy]

Debt

[hatzel]

Debt

Oh, I get it, that's very witty...:bored:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The United States is the largest manufacturer in the world. Even with job loss and outsourcing, this remains the case because U.S. labor is the most productive in the world. More than 1/5 of total world manufacturing takes place in the U.S.

There is manufacturing of heavy machinery, steel, airplanes, cars, ships, trains, oil, lumber, coal, computer technology, etc. If you can think of it, it's probably manufactured somewhere in the United States.

[Gorilla]

Small plant up the street from me makes bingo equipment.

[Working Person]

#1 exporter of wars for years now.

We have produced almost everything, and we have the capability to manufacture just about anything necessary, but you know how capital gets allocated these days (I hope you do, would you explain it to me?).

The thing here is, alot of manufacturing resources can be re-purposed (Remington started with, what? bikes, then typewriters, now guns and electric razors.) The tooling is largely the same, and any so-called advanced country will have or can get the tool and die guys to make the changes. Microchips are microchips, and are made in many countries; and abandoned textile mills are the shed-snake-skins of 20th century capitalism.

So, many countries can produce the goods that workers need. Canada alone could likely cover the basic needs of the western hemisphere.

Why doesn't that happen?

Capitalism by definition incentivizes poor resource allocation, and not market efficiency. There's more money to be made shipping flat pack chipboard beds from china than developing workshop industry in the US.

Bummer.

[smashcapital]

Many types of beers, wines, and cigarettes are produced here.
Oh, hell yes!!! :)

[RadioRaheem84]

Entertainment.

Propaganda.

[chegitz guevara]

The United States is still the single largest manufacturer in the world. So much stuff is made here it is almost impossible to list it all. In addition, the United States is one of the world's largest agricultural producers, and producers of services.

[S.Artesian]

The United States is still the single largest manufacturer in the world. So much stuff is made here it is almost impossible to list it all. In addition, the United States is one of the world's largest agricultural producers, and producers of services.


Yes, but the US share of global manufacturing has plummeted dramatically since the 1990s, dropping from 31% of global manufacturing to less than 20% in 2010 and less than .5% ahead of China's share.

US exports a lot of capital goods-- electronics, electronic controls for production processes, transportation equipment [airplanes first and foremost], semiconductor fabrication equipment, farm, mining, and earth-moving heavy equipment [Caterpillar, Deere, etc. ], power generating equipment, special industrial equipment, chemicals [as mentioned], petroleum products, scientific instruments, vehicles, corn, soybeans, cotton, animal products, fruits and vegetables.

Good source for this type of information is the Statistical Abstract of the US, published annually, and available online at:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

[Robespierre Richard]

Yes, but the US share of global manufacturing has plummeted dramatically since the 1990s, dropping from 31% of global manufacturing to less than 20% in 2010 and less than .5% ahead of China's share.

US exports a lot of capital goods-- electronics, electronic controls for production processes, transportation equipment [airplanes first and foremost], semiconductor fabrication equipment, farm, mining, and earth-moving heavy equipment [Caterpillar, Deere, etc. ], power generating equipment, special industrial equipment, chemicals [as mentioned], petroleum products, scientific instruments, vehicles, corn, soybeans, cotton, animal products, fruits and vegetables.

Good source for this type of information is the Statistical Abstract of the US, published annually, and available online at:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

This pretty much. The US is a post-industrial society that exports capital goods and imports consumer goods, like the late USSR. There is some domestic manufacturing of consumer goods but labor costs drove production to where it is cheapest, allowing specialization in economic calculation and capital goods production.

This process however has ended with the crisis that began in 2008 as third world labor costs rose too much to support present production patterns and first world incomes fell too much to support present present consumption patterns (or rather, the debt instruments used to support high consumption patterns with falling income collapsed).

Now it's a reorientation toward a more global cosmopolitan bourgeoisie and a general international proletariat rather than the national proletariat of the Keynesian era who were supported by government programs and reformist unions.

[chegitz guevara]

The US is a post-industrial society that exports capital goods and imports consumer goods, like the late USSR.

This sentence contradicts itself.

The world's largest manufacturer cannot be a post-industrial society. The notion we're post-industrial is based on the fact that most workers in the U.S. aren't involved in production anymore, but that is because of the vast productive capacities, such that where thousands of workers were needed in a plant, a few hundred will do now. We are still very much an industrial society.

[Robespierre Richard]

This sentence contradicts itself.

The world's largest manufacturer cannot be a post-industrial society. The notion we're post-industrial is based on the fact that most workers in the U.S. aren't involved in production anymore, but that is because of the vast productive capacities, such that where thousands of workers were needed in a plant, a few hundred will do now. We are still very much an industrial society.

I don't know if you read anything in this thread but most of what the US physically produces is capital goods. This is the definition of post-industrial.

[piet11111]

Many types of beers

If that's what you want to call it :rolleyes:

[S.Artesian]

I don't know if you read anything in this thread but most of what the US physically produces is capital goods. This is the definition of post-industrial.


Comrade,

You are confusing capital with financial. Capital goods are industrial products. Financial products fall under the FIRE [finance, insurance, real estate] sector, or under the services sector.

Capital goods are essentially machinery, sytems, used to produce, design, and control other machines or the entire production process; or to increase the productivity of enterprises-- i.e. new locomotives are considered capital goods. Specialized industrial machinery are capital goods.

[Robespierre Richard]

Comrade,

You are confusing capital with financial. Capital goods are industrial products. Financial products fall under the FIRE [finance, insurance, real estate] sector, or under the services sector.

Capital goods are essentially machinery, sytems, used to produce, design, and control other machines or the entire production process; or to increase the productivity of enterprises-- i.e. new locomotives are considered capital goods. Specialized industrial machinery are capital goods.

Yeah. That's what I already said.

[S.Artesian]

Yeah. That's what I already said.


Well, than it's pretty hard to conclude from that the US is a "post-industrial" society.

[Robespierre Richard]

Well, than it's pretty hard to conclude from that the US is a "post-industrial" society.

Well yeah if your definition of post-industrial is "no industry at all" and not a movement "on to a structure of society based on the provision of information, innovation, finance, and services."

I don't see why you find the need to argue about this though. It's a sociological/economic idea, not a Marxist one.

[S.Artesian]

I don't feel a need to argue about this. But there is a need to correct mis-apprehensions regarding the organization of the mode of production. The US is no more "post-industrial" due to manufacturing providing a shrinking portion of all economic activity than it is "post-worker" due to the shrinkage of the industrial working class. That's the point I'm making.

The OP was what does the US produce? The answer is "lots of 'things'."

Something else to keep in mind regardin US "imports" is that much of what the US imports is what's called "related party trading," where a US company imports [and exports] from a subsidiary based in another country. In 2006 [I think] I did an adjustment to the US trade deficit for "related party trading" and reduced the deficit by about 2/3, with the deficit equaling the additional expenditure on a single commodity..... oil.

[syndicat]

Actually "industry" isn't just manufacturing. It also includes public utilities, such as water, gas, electric power systems. Also, transportation of goods and people. It's arbitrary to say that once a desk leaves the factory it isn't part of the production process to move it to where it becomes useful to the end user. Factories involve moving stuff around a lot. Why is that "production" and movement of goods from factory to distribution centers is not?

Thus I'd propose that "industry" in the U.S. includes manufacturing, construction, public utilities, transportation and mining. Those industries employ a fourth of the workforce in the USA, but produce about half the total commodity value. That's because labor productivity in manufacturing and transportation (but NOT construction) is higher than in services.

Also, agriculture in the USA is carried on in a highly industrial, chemicalized fashion....really factories in the fields and feedlots.

anyway, it's completely ridiculous to say the USA is "post-industrial."

[Psy]

Actually "industry" isn't just manufacturing. It also includes public utilities, such as water, gas, electric power systems. Also, transportation of goods and people. It's arbitrary to say that once a desk leaves the factory it isn't part of the production process to move it to where it becomes useful to the end user. Factories involve moving stuff around a lot. Why is that "production" and movement of goods from factory to distribution centers is not?

Thus I'd propose that "industry" in the U.S. includes manufacturing, construction, public utilities, transportation and mining. Those industries employ a fourth of the workforce in the USA, but produce about half the total commodity value. That's because labor productivity in manufacturing and transportation (but NOT construction) is higher than in services.

Also, agriculture in the USA is carried on in a highly industrial, chemicalized fashion....really factories in the fields and feedlots.

anyway, it's completely ridiculous to say the USA is "post-industrial."

Yet the US bourgeoisie state only now is thinking about "high-speed trains" and by that they are only talking about trains running as fast as USSR transcontinental passenger trains ran at. Thus it is clear US industry is in a state of industrial decline where the bourgeoisie are living on fixed capital yet refuses to properly maintain and upgrade fixed capital out of being frugal when it comes to investing in the production process.

[S.Artesian]

Yet the US bourgeoisie state only now is thinking about "high-speed trains" and by that they are only talking about trains running as fast as USSR transcontinental passenger trains ran at. Thus it is clear US industry is in a state of industrial decline where the bourgeoisie are living on fixed capital yet refuses to properly maintain and upgrade fixed capital out of being frugal when it comes to investing in the production process.


No, that's not clear at all. It's clear that the decision of whether or not to support passenger service was, and remains, one that is determined by profitability. US Class 1 freight railroads are doing very well in the maintenance and upgrade departments.

I don't know how you draw the conclusion from not supporting HSR at costs of up to $70 million per mile [cost for the HSR corridor between LA and SF] that t the bourgeoisie are not maintaining and upgrading fixed capital, when labor productivity has been so amplified on the past 30 years.

[Psy]

No, that's not clear at all. It's clear that the decision of whether or not to support passenger service was, and remains, one that is determined by profitability. US Class 1 freight railroads are doing very well in the maintenance and upgrade departments.

I don't know how you draw the conclusion from not supporting HSR at costs of up to $70 million per mile [cost for the HSR corridor between LA and SF] that t the bourgeoisie are not maintaining and upgrading fixed capital, when labor productivity has been so amplified on the past 30 years.

Because when the US government says high speed rail it is not really high speed rail, it is rail maintained at a level to move at what is considered normal cruising speeds for transcontinental passengers trains. USSR transcontinental passenger trains were running at the same speeds the US government now called "high speed", US express trains was also running at those speeds back in the 1950's-1970's so basically US railways are in such disrepair they need to spend $70 million per mile just to bring tracks back up to the level of repair they where back in the 1970's.

See it is a common practice for railways to drop speeds as track falls in disrepair due to cracks in rails and joints getting out of alignments. It is also not just railways, power lines and water pipes also are in a growing state of disrepair making the most negligent machinery of the USSR starting to look well looked after in comparison. The problem is capitalists for decades have lost faith in the production end thus invest far less in the maintenance of the means of production.

[the last donut of the night]

weed

[S.Artesian]

Because when the US government says high speed rail it is not really high speed rail, it is rail maintained at a level to move at what is considered normal cruising speeds for transcontinental passengers trains. USSR transcontinental passenger trains were running at the same speeds the US government now called "high speed", US express trains was also running at those speeds back in the 1950's-1970's so basically US railways are in such disrepair they need to spend $70 million per mile just to bring tracks back up to the level of repair they where back in the 1970's.

See it is a common practice for railways to drop speeds as track falls in disrepair due to cracks in rails and joints getting out of alignments. It is also not just railways, power lines and water pipes also are in a growing state of disrepair making the most negligent machinery of the USSR starting to look well looked after in comparison. The problem is capitalists for decades have lost faith in the production end thus invest far less in the maintenance of the means of production.

No offense, but when it comes to railroads in the US, you don't know what you are talking about.

The problem is not the condition of US freight railroads. The tracks are absolutely fine for movement of freight trains, heavy haul, high axle load freight trains at speeds up to 60 mph.

The problem won't be solved even if you upgrade all US freight tracks to support train speeds of greater than 150 mph. Why? Well, here's where you don't know what you are talking about . Reason 1: because of the different braking distances. Train control systems are all based on the safe separation of trains, which in turn is governed in the last analysis by stopping distance, the distance to zero velocity.

Signal design distances have to take into account the train that requires the greatest distance to reach zero velocity in order to maintain safe separation of trains. Consequently, running a higher speed passenger service in the midst of a slower speed freight service will necessarily delay the passenger train as it catches up to [we call it "catching the signals of"] the freight train. The passenger train will have to slow down and follow the freight train at slower speeds until a diverging route for one train or the other can be established.

There are ways to mitigate the problem of overtakes-- you can build more tracks-- but the problem isn't the condition of the freight train tracks.

Reason 2: track deformity. The stresses placed on the track by heavy axle load freight can be managed pretty well for trains operating up to speeds of 90 mph. After that if you want to operate your passenger trains at 110, 125, 150 mph, the deformity of the track by heavy freight trains is simply too great to remedy with regularly scheduled track maintenance. You would have to dramatically reduce the length, weight, and frequency of your freight service. Guess what? This may come as a shock to you, but the BNSF, UP, NS, CSX, KCS etc. are in business to make money, and they make their money off freight.

Reason 3. The $70 million/mile is for the California HSR project with projected train speeds of 220 mph. Passenger trains have never operated in the US at 220 mph. The $70 million/mile figure is also what the estimated cost is for HSR linking Hanoi and Saigon, so please don't try and tell me how that amount is necessary for corrective maintenance. The California and Vietnam projects envision separate, dedicated tracks for HSR passenger service, with no shared use of freight trains at this time.

The bottom line is don't know a thing about US railroads.

[Psy]

No offense, but when it comes to railroads in the US, you don't know what you are talking about.

The problem is not the condition of US freight railroads. The tracks are absolutely fine for movement of freight trains, heavy haul, high axle load freight trains at speeds up to 60 mph.

The problem won't be solved even if you upgrade all US freight tracks to support train speeds of greater than 150 mph.

Yet the US government is only talking about trains going 125 mph.



Why? Well, here's where you don't know what you are talking about . Reason 1: because of the different braking distances. Train control systems are all based on the safe separation of trains, which in turn is governed in the last analysis by stopping distance, the distance to zero velocity.


Signal design distances have to take into account the train that requires the greatest distance to reach zero velocity in order to maintain safe separation of trains. Consequently, running a higher speed passenger service in the midst of a slower speed freight service will necessarily delay the passenger train as it catches up to [we call it "catching the signals of"] the freight train. The passenger train will have to slow down and follow the freight train at slower speeds until a diverging route for one train or the other can be established.

There are ways to mitigate the problem of overtakes-- you can build more tracks-- but the problem isn't the condition of the freight train tracks.

UAC Turbo Train in the 1970's ran on mainline tracks at 120 mph and the US government is only talking about trains about that fast when it says high speed.



Reason 2: track deformity. The stresses placed on the track by heavy axle load freight can be managed pretty well for trains operating up to speeds of 90 mph. After that if you want to operate your passenger trains at 110, 125, 150 mph, the deformity of the track by heavy freight trains is simply too great to remedy with regularly scheduled track maintenance. You would have to dramatically reduce the length, weight, and frequency of your freight service. Guess what? This may come as a shock to you, but the BNSF, UP, NS, CSX, KCS etc. are in business to make money, and they make their money off freight.

Then how come it was possible to reach those speeds in the 1970's? If true why did United Aircraft Corporation in 1968 come out with the UAC Turbo Train specifically to run passenger trains at 120 mph on the mainlines of the USA and Canada at the time? Yes in service they topped at around 100 mph but due to being slowed down by traffic.

The only logical conclusion to that and the fact speed tests and Canada and the US on mainlines reached over 100 mph is that main lines are in worse shape today then in 1968 thus titling won't solve the problem as the problem is track in too poor state of repair to reach those speeds anymore.



Reason 3. The $70 million/mile is for the California HSR project with projected train speeds of 220 mph. Passenger trains have never operated in the US at 220 mph. The $70 million/mile figure is also what the estimated cost is for HSR linking Hanoi and Saigon, so please don't try and tell me how that amount is necessary for corrective maintenance. The California and Vietnam projects envision separate, dedicated tracks for HSR passenger service, with no shared use of freight trains at this time.

The bottom line is don't know a thing about US railroads.

Where are the feeder lines to support the California HSR? They are building a whole new track to get 220 mph but also because they can't run slower trains like the UAC turbo trains over mainlines to get express service.

[S.Artesian]

Yet the US government is only talking about trains going 125 mph.


UAC Turbo Train in the 1970's ran on mainline tracks at 120 mph and the US government is only talking about trains about that fast when it says high speed.

No, they did not run everywhere at 120 mph. They were able to run up to 120 mph in certain areas....

Maximum authorized speeds on sections of the Northeast Corridor between NYC and DC were at 110 mph for years [with some areas of 125 mph] for years. Now those same sections are good for speeds to 150 mph.



Then how come it was possible to reach those speeds in the 1970's? If true why did United Aircraft Corporation in 1968 come out with the UAC Turbo Train specifically to run passenger trains at 120 mph on the mainlines of the USA and Canada at the time? Yes in service they topped at around 100 mph but due to being slowed down by traffic.
Look at the routes those turbotrains operated. Tell me where there is passenger service now on those routes; how many passenger trains a day; and the maximum authorized speed for freight trains today as compared to the 1970s. You'll find that authorized speed for freight trains hasn't declined, but that a conscious economic decision was made to get rid of the passenger service and maintain the railroad for freight operation, for profitable trains.

Since 1981 what have US railroads done to total trackage? Reduced it by one-third. Apparently you haven't been keeping up with current events, but US trackage is down to about 150,000 miles from more than 200,000 before the Staggers Act.

Freight ton-miles have increased. Loaded car ton-miles have increased. Revenue ton-miles have increased.

The problem isn't the condition of US tracks. The problem is that the tracks are operated by profit making companies who make their profit from hauling freight. These companies see their competition in long-haul trucking. Not airlines. Not automobiles. They are not in the business to compete with airlines of passenger cars. Hence no passenger service except for the very limited Amtrak service.

So they took actions to reduce their fixed costs, not by deferring maintenance but by reducing multiple track territory by additions of Centralized Traffic Control systems, and positioning of passing sidings. They increased train lengths, improved tractive effort of locomotives, increased maximum axle loads etc. etc. All of which is based upon minimal conflict generated by higher speed passenger trains.

Also, if your intention is to operate trains at speeds over 90 mph, FRA requires installation of an automatic cab signal system supplement by an automatic train control system so that if the train exceeds the authorized speed or if the locomotive operator fails to acknowledge a signal requiring a lower speed, the train brakes will apply automatically. This is NOT PTC. This is simple cab signal/speed control technology. And the freights don't want to pay for it, so they did not install it.

Main line track miles operating under slow orders are well below the miles slow ordered in the 1970s and 1980s according to the AAR. Accidents, fatalities, derailments have all exhibited a pretty steady decline over the last 20 years. These things don't happen if you neglect your maintenance.



The only logical conclusion to that and the fact speed tests and Canada and the US on mainlines reached over 100 mph is that main lines are in worse shape today then in 1968 thus titling won't solve the problem as the problem is track in too poor state of repair to reach those speeds anymore.
Again, shows only how much you don't know about the operation of railroads. They are not in worse shape. Do you have any idea how much track was slow ordered by the former Pennsylvania Railroad and the successor Penn Central Railroad in the 1960s and 1970s? I'll answer that for you... no you don't.



Where are the feeder lines to support the California HSR? They are building a whole new track to get 220 mph but also because they can't run slower trains like the UAC turbo trains over mainlines to get express service.What feeder lines? You're running from urban center to urban center and attempting to make as few stops as possible. Your "feeder" is the city of Los Angeles and the city of San Francisco.

They aren't attempting to build HSR because they can't run 120 mph on regular tracks. They are attempting to build HSR, passenger rail, to do what the freights don't-- compete with the airlines. Nobody is going to take a 5 hour train trip [when stops are included] to go from LA to SF.

To operate HSR successfully you need operate at a speed and a density of service that takes traffic away from the airlines. You cannot do that in an environment with 60 mph freight trains 80 mph commuter trains, or even 120 mph passenger trains. That's why the TGV in France operates on dedicated track.

[chegitz guevara]

Just build a separate high speed rail system, preferably mag/lev.

[Psy]

No, they did not run everywhere at 120 mph. They were able to run up to 120 mph in certain areas....

The UAC Turbo Train can go much faster, it hit 140 mph in Ontario, also the whole point of the UAC Turbo Train was for the train to lean so it can take curves faster which is the solution Britain uses now to have express passenger service.




Maximum authorized speeds on sections of the Northeast Corridor between NYC and DC were at 110 mph for years [with some areas of 125 mph] for years. Now those same sections are good for speeds to 150 mph.

And the UAC Turbo Train was engineered to make use of existing mainlines by being able to take curves faster with derailing, at the time no one was even thinking about the problem of track quality as back in 1968 curves were the only problem, keeping tracks crack free and aligned enough for 120 mph wasn't considered a big deal for main lines.



Look at the routes those turbotrains operated. Tell me where there is passenger service now on those routes; how many passenger trains a day; and the maximum authorized speed for freight trains today as compared to the 1970s. You'll find that authorized speed for freight trains hasn't declined, but that a conscious economic decision was made to get rid of the passenger service and maintain the railroad for freight operation, for profitable trains.

And Japan's freight lines increased in speed in that time, establishing express freight lines to compete with trucks.



Since 1981 what have US railroads done to total trackage? Reduced it by one-third. Apparently you haven't been keeping up with current events, but US trackage is down to about 150,000 miles from more than 200,000 before the Staggers Act.

Freight ton-miles have increased. Loaded car ton-miles have increased. Revenue ton-miles have increased.

The problem isn't the condition of US tracks. The problem is that the tracks are operated by profit making companies who make their profit from hauling freight. These companies see their competition in long-haul trucking. Not airlines. Not automobiles. They are not in the business to compete with airlines of passenger cars. Hence no passenger service except for the very limited Amtrak service.

If that is the case then rolling stock that can lean would solve the problem on mainlines (well that and increasing the capacity of mainlines)




So they took actions to reduce their fixed costs, not by deferring maintenance but by reducing multiple track territory by additions of Centralized Traffic Control systems, and positioning of passing sidings. They increased train lengths, improved tractive effort of locomotives, increased maximum axle loads etc. etc. All of which is based upon minimal conflict generated by higher speed passenger trains.

And that is why the hub at Chicago has trains have to come to a stop and have train crews operate manual switches on main lines and 10 mph speed limits due to trains having to make frequent stops do to poor track lay out and congestion?

It was estimated it would cost $2 billion just to modernize Chicago's rail network which has nothing to do with passenger service that is just the federal government paying to upgrading the obsolete junk the railways refuse to upgrade in the Chicago junction.



Also, if your intention is to operate trains at speeds over 90 mph, FRA requires installation of an automatic cab signal system supplement by an automatic train control system so that if the train exceeds the authorized speed or if the locomotive operator fails to acknowledge a signal requiring a lower speed, the train brakes will apply automatically. This is NOT PTC. This is simple cab signal/speed control technology. And the freights don't want to pay for it, so they did not install it.

Which other nations have installed on their mainlines even though without high speed trains.



Main line track miles operating under slow orders are well below the miles slow ordered in the 1970s and 1980s according to the AAR. Accidents, fatalities, derailments have all exhibited a pretty steady decline over the last 20 years. These things don't happen if you neglect your maintenance.

Again, shows only how much you don't know about the operation of railroads. They are not in worse shape. Do you have any idea how much track was slow ordered by the former Pennsylvania Railroad and the successor Penn Central Railroad in the 1960s and 1970s? I'll answer that for you... no you don't.

That doesn't count failures that only cause delays like a engine breaking down on a mainline due to maintenance problem that has caused a number of Amtraks problem with the failure not on Amtraks end but freight trains breaking down on the mainline.



What feeder lines? You're running from urban center to urban center and attempting to make as few stops as possible. Your "feeder" is the city of Los Angeles and the city of San Francisco.

I mean transit lines to move people to and from the station at both ends.



They aren't attempting to build HSR because they can't run 120 mph on regular tracks. They are attempting to build HSR, passenger rail, to do what the freights don't-- compete with the airlines. Nobody is going to take a 5 hour train trip [when stops are included] to go from LA to SF.

Why would a express train need stops, you put on a express train like the Turbo Train give it priority so it mostly gets greens all the way from LA to SF while low priority trains (like freight) wait for it to clear.



To operate HSR successfully you need operate at a speed and a density of service that takes traffic away from the airlines. You cannot do that in an environment with 60 mph freight trains 80 mph commuter trains, or even 120 mph passenger trains. That's why the TGV in France operates on dedicated track.
You can if you shorten train lengths and prioritize trains like JNR did as did RZhD (though the USSR didn't last that long after the RZhD introduced express speed trains).

[syndicat]

i think S. Artesian has done a great job of explaining the basic economics and situation of freight railways. As he points out, there has been an overall improvement in track and condition and volume of ton miles in recent decades.

the American railway network reached its all time high of mileage around the end of World War 1, with about 250,000. But there was a lot of duplication. This happened because railway development in the late 1800s and early 1900s was closely tied to real estate development, and because of competition between companies. competition led to poor coordination and duplication.

What has happened in the past several decades is that there has been massive consolidation. There now only five major -- Class 1 -- railways left in the USA. and one of them, Kansas City Southern is an odd duck that is smaller than the others and owns a large part of its mileage in Mexico -- it acquired a large part of the old National Ry in Mexico thru privatization.

the other four Class 1 railways are massive entities. two of them (UP and BNSF) exist in the western part of the USA (west of Chicago) and the other two (CSX and NS) exist in the eastern part of the country.

Through consolidation massive amounts of track mileage that was duplicative was eliminated. The other trend has been to sell off branch lines to short-line operators...often a way of breaking the unions and lowering worker compensation. It's a form of the tendency to contracting out.

the railways have been able to continue as profitable concerns by focusing on high volume business, such as intermodal and coal unit trains and the like.

but as S. Artesian has explained, high speed passenger railways require a different set of conditions & standards than freight railways. this is why they need dedicated track systems. And this is in fact what the California high speed rail project proposes to build.

on the other hand, they can make use of some of the technology and parts also used in freight railways. this is a reason a switch to maglev doesn't make a lot of economic sense.

[Psy]

i think S. Artesian has done a great job of explaining the basic economics and situation of freight railways. As he points out, there has been an overall improvement in track and condition and volume of ton miles in recent decades.

the American railway network reached its all time high of mileage around the end of World War 1, with about 250,000. But there was a lot of duplication. This happened because railway development in the late 1800s and early 1900s was closely tied to real estate development, and because of competition between companies. This led to a great deal of duplication.

What has happened in the past several decades is that there has been massive consolidation. There now only five major -- Class 1 -- railways left in the USA. and one of them, Kansas City Southern is an odd duck that is smaller than the others and owns a large part of its mileage in Mexico -- it acquired a large part of the old National Ry in Mexico thru privatization.

the other four Class 1 railways are massive entities. two of them (UP and BNSF) exist in the western part of the USA (west of Chicago) and the other two (CSX and NS) exist in the eastern part of the country.

Through consolidation massive amounts of track mileage that was duplicative was eliminated. The other trend has been to sell off branch lines to short-line operators...often a way of breaking the unions and lowering worker compensation. It's a form of the tendency to contracting out.

the railways have been able to continue as profitable concerns by focusing on high volume business, such as intermodal and coal unit trains and the like.

but as S. Artesian has explained, high speed passenger railways require a different set of conditions & standards than freight railways. this is why they need dedicated track systems. And this is in fact what the California high speed rail project proposes to build.

on the other hand, they can make use of some of the technology and parts also used in freight railways. this is a reason a switch to maglev doesn't make a lot of economic sense. maglev also has very high power requirements.
But it doesn't explain why the US rail industry has improved at the same rate as European and Asian railways even if just looking at freight. US railways don't care if it is much faster to truck commodities due to railway inefficiencies like railways in Europe and Asia that setup express freight lines in response to increased competition from trucking many times within the company as many are transportation companies not just railways thus have fleets of trucks to offer loading dock to loading dock service.

[syndicat]

But it doesn't explain why the US rail industry has improved at the same rate as European and Asian railways even if just looking at freight. US railways don't care if it is much faster to truck commodities due to railway inefficiencies like railways in Europe and Asia that setup express freight lines in response to increased competition from trucking many times within the company as many are transportation companies not just railways thus have fleets of trucks to offer loading dock to loading dock service.

what are you talking about? A vastly higher percentage of ton miles goes by rail in the USA than in Europe or Japan. In Spain only 4 percent of freight goes by train. In the USA it is about 38 percent.

A basic problem that railways face is the time to break up and make up trains. If you have a general freight train, which contains cars from many sources and destined for many sources, you have to send out switchers to pick up the small numbers of cars at spurs, and then you have to have crews classify cars by where they are going in a yard, and make up a train. Then at the other end you have a crew who break down the train, and then switchers take the cars to the various sidings.

The problem with this is that it eats up time. In the USA we have the Interstate Highway system...a massive freeway system built in the '50s to '70s. Trucks pay only a fraction of the appropriate maintenance charges. Because of their weight, trucks do most of the actual damage to roads but their fees pay only a part of that maintenance.

Plus, the freeways allow for very fast door-to-door delivery times by truck. A van picked up at the originator can be delivered directly to the ultimate destination. This will be more expensive than rail but faster. Also, shunting of cars in yards can lead to damage to goods. So high value-add goods often are shipped via truck.

The switch to just-in-time has been to the competitive benefit of trucks because companies look more at the time to delivery and are willing to pay the higher cost.

So, railways have focused on unit trains or trains with large cuts of cars going and coming from one place, such as an intermodal train from a port or a coal train from a mine.

A lot of the freight that stays with railways is bulk commodities where the low cost of rail is more important than the time to delivery.

[S.Artesian]

Productivity of freight operations in the US is far greater than productivity of European and Asian railways' freight operations.

The US Class 1s want to keep it that way, hence they do not want to mix passenger service into their operations.

Anyone who thinks the obstacle to running passenger trains on Class 1 lines is decrepit infrastructure doesn't know the first thing about mixed speed operations, and the challenges it presents.

The bottom line is the bottom line. These railroads make money by controlling costs, and increasing productivity, not by deferring maintenance. Operating passenger service interferes with the ability to provide that freight service and make that money. If there were a profit in running long haul passenger trains at 90-125 mph, railroads would restore the tracks they've spent the last 30 years ripping up.

You really need to pay attention to how railroads have handled the issue of capacity and costs. The River Line [ex New York Central west of Hudson line] was at one time 4 tracks between Weehawken, New Jersey and Haverstraw New York. It was reduced to a single track with passing sidings years and years ago.

Every Class 1 railroad reduced its track mileage in the last 30 years. Reducing multiple track to double track, and most often, double track to single track. That's the bottleneck to running passenger trains, not the state of the infrastructure.

Look at the converse of the situation-- freight operations on passenger railroads. Amtrak on the NEC severely restricts freight operation to discreet periods of time, and specific routes, and Amtrak's NEC has mile after mile of 4 track territory.

Metro North in NYC simply will not allow freight train operation over its territory between 0500 and 2100 hours, and MNR tracks are capable of supporting passenger train speeds of 90 [and really 100] mph. And MNR has 4 track, 3 track and double track territory.

Tell you what you do.... draw yourself a hypothetical railroad, single track, 200 miles in length with 15 passing sidings. Signal it both directions. Make the maximum authorized speed for freight trains 50 mph, maximum length 10,000 feet. Schedule your freight service for departure from initial terminals every 4 hours in each direction.

Now add your passenger trains; just 2 in each direction daily, each spaced 4 hours apart with a max speed, and a schedule that reflects that max speed, of 100 mph.

Tell me how long it takes your passenger trains to reach their destination, and what that does to your freight service.

By the way, this is a real scenario... years ago, when I was being trained as dispatcher, we were given these type of problems to solve.

[S.Artesian]

Why would a express train need stops, you put on a express train like the Turbo Train give it priority so it mostly gets greens all the way from LA to SF while low priority trains (like freight) wait for it to clear.

The above is a perfect display of near perfect ignorance when it comes to the reality of railroading passenger and freight.

Why does a train need intermediate stops? For the same reason that Amtrak trains operating between Boston and NYC stop at Providence, New London, New Haven, Stamford, etc. For the same reason that the trains operating between NYC and DC stop at Newark, Metropark, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore.... because the ridership demands it; because all those areas pay to support Amtrak, and they all have senators and representatives who have to show the voters they're doing something for them... so they demand a certain level of service in the intermediate stations where many people live who need to conduct business in NYC or DC.

Do you really think that in California you're going to go from LA-SF and not stop in Sacramento, the state capital, after spending billions from the state government? You think you're not going to stop at 2 or 3 other stations?

California HSR makes the claim that they can get people out of their cars and off Interstate 5. You think you can do that by bypassing every city along Interstate 5?


You want to give your 120 mph passenger train on shared-use track priority, you say? Who gives it priority when the railroad is owned by a Class 1 railroad? I'll tell you how it works. Every railroad, including passenger railroads that control their own track and train movements gives their own trains priority no matter what it says in the timetable about Amtrak trains being superior.

[Psy]

what are you talking about? A vastly higher percentage of ton miles goes by rail in the USA than in Europe or Japan. In Spain only 4 percent of freight goes by train. In the USA it is about 38 percent.

A basic problem that railways face is the time to break up and make up trains. If you have a general freight train, which contains cars from many sources and destined for many sources, you have to send out switchers to pick up the small numbers of cars at spurs, and then you have to have crews classify cars by where they are going in a yard, and make up a train. Then at the other end you have a crew who break down the train, and then switchers take the cars to the various sidings.

The problem with this is that it eats up time. In the USA we have the Interstate Highway system...a massive freeway system built in the '50s to '70s. Trucks pay only a fraction of the appropriate maintenance charges. Because of their weight, trucks do most of the actual damage to roads but their fees pay only a part of that maintenance.

Plus, the freeways allow for very fast door-to-door delivery times by truck. A van picked up at the originator can be delivered directly to the ultimate destination. This will be more expensive than rail but faster. Also, shunting of cars in yards can lead to damage to goods. So high value-add goods often are shipped via truck.

The switch to just-in-time has been to the competitive benefit of trucks because companies look more at the time to delivery and are willing to pay the higher cost.

So, railways have focused on unit trains or trains with large cuts of cars going and coming from one place, such as an intermodal train from a port or a coal train from a mine.

A lot of the freight that stays with railways is bulk commodities where the low cost of rail is more important than the time to delivery.
JNR and other such railways addressed these problems by making its own trucking division, where their trucks picks up containers, they have short express freight trains where containers are just dropped on the train where all the train goes from point A to point B (thus the express part, okay really a limited express as it will stop at point along the way) where at the other end the containers are loaded onto their own trucks to deliver it the rest of the way.

[S.Artesian]

JNR and other such railways addressed these problems by making its own trucking division, where their trucks picks up containers, they have short express freight trains where containers are just dropped on the train where all the train goes from point A to point B (thus the express part, okay really a limited express as it will stop at point along the way) where at the other end the containers are loaded onto their own trucks to deliver it the rest of the way.

And what the distances these "small express" trains travel. And at what speeds? And at what density [trains in each direction per day]? And how many tracks are available for operations? And what are their hours of operation, if they operate over shared-use tracks with passenger service?

The US Class 1s runs unit container trains at higher speeds to-- only some of the trains operate over thousands of miles. And the volume of goods to be carried is so great that operating "mini" trains as part of regularly scheduled long haul service doesn't make sense as the equipment demand for locomotives would be just too great.

Two things govern US railroads: cost and profit. Every operating decision is a financial decision and vice versa.

[syndicat]

JNR and other such railways addressed these problems by making its own trucking division, where their trucks picks up containers, they have short express freight trains where containers are just dropped on the train where all the train goes from point A to point B (thus the express part, okay really a limited express as it will stop at point along the way) where at the other end the containers are loaded onto their own trucks to deliver it the rest of the way.

only a tiny percentage of freight goes by train in Japan, compared to the USA. so obviously this has not been successful at attracting high freight volume. And short trains will make for higher per unit costs. As S. Artesian says, everything in the American railway industry is governed by the search for profit. This is a capitalist country and the railways are capitalist corporations.

[Psy]

And what the distances these "small express" trains travel.

The distance of Japan at max.



And at what speeds?

70 mph top speed, yet heavy acceleration capabilities, the EF66 proved to be so quick to get up to speed that the JNR used them on limited express passenger trains.




tracks are available for operations? And what are their hours of operation, if they operate over shared-use tracks with passenger service?

All of the track in Japan as at the time it was all nationalized under JNR, and they were sharing track with all other JNR traffic, they even regularly pass through passenger stations.



The US Class 1s runs unit container trains at higher speeds to-- only some of the trains operate over thousands of miles. And the volume of goods to be carried is so great that operating "mini" trains as part of regularly scheduled long haul service doesn't make sense as the equipment demand for locomotives would be just too great.

The point is actually trying to compete with trucks meaning able to get containers loaded and to the destination faster then it takes for a truck to drive directly.

Also lets not forget the RZhD under the USSR also ran short freight trains mostly due to the lack of wattage on the overhead lines to get trains as heavy as US trains but even when the USSR upgraded its lines they preferred shorter freight trains while moving 3852 billion tonne-km in 1988 so it can be done as it was done at that scale as it was done by the USSR.



Two things govern US railroads: cost and profit. Every operating decision is a financial decision and vice versa.
Same with other railways.




Do you really think that in California you're going to go from LA-SF and not stop in Sacramento, the state capital, after spending billions from the state government? You think you're not going to stop at 2 or 3 other stations?

LA to SF is only about 340 miles, high speed trains take a while to reach their cursing speed and even then it will take a while before you get any pay off from traveling at that speed thus there is no engineering sense to have a high speed train from LA-SF to stop any where in between.



California HSR makes the claim that they can get people out of their cars and off Interstate 5. You think you can do that by bypassing every city along Interstate 5?

High speed rail is meant to compete with airplanes not cars, if you want to make stops along Interstate 5 you'd be better off with a express passenger train with locomotives with good acceleration like the old GE Z-5a that way you'd only need to electrify the line and ensure the passenger trains don't get slowed down by other train traffic.

[syndicat]

LA to SF is only about 340 miles,

no. it's around 410 miles. and they plan on having quite a few stations. so there will be a station at San Jose, at Fresno, at Bakersfield, possibly the Palmdale airport, possibly a stop in the San Fernando Valley, such as Burbank.

also, they're not going to build the line via the shortest route which would require long tunnels under the Tehachapi mountains. Instead they're going to follow the railroad route via Tehachapi pass and then thru the desert and San Fernando pass. A bit roundabout but enables the line to serve the Palmdale airport (part of the network of airports run by city of L.A.).

California is very auto-oriented, so population is dispersed. And there isn't that great a public transit system to connect to stations. L.A. extends over a vast area and has a population of 14 million (in the metro area). so just having stops in the downtown S.F. station and LA Union Station would be inadequate, from a revenue generating point of view.

[Psy]

no. it's around 410 miles.

I was talking about the distance by air.



and they plan on having quite a few stations. so there will be a station at San Jose, at Fresno, at Bakersfield, possibly the Palmdale airport, possibly a stop in the San Fernando Valley, such as Burbank.

Then they are better off with express passenger service, not high speed rail as they will never get a decent average speed with so many stops from high speed locomotives.



also, they're not going to build the line via the shortest route which would require long tunnels under the Tehachapi mountains.

That kind of defeats the purpose of high speed trains.



Instead they're going to follow the railroad route via Tehachapi pass and then thru the desert and San Fernando pass. A bit roundabout but enables the line to serve the Palmdale airport (part of the network of airports run by city of L.A.).

That would better suited to express passenger trains. The reason railways build special high speed track is to minimize stops and turns so the high speed train can reach high average speeds.



California is very auto-oriented, so population is dispersed. And there isn't that great a public transit system to connect to stations. L.A. extends over a vast area and has a population of 14 million (in the metro area). so just having stops in the downtown S.F. station and LA Union Station would be inadequate, from a revenue generating point of view.
High speed rail requires feeder lines to be useful, without feeder lines a California high speed rail would just be a white elephant.

[S.Artesian]

High speed rail is meant to compete with airplanes not cars, if you want to make stops along Interstate 5 you'd be better off with a express passenger train with locomotives with good acceleration like the old GE Z-5a that way you'd only need to electrify the line and ensure the passenger trains don't get slowed down by other train traffic.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. California HSR is expressly designed to reduce automobile traffic on Interstate 5. To make that reduction a reality, the authority envisions running trains on 6 minute headways in both directions during the peak service periods.

You might actually want to read something about these projects, the economics of railroading, signal design distances, capacity, safe train separation before you start shooting your mouth off.

[Psy]

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. California HSR is expressly designed to reduce automobile traffic on Interstate 5. To make that reduction a reality, the authority envisions running trains on 6 minute headways in both directions during the peak service periods.

You might actually want to read something about these projects, the economics of railroading, signal design distances, capacity, safe train separation before you start shooting your mouth off.
Again high speed trains like bullet trains are meant to compete with airlines not cars as they take a significant distance to get up to speed and to come to a complete stop from cursing speed, they also are very costly compared to locomotives engineered for normal express passenger service.

You just say I don't know what I'm talking about without saying why you think how railways outside the USA has done it for decades is wrong. I mean the GE Z-5a was part of CNR's fleet and they got very good acceleration on those in Montreal where they ran on them on the Montreal to Deux-Montagnes line. Your waving it off as unworkable when I'm talking about what was already has been proven workable, you act like if it is not a lesson learned by US railways it is not a good lesson to learn.

The California HSR project is doomed to failure as high speed rail can't compete with cars and can't operate without a good existing passenger network.

[syndicat]

The California HSR project is doomed to failure as high speed rail can't compete with cars and can't operate without a good existing passenger network.

you don't know what you're talking about. traffic here in California is extremely dense. there is lots of highway driving up and down the state. People drive back and forth between L.A. and S.F. all the time.

the bit about a passenger network is a kind of chicken & egg problem. it diminishes the use of local transit when you don't have regional longer distance services that tie in with it. The HSR project here is designed to builld initially to the TransBay Terminal in S.F....also the terminal for the regional Caltrain, and 1 block from the BART subway. in L.A. Union Station is a major hub for the new rapid transit system, which includes a north-south light rail line and the main subway line being extended out the high-density Wilshire corridor....thru L.A.'s linear downtown. there is also a relatively new, elegant bus plaza at the station with various bus lines including the El Monte busway.

[S.Artesian]

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndicat http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2081487#post2081487)
no. it's around 410 miles.

I was talking about the distance by air.

Fucking priceless. Point 1: trains don't fly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndicate
and they plan on having quite a few stations. so there will be a station at San Jose, at Fresno, at Bakersfield, possibly the Palmdale airport, possibly a stop in the San Fernando Valley, such as Burbank.

Then they are better off with express passenger service, not high speed rail as they will never get a decent average speed with so many stops from high speed locomotives.


Again you don't know what you are talking about. What do you think the average rate of acceleration is on high speed electric trains with distributed power? The German ICE trainsets can reach speeds of 185 mph in about 6 minutes. Deceleration requires less time and space, but the trick will be the design a braking curve so that the forces of braking on the train are minimized by extending the time available for deceleration. If you spread your deceleration over 2 minutes you can put stations every 70 miles and still be averaging 140 mph-- or 3 hours LA-SF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndicate
also, they're not going to build the line via the shortest route which would require long tunnels under the Tehachapi mountains.

That kind of defeats the purpose of high speed trains.

Uhh... no it doesn't defeat the purpose if total trip time can be kept within 3 hours. Tunneling through mountains is a very expensive way to build your railroad and presents all sorts of requirements for additional safety equipment, procedures, etc when trains utilize these tunnels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by syndicate
Instead they're going to follow the railroad route via Tehachapi pass and then thru the desert and San Fernando pass. A bit roundabout but enables the line to serve the Palmdale airport (part of the network of airports run by city of L.A.).

That would better suited to express passenger trains. The reason railways build special high speed track is to minimize stops and turns so the high speed train can reach high average speeds.


No, as is usually the case, you have everything backwards. HSR is built to serve a projected need for high speed rail service, either to compete with airlines [Japan] or make rail attractive to business needs by reducing trip times [France] or to reduce auto traffic [California]. HSR track is then designed with minimal changes in geometry that would require deceleration. HSR cannot operate on "regular track" for numerous reasons-- the critical one is the interference of freight operations.

As for your "express trains"-- operating at 120 mph on shared-use corridors, those aren't going to happen unless you force the freight service to restricted hours of operation at night. Guess what? Since those freight carriers own the railroad that you want to operate your "express trains" over, they'll simply tell you to get off the property.

[Psy]

you don't know what you're talking about. traffic here in California is extremely dense. there is lots of highway driving up and down the state. People drive back and forth between L.A. and S.F. all the time.

That is not the problem the problem is feeder lines so people can go beyond walking distance from each station since they don't have a car as they took the train.

As I said High Speed Rail as in bullet trains are meant to complement existing passenger service.



the bit about a passenger network is a kind of chicken & egg problem.

There are cheaper methods to build up ridership before going high speed rail.




it diminishes the use of local transit when you don't have regional longer distance services that tie in with it. The HSR project here is designed to builld initially to the TransBay Terminal in S.F....also the terminal for the regional Caltrain, and 1 block from the BART subway. in L.A. Union Station is a major hub for the new rapid transit system, which includes a north-south light rail line and the main subway line being extended out the high-density Wilshire corridor....thru L.A.'s linear downtown. there is also a relatively new, elegant bus plaza at the station with various bus lines including the El Monte busway.
That is all well but it pretty much slows you down to mostly local lines with a lack of inter-city express services.

[syndicat]

That is all well but it pretty much slows you down to mostly local lines with a lack of inter-city express services.

again, you don't know what you're talking about. there exist four regional railways, which would connect with HSR: Capitol Corridor (Oakland to Sacramento), Altamont Express, Caltrain, and Metrolink. these work over distances up to about 80-90 miles. Metrolink in Southern California has very poor demand....lowest density of any suburban commuter railway in the USA. Part of Metrolink's problem is that it mainly serves an ex-urban far-flung ridership in outlying car-dominated areas with little public transit service. But railways are no solution for that.

there are also well-developed local public transit systems in the Bay Area and L.A. area.

If you're talking about "inter-city" between the various cities up and down California...Fresno, Sacramento, S.F., Oakland, Orange County, L.A....that is exactly the point of the HSR project.

part of your confusion is that you're not talking about a typical ride length. Transit systems and their markets are differentiated by the average ride length. so, a local surface bus system in an American central city typically has an average ride length of 2 to 3 miles (2 miles in NYC and SF, 2.6 miles in central L.A.). Conventional rapid transit systems typically have average ride lengths around 5 to 10 miles. NYC's subway net is 5.5 miles. L.A.'s subway is 5.9 miles. Suburban commuter railways have longer ride lengths. Metrolink in L.A. is around 30 miles per trip. things like schedule speed and average distance between stops is related to average ride length, that is, it serves a different trip market.

[Psy]

Again you don't know what you are talking about. What do you think the average rate of acceleration is on high speed electric trains with distributed power? The German ICE trainsets can reach speeds of 185 mph in about 6 minutes. Deceleration requires less time and space, but the trick will be the design a braking curve so that the forces of braking on the train are minimized by extending the time available for deceleration. If you spread your deceleration over 2 minutes you can put stations every 70 miles and still be averaging 140 mph-- or 3 hours LA-SF.

You forgot loading/unloading times at stations also that is 6 minutes on a test track in other words under ideal conditions.




Uhh... no it doesn't defeat the purpose if total trip time can be kept within 3 hours. Tunneling through mountains is a very expensive way to build your railroad and presents all sorts of requirements for additional safety equipment, procedures, etc when trains utilize these tunnels.

High speed rail trains are expensive and if you are not going to give them mostly flat strait track their cost is not going to be worth it.



No, as is usually the case, you have everything backwards. HSR is built to serve a projected need for high speed rail service, either to compete with airlines [Japan] or make rail attractive to business needs by reducing trip times [France] or to reduce auto traffic [California]. HSR track is then designed with minimal changes in geometry that would require deceleration. HSR cannot operate on "regular track" for numerous reasons-- the critical one is the interference of freight operations.

Well yhea but the US government classes lumps what other nations call fast express trains as high speed rail, and most high speed rail is created to complement existed passenger services those that don't become failures.



As for your "express trains"-- operating at 120 mph on shared-use corridors, those aren't going to happen unless you force the freight service to restricted hours of operation at night. Guess what? Since those freight carriers own the railroad that you want to operate your "express trains" over, they'll simply tell you to get off the property.
Or you do what a number of nations did and simply have national railways do it, if you are going to build new track anyway why not also set up a full national railway, meaning you lay down track from LA to San Fransisco owned by a US national railway that will carry both passenger and freight yet one that the US government can set priories for and could use money it get from taking freight away from the private railways (that told them to get lost) to subsidize passenger service like most national railways did.

[Psy]

again, you don't know what you're talking about. there exist four regional railways, which would connect with HSR: Capitol Corridor (Oakland to Sacramento), Altamont Express, Caltrain, and Metrolink. these work over distances up to about 80-90 miles. Metrolink in Southern California has very poor demand....lowest density of any suburban commuter railway in the USA. Part of Metrolink's problem is that it mainly serves an ex-urban far-flung ridership in outlying car-dominated areas with little public transit service. But railways are no solution for that.

there are also well-developed local public transit systems in the Bay Area and L.A. area.

If you're talking about "inter-city" between the various cities up and down California...Fresno, Sacramento, S.F., Oakland, Orange County, L.A....that is exactly the point of the HSR project.

Actually I was talking about express services within cities, you know trains that don't make local stops but link key station together while skipping many of the local stations.



part of your confusion is that you're not talking about a typical ride length. Transit systems and their markets are differentiated by the average ride length. so, a local surface bus system in an American central city typically has an average ride length of 2 to 3 miles (2 miles in NYC and SF, 2.6 miles in central L.A.). Conventional rapid transit systems typically have average ride lengths around 5 to 10 miles. NYC's subway net is 5.5 miles. L.A.'s subway is 5.9 miles. Suburban commuter railways have longer ride lengths. Metrolink in L.A. is around 30 miles per trip. things like schedule speed and average distance between stops is related to average ride length, that is, it serves a different trip market.
Yes but how it usually works is you have express (and limited express) services to create a sort of hub system then you start thinking about high speed rail to link the hubs together.

[syndicat]

Yes but how it usually works is you have express (and limited express) services to create a sort of hub system then you start thinking about high speed rail to link the hubs together.

that's NOT how it works in the USA...or in European cities either. New York City does have extensive 4 track subways with local and express services. but these only serve within the city limits. but there are 20 million plus people in the metro area. Four-track systems are way too expensive to build nowadays. the 2 track 2nd Ave subway in NYC now under construction is costing $1 billion a mile. NYC can't afford to build 4 track subways anymore.

Paris has an even shorter average ride length than NYC on the Metro because the average station spacing is only 1/3 mile. They have one...very expensive to build...express metro line. RER is just a basic suburban commuter rail operation, analogous to Metro North and Long Island RR in NYC. these lines run outside the city. in California this would be equivalent to things like BART and Caltrain in the Bay Area or Metrolink in the L.A. area. Only Caltrain has separate local and express services. BART is an automated 2 track railway incompatible with separate local and express services. Metrolink in Southern California is mostly single track freight mains with passing sidings, some double track. They don't have enough ridership to justify separate local and express services and they don't have the track infrastructure to support it.

but all these systems in California would interface with HSR via the major hubs and some major outlying stations...San Jose, S.F., Union Station. on the peninsula between San Jose and S.F. HSR would parallel Caltrain and Caltrain would thus provide the local connections you are talking about. by the way, the Caltrain "expresses" (called "Baby Bullets") take an hour to go 60 miles between S.F. and San Jose. part of the problem is the use of diesel push-pull trains. they have a plan to electrify which should shorten the schedule a bit due to faster acceleration of MU trains. but this can't compare to the much faster schedule speed of HSR.

[Psy]

that's NOT how it works in the USA...or in European cities either.

Actually yes it works that way for European cities but not via subways but passenger rails lines.



New York City does have extensive 4 track subways with local and express services. but these only serve within the city limits. but there are 20 million plus people in the metro area. Four-track systems are way too expensive to build nowadays. the 2 track 2nd Ave subway in NYC now under construction is costing $1 billion a mile. NYC can't afford to build 4 track subways anymore.

You can still do express services with station sidings.



Paris has an even shorter average ride length than NYC on the Metro because the average station spacing is only 1/3 mile. They have one...very expensive to build...express metro line. RER is just a basic suburban commuter rail operation, analogous to Metro North and Long Island RR in NYC. these lines run outside the city. in California this would be equivalent to things like BART and Caltrain in the Bay Area or Metrolink in the L.A. area. Only Caltrain has separate local and express services. BART is an automated 2 track railway incompatible with separate local and express services. Metrolink in Southern California is mostly single track freight mains with passing sidings, some double track. They don't have enough ridership to justify separate local and express services and they don't have the track infrastructure to support it.
Right but this kind of thinking doesn't make sense, if they don't have the ridership to justify local express why would there be the ridership for a high speed rail line linking the cities? How national railways historically developed high speed rail services is they already had full passenger service within the cities in question and already linked them together with passenger service and high speed rail was a evolution of service. For the JNR bullet trains added to JNR's services and was not a replacement for them.

Now before you say that was national railways, well the high speed link is a project of the bourgeoisie state not the railway capitalists.



but all these systems in California would interface with HSR via the major hubs and some major outlying stations...San Jose, S.F., Union Station. on the peninsula between San Jose and S.F. HSR would parallel Caltrain and Caltrain would thus provide the local connections you are talking about. by the way, the Caltrain "expresses" (called "Baby Bullets") take an hour to go 60 miles between S.F. and San Jose. part of the problem is the use of diesel push-pull trains. they have a plan to electrify which should shorten the schedule a bit due to faster acceleration of MU trains. but this can't compare to the much faster schedule speed of HSR

The cost of frequent service of high speed rail makes it not very practical for what California is planning to use them for. Technology for fast express trains has reached the point that there is no point for any region to jump right into high speed rail.

[syndicat]

Actually yes it works that way for European cities but not via subways but passenger rails lines.

where? what is the ride length? and how is this relevant to the much greater distance of HSR? RER in Paris is just a suburban commuter railway. Suburban commuter railways exist in the USA also, and typically serve ride lengths of around 20 to 30 miles or so. So, what are you talking about? if you're talking about inter-city passenger service beyond suburban commuter districts, S. Artesian has already discussed this.


Right but this kind of thinking doesn't make sense, if they don't have the ridership to justify local express why would there be the ridership for a high speed rail line linking the cities?

it's a different market altogether. Metrolink is even slower than Caltrain. It takes about an hour and a half to go 60 miles from San Bernardino to L.A. Ridership is diminished because the fares are very high. $10 for a one-way ticket. Working class families can't afford to ride regularly.

the route between San Bernardino and L.A. is called the "East Line." I think this line has much greater potential ridership than it has developed. This is due to the very high fares. If the line were double-tracked, electrified and much steeper subsidies provided for fares, they could operate more service and maybe triple the ridership. Then it would make economic sense to operate separate local and express services as Caltrain does. So there is really a political issue here.

but HSR is a completely different animal serving a very different market. HSR would be vastly faster schedule speed and would operate between much larger pools of potential riders. Also, the Metrolink East Line is perpendicular to HSR. The East Line is one among a number of feeders to the HSR station in L.A.

[S.Artesian]

Last on this to Psy:

You said originally that the problem was the "poor condition" of US railroad infrastructure. You haven't provided a single bit of evidence for that poor condition. You haven't shown any increase in slow orders; you haven't show any increase in collisions, derailments, accidents on main line tracks; you haven't shown any reduction in average train speeds outside areas of high congestion, i.e. the Chicago consolidate terminal.

You have provided a lot of bullshit and speculation, none of which makes any sense. Most mainline tracks on the West Coast can support passenger train speeds of 80-90 mph, or can easily be upgraded to that speed. The problems with running passenger trains in shared use corridors isn't that they can't go fast enough because of track conditions. The problem is operating different speeds, which means different braking distance, of service in areas of high operating density. It doesn't work.

I'd love to see the particulars of your so-called paradigm from the past in Montreal-- like whether it operated on single track, double track, or 4 track system-- the density of freight traffic, and the 24 hours of operation of passenger traffic. My guess is there were extensive areas of multiple track, low freight density, perhaps restricted to certain areas of operation, and/or low levels of passenger services in off-peak hours, little reverse peak service during rush hours, and no 24 hour operation.

But please, show me the data. Otherwise, this is just a waste of time. Did like your assumption, though, that trains could fly, and thus traverse air route miles rather than track miles.

[Psy]

where? what is the ride length? and how is this relevant to the much greater distance of HSR? RER in Paris is just a suburban commuter railway. Suburban commuter railways exist in the USA also, and typically serve ride lengths of around 20 to 30 miles or so. So, what are you talking about?

Many Eastern Europe nations the copied the RZhD method of passenger services where you went from slow rural feeder lines that only went about 50 KM/h (30 mph) tops to fast express passenger trains able to top 200 KM/h (124 mph) for express services, this included express passenger service within cities.

In Western Europe express passenger services within cities also existed like the different S-Bahn networks.




it's a different market altogether. Metrolink is even slower than Caltrain. It takes about an hour and a half to go 60 miles from San Bernardino to L.A. Ridership is diminished because the fares are very high. $10 for a one-way ticket. Working class families can't afford to ride regularly.

And they will be able to afford high speed rail?



the route between San Bernardino and L.A. is called the "East Line." I think this line has much greater potential ridership than it has developed. This is due to the very high fares. If the line were double-tracked, electrified and much steeper subsidies provided for fares, they could operate more service and maybe triple the ridership. Then it would make economic sense to operate separate local and express services as Caltrain does. So there is really a political issue here.

but HSR is a completely different animal serving a very different market. HSR would be vastly faster schedule speed and would operate between much larger pools of potential riders. Also, the Metrolink East Line is perpendicular to HSR. The East Line is one among a number of feeders to the HSR station in L.A.
I fail to see how HSR is a completely different animal, if riders can't afford Metrolink how will they afford the HSR?

[syndicat]

just to follow on to what S. Artesian says, I recently took the Coast Starlight to Seattle. The track condition the whole way was in excellent shape. but we were delayed 15 minutes at least on two occasions...for meets with freights. The capitalist freight railways own the track and right of way and dictate operations. Between Portland and Seattle alone we passed 6 freight trains. A very high freight traffic density.

[Psy]

Last on this to Psy:

You said originally that the problem was the "poor condition" of US railroad infrastructure. You haven't provided a single bit of evidence for that poor condition. You haven't shown any increase in slow orders; you haven't show any increase in collisions, derailments, accidents on main line tracks; you haven't shown any reduction in average train speeds outside areas of high congestion, i.e. the Chicago consolidate terminal.

On poor condition of US railroad infrastructure

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/jan-june09/bottleneck_04-21.html
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/jan-june09/bottleneck_04-21.html)



You have provided a lot of bullshit and speculation, none of which makes any sense. Most mainline tracks on the West Coast can support passenger train speeds of 80-90 mph, or can easily be upgraded to that speed. The problems with running passenger trains in shared use corridors isn't that they can't go fast enough because of track conditions. The problem is operating different speeds, which means different braking distance, of service in areas of high operating density. It doesn't work.

That is a problem solved by managing rail traffic, prioritizing traffic



I'd love to see the particulars of your so-called paradigm from the past in Montreal-- like whether it operated on single track, double track, or 4 track system-- the density of freight traffic, and the 24 hours of operation of passenger traffic. My guess is there were extensive areas of multiple track, low freight density, perhaps restricted to certain areas of operation, and/or low levels of passenger services in off-peak hours, little reverse peak service during rush hours, and no 24 hour operation.

Double track, mixed use operated by Canadian National Railways that ran both the freight and passenger traffic, the line was abandoned to passenger service due to the need for the line to be electric to get through the tunnel thus freight trains had to be shunted to electric engines then shunted back to diesels at the other end (the fall of freight made this a problem for CNR), the fall of inter-city ridership caused the line to lose its express services. So you had a railway with a 5 KM bottleneck in the form of a tunnel able to mix services before cars and trucks caused usages to drop off.

Numbers, don't have time right now but I will post later if I find them.



But please, show me the data. Otherwise, this is just a waste of time. Did like your assumption, though, that trains could fly, and thus traverse air route miles rather than track miles.
No, I didn't assume trains could fly, I was simply using the fact that airplanes are a high speed rails primary competitor. Yes the distance is longer for a train but passengers don't care.

[Psy]

just to follow on to what S. Artesian says, I recently took the Coast Starlight to Seattle. The track condition the whole way was in excellent shape. but we were delayed 15 minutes at least on two occasions...for meets with freights. The capitalist freight railways own the track and right of way and dictate operations. Between Portland and Seattle alone we passed 6 freight trains. A very high freight traffic density.

Right but I now have more detailed USSR rail traffic data


Thousand ton-kilometers per kilometer of line

1950 5,170
1951 5,774
1952 6,272
1953 6,689
1954 7,134


million passenger-kilometers
Long Distance Suburban
1951 73,400 25,100
1953 89,400 28,900
1955 109,100 32,300
1957 118,700 34,700

Thus we see the trend of dense passenger and freight traffic in the USSR going all the way back to 1950 so the US problem is not just there being too much freight as USSR freight continued to grow right into the 1980's.

[syndicat]

as S. Artesian emphasized, the relationship between freight and passenger on any particular chunk of track in the USA depends on the ownership scheme. On the Caltrain line, which operates both local and express trains over a 2 track main 80 miles from S.F. to Gilroy, the track and right of way is now publically owned. Freights are restricted to middle of the night. Due to the shift to port containerization and general de-industrialization of San Francisco, there was also a decline in freight on this line. S.F. lost all its port traffic which shifted to the other side of the bay, i.e. Oakland.

Capitol Corridor from Oakland to Sacramento (90 miles) and Portland to Seattle are both long-distance suburban commuter operations on track owned by the private capitalist freight railways. If you're talking about commuter railways, these exist in the USA. Inter-city here means much longer distance...a distinction you've generally ignored in this discussion. These suburban commuter railways are operated by public entities that suffer from lack of adequate funding. This is a political issue.

And the decline of various rail passenger systems is related to high levels of subsidization of the automobile...which partly is a product of a market driven society, and partly due to subsidies for real estate development interests, and the oil refining and auto manufacturing industries, plus failure to tax carbon (which is a pollutant).

This is merely one particular facet of the more general public transit industry, which went thru a massive decline in the USA from end of World War 2 to the '60s. Since the '70s it has been gradually revived due to public takeovers of all the companies and gradual increases in tax subsidies. But it's condition generally depends on political status of public transit.

At any rate, as I've pointed out, your point is never clear. You never clearly differentiate suburban commuter railways from longer distance inter-city rail passenger services, for example. HSR is a longer-distance inter-city operation. It is not a suburban commuter operation.

[Psy]

as S. Artesian emphasized, the relationship between freight and passenger on any particular chunk of track in the USA depends on the ownership scheme. On the Caltrain line, which operates both local and express trains over a 2 track main 80 miles from S.F. to Gilroy, the track and right of way is now publically owned. Freights are restricted to middle of the night. Due to the shift to port containerization and general de-industrialization of San Francisco, there was also a decline in freight on this line. S.F. lost all its port traffic which shifted to the other side of the bay, i.e. Oakland.

You don't need to just run freight at night. The RZhD was able to deal with 5 times the freight rail traffic of the USA during the long boom while constantly improving passenger services and also increasing passenger rail traffic.

It boils down to prioritizing trains, being able to move low priority trains to sidings and more importantly keeping all trains moving through mainlines in a timely manner and having special slow speed tracks for slow trains to get them off mainlines.



Capitol Corridor from Oakland to Sacramento (90 miles) and Portland to Seattle are both long-distance suburban commuter operations on track owned by the private capitalist freight railways. If you're talking about commuter railways, these exist in the USA. Inter-city here means much longer distance...a distinction you've generally ignored in this discussion. These suburban commuter railways are operated by public entities that suffer from lack of adequate funding. This is a political issue.

Right it is political issue but the fact remains state-bourgeoisie railway institutions have been able to juggle passengers and freight far better.



And the decline of various rail passenger systems is related to high levels of subsidization of the automobile...which partly is a product of a market driven society, and partly due to subsidies for real estate development interests, and the oil refining and auto manufacturing industries, plus failure to tax carbon (which is a pollutant).

Yes and JNR was hit much harder by the automobile yet this resulted in JNR to try much harder to remain the dominant means of transportation same with CNR but to a lesser extent.



This is merely one particular facet of the more general public transit industry, which went thru a massive decline in the USA from end of World War 2 to the '60s. Since the '70s it has been gradually revived due to public takeovers of all the companies and gradual increases in tax subsidies. But it's condition generally depends on political status of public transit.

True yet you also have white elephant projects, rather then using proven methods.





At any rate, as I've pointed out, your point is never clear. You never clearly differentiate suburban commuter railways from longer distance inter-city rail passenger services, for example. HSR is a longer-distance inter-city operation. It is not a suburban commuter operation.
Right but HSR rail was developed by the JNR to solve congestion of express passenger lines and thinking a solution be a high speed trains for trans-Japan express service, as work on the bullet trains started before JNR ridership started to start to really decline.

[S.Artesian]

The fSU operated a very intense, and dense freight service, hauling half the world's rail freight on a system encompassing less track mileage than the US. 95% of the passenger trains operated in the fSU were suburban/commuter service trains.

I have searched, but not successfully, for any information regarding average train speeds in the fSU, either passenger or freight. Everything depends on the differential in train speeds. If the freight trains average 50 km/hr and the passenger train schedule is written for 120 km/hr, with trains in both directions, on a single track and a reasonably dense service pattern, the passenger trains simply will not make schedule.

If however, the passenger train schedule is written for an average speed of 70 km/hr, then with proper scheduling, it is possible to properly plan overtakes and meets.

I provided Psy with about the simplest dispatching problem I could think of, simple because it is possible with proper scheduling for the freight trains to complete their full run before another freight train in the same direction is dispatched, consequently freight train meets can be minimized, facilitating overtakes by the passenger trains. Psy has yet to answer that simple scenario, although he did send information about terminal congestion in Chicago [old news, really old news, like 50 year old news] after I asked for evidence of poor infrastructure excluding Chicago. Nice.

Here's a more complicated problem. Same physical layout of tracks and sidings; same operating speeds of the trains. Only now, freight trains are dispatched every two hours in each direction; and the 2 passenger trains in each direction are separated by only two hours, and are each dispatched 1 hour behind a freight train.

Watch what happens to the passenger trains if you don't bag every freight train in the sidings until all the passenger trains complete their runs.

[S.Artesian]

Psy,

What were the average train speeds of the passenger trains in the fSU--- and please provide the source. I don't want max speed. I want the actual average operating speeds, or the average speeds as determined by timetable schedule.

[S.Artesian]

It boils down to prioritizing trains, being able to move low priority trains to sidings and more importantly keeping all trains moving through mainlines in a timely manner and having special slow speed tracks for slow trains to get them off mainlines.

OK-- I'd like to point out that Psy has just altered his earlier claim that the problem was decrepit infrastructure in the US. Now it all boils down to prioritizing trains, being able to move low priority trains to sidings. Hey... guess what Psy.... money talks, bullshit is a marathon jogger. In the US the high priority trains to the class 1s are money-making freight trains. The low priority trains are the money-losing passenger trains.

And now, we need "special slow speed tracks for slow trains to get them off mainlines" which is the same thing as saying, we need special tracks so that slow trains do not interfere with higher speed trains, which again, is indicating that the problem is not the condition of the existing tracks, but capacity constraints inherent in mixed speed operations.

Psy, you really don't know what you are talking about, and the only time you even begin to make sense is when you adopt other peoples' arguments.

[syndicat]

Yes and JNR was hit much harder by the automobile yet this resulted in JNR to try much harder to remain the dominant means of transportation same with CNR but to a lesser extent.



as I've pointed out repeatedly, JNR carries a miniscule fraction of freight in Japan in comparison to USA. and bullet trains like Kikansen were designed for separate tracks...just like HSR in the USA...and for the same reason: it doesn't make sense to mix trains of very great difference in schedule speed onto the same tracks...the point that S. Artesian has been making all along. and if you're talking about extra tracks, that is a very capital intensive solution, requiring dedicated public funding in the case of passenger systems.


True yet you also have white elephant projects, rather then using proven methods.


what are you talking about?

[Psy]

as I've pointed out repeatedly, JNR carries a miniscule fraction of freight in Japan in comparison to USA. and bullet trains like Kikansen were designed for separate tracks...just like HSR in the USA...and for the same reason: it doesn't make sense to mix trains of very great difference in schedule speed onto the same tracks...the point that S. Artesian has been making all along. and if you're talking about extra tracks, that is a very capital intensive solution, requiring dedicated public funding in the case of passenger systems.

Not my point, true from the bullet train was separated but JNR was already running express passenger service and was bumping into a limit, at the time the bullet train was developed the JNR still was running slower freight trains with steam locomotives that were still faster then the average freight train of the USA and before most of Japan's freight moved from rails to roads and to ships.




what are you talking about?
This is not the first time the government went with a costly solution mostly just out of looking to give out lucrative contracts. For example you have a problem with freight holding up passenger service yet California solution is not just to build its own nationalized railway where it could offer a wide variety of services for less cost and could actually rent track time out to the private railways during off peak times (it could even use that money to build a high speed line in the future if it can create a passenger network that could properly feed such a line).



OK-- I'd like to point out that Psy has just altered his earlier claim that the problem was decrepit infrastructure in the US. Now it all boils down to prioritizing trains, being able to move low priority trains to sidings. Hey... guess what Psy.... money talks, bullshit is a marathon jogger. In the US the high priority trains to the class 1s are money-making freight trains. The low priority trains are the money-losing passenger trains.

Other railways responded to the rise of trucking by trying to out perform trucks but trying to take advantage of lower speed limits on roads yet not the US. From the preservative of other railways prioritizing slow freight would mean surrendering to trucking rather to competing, if a coal train takes a few extra days to reach it destination it is not a big deal but if time critical shipments (you know with the rise of just in time shipping) are late it means losing customers to trucks and harder to win customers back to rail.



And now, we need "special slow speed tracks for slow trains to get them off mainlines" which is the same thing as saying, we need special tracks so that slow trains do not interfere with higher speed trains, which again, is indicating that the problem is not the condition of the existing tracks, but capacity constraints inherent in mixed speed operations.

Well if the track was electrified freight trains could get up to speed faster making it a bit less of a issue but the big issue is engineering mainlines so when you do have slow freight it never sees anything but green till it moves off the mainline so it never loses its speed.


Psy,

What were the average train speeds of the passenger trains in the fSU--- and please provide the source. I don't want max speed. I want the actual average operating speeds, or the average speeds as determined by timetable schedule.
express passenger service average speed is 50 KM/h, non-stop average speed 140 KM/hhttp://www.eurodestination.com/Rail%20Travel/russian-train-types.htm


The fSU operated a very intense, and dense freight service, hauling half the world's rail freight on a system encompassing less track mileage than the US. 95% of the passenger trains operated in the fSU were suburban/commuter service trains.

I have searched, but not successfully, for any information regarding average train speeds in the fSU, either passenger or freight. Everything depends on the differential in train speeds. If the freight trains average 50 km/hr and the passenger train schedule is written for 120 km/hr, with trains in both directions, on a single track and a reasonably dense service pattern, the passenger trains simply will not make schedule.

If however, the passenger train schedule is written for an average speed of 70 km/hr, then with proper scheduling, it is possible to properly plan overtakes and meets.

Yet the RZhD got rid of signal track mainlines by the 1950's doubling up even the Tran's Siberian line and by the 1960's there were starting to build 3 and 4 track mainlines by the 1970 they started building double track redundant mainlines to take traffic always from the primary mainlines and better separate trains of different speeds and priorities.




I provided Psy with about the simplest dispatching problem I could think of, simple because it is possible with proper scheduling for the freight trains to complete their full run before another freight train in the same direction is dispatched, consequently freight train meets can be minimized, facilitating overtakes by the passenger trains. Psy has yet to answer that simple scenario, although he did send information about terminal congestion in Chicago [old news, really old news, like 50 year old news] after I asked for evidence of poor infrastructure excluding Chicago. Nice.


You mean
hypothetical railroad, single track, 200 miles in length with 15 passing sidings. Signal it both directions. Make the maximum authorized speed for freight trains 50 mph, maximum length 10,000 feet. Schedule your freight service for departure from initial terminals every 4 hours in each direction.

Now add your passenger trains; just 2 in each direction daily, each spaced 4 hours apart with a max speed, and a schedule that reflects that max speed, of 100 mph.

Tell me how long it takes your passenger trains to reach their destination, and what that does to your freight service

Where you didn't include acceleration or am I to assume freight trains instantly are going 50 mph down the line from a dead stop?

Also signal track mainlines have been mostly obsolete for decades for high traffic railways. Even if all you care about is slow freight it just bogs the whole system down.




Here's a more complicated problem. Same physical layout of tracks and sidings; same operating speeds of the trains. Only now, freight trains are dispatched every two hours in each direction; and the 2 passenger trains in each direction are separated by only two hours, and are each dispatched 1 hour behind a freight train.

Watch what happens to the passenger trains if you don't bag every freight train in the sidings until all the passenger trains complete their runs

Yhea I get your point but few high traffic railways in the world still use single track (other then those in the USA) anymore as just in terms of maintenance it is a nightmare as it means broken down trains become a dispatchers nightmare as they can't just route the other trains around the disabled train on the other tracks like they can on multi-track lines, also makes maintenance on tracks for more a impact on rail traffic.

[S.Artesian]

Did you even both to read the article about Russian train speeds?

First, they are talking about current day, when freight traffic on Russian railroads has declined markedly from the 1958-88 expansion. That's one. You give me meaningless numbers from the 1950s and then tell me about current train speeds.

Two, did you read the article did you read where it says:


The ordinary Passenger train proves for the transport of people, it is not a postal or general goods train that also takes passengers. The average speed of these trains is no more than 50 kmph and the quality of these services varies from good to poor, they are indicated by the icon in our system.

50 kmph on the ordinary passenger trains? That's 30 mph. Any railroad that offered 30 mph top speeds couldn't attract riders if it gave rides away free.

Three, did you even read the article where it says:


The Skorry trains are faster than an ordinary passenger train with an average speed of 50 kmph or higher, typically with fewer and shorter stops. Skorry trains are indicated in our system by the icon next to the train number.


The average speed of all freight trains, including local trains, general manifest trains, container trains, fast freight, etc. is 25 mph. According to this article that is near the average speed of the "fast" passenger trains. Did I not tell you that everything depends on the differential in speeds? If my freight averages 25 mph, and my passenger service averages at 30 mph is that not a small differential?

Four, did you even read the article where it says:


In addition to being Firmeny or Skorry a train may also be of the “Express” class indicated in our system by the icon. This is the fastest train class available in Russia with an average speed of between 141 kmph and 200 kmph. These trains are rare and used on direct prestige routes and as such tend to provide high quality services and facilities. An example of this class of train is train 166А “Nevsky Express” which makes the 650 km trip between Moscow and St Petersburg in just four and a half hours.

Where it says, "these trains are rare"? How rare? Rare enough so that they are only operated in areas of multiple tracks? Rare enough that they operate only in the windows when freights are not operating?

They are used on "prestige routes"? How much freight traffic do you think there is on a "prestige route" used for special passenger trains. I bet very little.

As for the dispatching problems-- yeah assume instantaneous acceleration and deceleration. Rates of deceleration are important to signal design, and important to real train operations. For instructional purposes as to how different densities of traffic impact mixed speed service, the rates make absolutely no difference.

It's single track, not signal track and neither is obsolete. You don't pay attention, do you? Obsolescence is an economic category, not an operating one. Economics determines what is obsolete and not, and after the Staggers Act, economics determined that single track, CTC territory, signaled for movement in both direction was the modern way to railroad, and the future.

[S.Artesian]

Other railways responded to the rise of trucking by trying to out perform trucks but trying to take advantage of lower speed limits on roads yet not the US. From the preservative of other railways prioritizing slow freight would mean surrendering to trucking rather to competing, if a coal train takes a few extra days to reach it destination it is not a big deal but if time critical shipments (you know with the rise of just in time shipping) are late it means losing customers to trucks and harder to win customers back to rail.

Your ignorance would fill volumes. Are you aware of the rate structure that was set by the ICC that set rates for railroads in the US? Are you aware of the fact that at one time 7 class 1 railroads were competing between Chicago and Omaha for business that my properly occupy two or three? Are you aware that 43% of rail traffic in the US is coal traffic for which there is no need for an "express" or service greater than a 30-40 mph average and that the stresses from operating heavy tonnage freights at higher speeds dramatically increases both track stress, dynamic in train forces that can damage and derail a train?

What railroads rose to the "challenge" of trucking in freight hauling. Certainly not the European railways in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The Japanese? Syndicat has already pointed out how little freight operated on JNR. Exactly where was this new paradigm to meet the challenge of trucks, prior to the radical transformation of the entire US economy and the rail system by and through the attacks on workers, the dismantling of productive capacity, the leverage buy-outs, the asset stripping, the abandonment of rail lines, the adoption of tiered wage structures, the freeze on wages, the massive downsizing of people and equipment throughout the railroad industry, and the industrial base of the US as a whole?

[syndicat]

This is not the first time the government went with a costly solution mostly just out of looking to give out lucrative contracts. For example you have a problem with freight holding up passenger service yet California solution is not just to build its own nationalized railway where it could offer a wide variety of services for less cost and could actually rent track time out to the private railways during off peak times (it could even use that money to build a high speed line in the future if it can create a passenger network that could properly feed such a line).



you didn't point to any "white elephants." if you want to argue that HSR in California is a "white elephant" you need to provide a good argument. something you've not done.

And you are here coming back to your theme about mixing freight and passenger. as S. Artesian has shown, it isn't feasible to mix passenger trains of high speed on lines with the sort of heavy freight traffic that exists in the USA.

and even if the USA did nationalize its rail net, there is still the fact that there is not high demand today for long distance inter-city service at the speeds & ticket prices offered by Amtrak. the Coast Starlight is the Amtrak train that runs about 1,500 miles from L.A. to Seattle. it provides the inter-city service between the Bay Area and L.A. it runs once a day. when i took this train to Seattle, it was delayed a couple times by freights but it arrived right on time. but it was a 22 hour trip from Oakland to Seattle. that's way too long to compete with airlines. i was going to a radical political conference. I knew others who did that same trip by car. long distance driving is common in the USA. HSR is designed to attract people out of cars and from airlines.

[Psy]

you didn't point to any "white elephants." if you want to argue that HSR in California is a "white elephant" you need to provide a good argument. something you've not done.

Detroit People Mover, elevated light rail system that screams inefficiency as elevated trains are a expensive proposition that only can be worth while when moving a significant amount of people, yet the Detroit People Mover only has 2 car sets and a system length of 3 miles in a circle. Even the Scarborough RT line (in Toronto, Ontario) that is 4 cars and 4 miles in a line is not really worth it especially compared to the original TTC plan of simply running street cars down dedicated track mostly at ground level, Honolulu is also going with a sky train rather then streetcars even though they could use the money they save with streetcars for a narrow gauge line railway for the island of Oahu that would also be able to move freight.



And you are here coming back to your theme about mixing freight and passenger. as S. Artesian has shown, it isn't feasible to mix passenger trains of high speed on lines with the sort of heavy freight traffic that exists in the USA.

You can on multiple tracked mainlines with more the 2 tracks as it become possible for faster trains to pass slow trains without blocking oncoming traffic.



and even if the USA did nationalize its rail net, there is still the fact that there is not high demand today for long distance inter-city service at the speeds & ticket prices offered by Amtrak. the Coast Starlight is the Amtrak train that runs about 1,500 miles from L.A. to Seattle. it provides the inter-city service between the Bay Area and L.A. it runs once a day. when i took this train to Seattle, it was delayed a couple times by freights but it arrived right on time. but it was a 22 hour trip from Oakland to Seattle. that's way too long to compete with airlines. i was going to a radical political conference. I knew others who did that same trip by car. long distance driving is common in the USA. HSR is designed to attract people out of cars and from airlines.
Yet it is possible to not have passenger service to not be too slowed down by fright with enough line capacity, basically enough parallel track and cross over sections to allow for trains to pass each other.


Your ignorance would fill volumes. Are you aware of the rate structure that was set by the ICC that set rates for railroads in the US? Are you aware of the fact that at one time 7 class 1 railroads were competing between Chicago and Omaha for business that my properly occupy two or three? Are you aware that 43% of rail traffic in the US is coal traffic for which there is no need for an "express" or service greater than a 30-40 mph average and that the stresses from operating heavy tonnage freights at higher speeds dramatically increases both track stress, dynamic in train forces that can damage and derail a train?

Yes but since they don't require express service other railways give them low priority, it doesn't matter if they sit on a siding while faster freight and passenger trains go by.



What railroads rose to the "challenge" of trucking in freight hauling. Certainly not the European railways in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

You do know Eastern Europe railways count as European railways, that were under orders from Moscow to manage their railways so in short notice they can clear mainlines for USSR troops deployments coming in by rail in the event of World War III, thus as a result they had rail networks that could easily push slow freight to sidings for faster trains.

So I take it you meant Western European railways in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970. Well I don't know about them but in Canada the CNR developed its own trucking network to offer full service from loading dock to loading dock. CNR also streamlined the Newfoundland Railway freight operations even though its all light freight and could all be trucked easily.

As I said the JNR in the 1960's started offering express freight long before its freight started to decline.



The Japanese? Syndicat has already pointed out how little freight operated on JNR.

Now but in 1970 the JNR moved 341.9 billion tons/km of freight and 587.2 persons/km after that JNR freight started to decline but JNR started to compete with trucks a decade earlier.



Exactly where was this new paradigm to meet the challenge of trucks, prior to the radical transformation of the entire US economy and the rail system by and through the attacks on workers, the dismantling of productive capacity, the leverage buy-outs, the asset stripping, the abandonment of rail lines, the adoption of tiered wage structures, the freeze on wages, the massive downsizing of people and equipment throughout the railroad industry, and the industrial base of the US as a whole?
As I said JNR in the the 1960's, the 1970's brought a wave of worker militancy throughout the JNR, wildcat strikes showed that the bourgeoisie union of the JNR was losing control over its members as railway workers demanded their share of JNR's success. The privatization of JNR into JR gave the railway an opportunity to purge its workforce of militant workers. Yet through the 1970's it was next to impossible for the JNR to compete with trucks as trucks had far less worker militancy. JNR trains slowed down in the 1970's because JNR workers slowed them down in their struggle against management.




Did you even both to read the article about Russian train speeds?

First, they are talking about current day, when freight traffic on Russian railroads has declined markedly from the 1958-88 expansion. That's one. You give me meaningless numbers from the 1950s and then tell me about current train speeds.

Right still looking for 1950's average speeds, but considering we are talking 1950's USSR they won't be that great by todays standards. Yet the fact remains the USSR increased both freight and passenger traffic.



Two, did you read the article did you read where it says:

50 kmph on the ordinary passenger trains? That's 30 mph. Any railroad that offered 30 mph top speeds couldn't attract riders if it gave rides away free.

That is local

http://www.poezda.net/en/gb_trains (http://www.poezda.net/en/gb_trains)

passenger train ('passazhirskiy poezd') - Train number from 170 to 870. Looks like an intercity train with great number of additional stops. Average speed - 40-50 km/h.

fast train ('skorry poezd') - Train number from 1 to 160. Very comfortable and quickly trains with minimum stops (only large stations). More convenient arrival/departure hours (departure at night, arrival at the morning). Average speed - 70-90 km/h.

speed train ('skorostnoj poezd') - Train number from 161 to 169. Very comfortable trains with average speed 100 km/h. All cars equipped by video, bar, comfortable seats.

Also average 50KM/h is about what you'd get by car on 2 lane highways in built up areas with traffic lights every KM.



The average speed of all freight trains, including local trains, general manifest trains, container trains, fast freight, etc. is 25 mph. According to this article that is near the average speed of the "fast" passenger trains. Did I not tell you that everything depends on the differential in speeds? If my freight averages 25 mph, and my passenger service averages at 30 mph is that not a small differential?


You do know we are talking average speed including time spent waiting at stations right? Thus why it says fewer shorter stops meaning times it stops at stations with low wait times as the station has little traffic.




Where it says, "these trains are rare"? How rare? Rare enough so that they are only operated in areas of multiple tracks? Rare enough that they operate only in the windows when freights are not operating?

Well they are rare because the USSR ended before they the USSR could implement in any great numbers. The ER200 in 1984 and the TEP80 in 1988



They are used on "prestige routes"? How much freight traffic do you think there is on a "prestige route" used for special passenger trains. I bet very little.

During the USSR fairly heavy as Moscow had huge freight traffic and guess where all the important people in the USSR worked.



As for the dispatching problems-- yeah assume instantaneous acceleration and deceleration. Rates of deceleration are important to signal design, and important to real train operations. For instructional purposes as to how different densities of traffic impact mixed speed service, the rates make absolutely no difference.

It's single track, not signal track and neither is obsolete. You don't pay attention, do you? Obsolescence is an economic category, not an operating one. Economics determines what is obsolete and not, and after the Staggers Act, economics determined that single track, CTC territory, signaled for movement in both direction was the modern way to railroad, and the future.
Sorry for the typo.

The problem with single track is dealing with problems like maintenance. It also makes heavy bi-directional traffic a nightmare to coordinate. We see this in the JNR where the first thing they did in the 1950's was start doubling up all its mainlines and leave single tracks lines for branch lines.

Also from a engineering standpoint it is obsolete as it drastically lowers the number of trains you can practically run down the line.

[S.Artesian]

I'll end this where I began: You don't know what you're talking about. Everytime somebody points out the inaccuracies in what you say, you shift to some other story where you provide more inaccuracies.

Waste of time answering your made-up bullshit and distortions.

[Psy]

I'll end this where I began: You don't know what you're talking about. Everytime somebody points out the inaccuracies in what you say, you shift to some other story where you provide more inaccuracies.

Waste of time answering your made-up bullshit and distortions.

Your are the ones that doesn't see single tack mainline as a deterioration of the US railway infrastructure.

And what inaccuracies are you talking about? Tell me do you honestly think that even in the US railways wanted to get back up to average speeds that had in the 1960's they could with the existing layouts?

Sure railways has compensated by increasing the tonnage trains move but if US railways ever go through the worker militancy JNR did they would all go bankrupt as their layouts makes it far easier for militant workers to delay trains on mainlines. Imagine one train crew holding up rail traffic on a US mainline out of militancy like they did in Japan, I bet then US railways would wish they had the double track mainlines the JNR had.

Listening to your idea of railway efficiency just makes me think of Hitler's idea of railway efficiency with his Breitspurbahn and its 3 meter wide gauge in the idea that bigger is better with no concept of how speed effects capacity of lines. Tell me what does heavier axle loads does to trains deadheading, I tell you nothing. Even if the railway can balance out loads going both way single track design has a problem that every train you sent out has to come back, when you have double tracks as trains start heading back they don't lose speed as they start to encounter oncoming trains, thus allowing more trains on the route and increased service frequency that matters for time sensitive freight but more importantly this streamlines sharing of lines along mainlines.

Tell me if the American way of railroading is so efficient why hasn't road networks followed its example? Why do road network follow what other railways have done and increase parallel lanes to increase capacity rather then allowing trucks to increase axle loads?

You seem to think that it is freight traffic that is causing delays in US passenger service when it is that US railways have reduced their rail capacity.

[S.Artesian]

One last word:

You claimed the problem was deterioration of the infrastructure of freight railroads. Downsizing is not decay, is not deterioration. The fSU's rail network was, in the main, all single track territory. You should look it up.

Single track operations are/were economic determinations based on maximizing asset values.

Now you want to change your original argument and claim my argument, that the issue wasn't deterioration of the infrastructure, but rather questions of capacity. Sorry, Charlie, you're not going to get away with that.

I said the issue was capacity from the getgo, and the impact on capacity of operating higher speed passenger service in mixed service corridors. You didn't.... until now.

If you knew anything about railroad operations you would know that at certain lower speeds, capacity, throughput as number of trains per hour, actually improves, depending on the density of traffic.

This is far too supple a concept for a dunderhead like you, but we use this extensively when writing train schedules.

For example, in rush hours on the most congested parts of railroads, for example that part of the Northeast Corridor between Portal Swing Bridge and New York Penn Station, we write train schedules for operation at lower speeds so that we can increase the throughput, spacing the trains evenly so they can operate at a steady speed an a gradual rate of deceleration into the station.

We do the same thing on the Park Avenue Viaduct/Tunnel of Metro North Railroad. We right the schedule for operation at 35 mph rather than the 60 mph maximum authorized speed as this gives us a throughput close to the theoretical max of 32 trains per hour.

But again, you simply don't know anything and make shit up.

You belong on the ignore list, and that's where I'll put you.

[Psy]

One last word:

You claimed the problem was deterioration of the infrastructure of freight railroads. Downsizing is not decay, is not deterioration. The fSU's rail network was, in the main, all single track territory. You should look it up.

Where did you look that up, from Wikipedia on the Trans-Siberian Railway

A fully electrified and double-tracked line, the Trans-Siberian Railway line is capable of transporting around 100 million tons of freight annually

Also from Wikipedia on Russian Railways

Russia (in 2009) has 86,000 kilometers of common-carrier railroad line, of which about half is electrified and carries most of the traffic. Almost half of the total is double track or better

From Wikipedia on History of rail transport in Russia

The Soviets modernized the rail system by electrification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Russia#Electrificatio n), building new lines and double-tracking, installing automatic couplers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Russia#Couplers), brakes, and signalling, and founding Railway Universities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Russia#Railway_Univer sities). Soviet Railways became in some aspects (such as freight traffic, electrification, profitability and railway education), superior to all other railroad systems in the world.




Single track operations are/were economic determinations based on maximizing asset values.

They are also mostly found on lines with less traffic.



Now you want to change your original argument and claim my argument, that the issue wasn't deterioration of the infrastructure, but rather questions of capacity. Sorry, Charlie, you're not going to get away with that.

Capacity that they allowed to deteriorate.



I said the issue was capacity from the getgo, and the impact on capacity of operating higher speed passenger service in mixed service corridors. You didn't.... until now.

Thus it is clear US industry is in a state of industrial decline where the bourgeoisie are living on fixed capital yet refuses to properly maintain and upgrade fixed capital out of being frugal when it comes to investing in the production process.

The US Railways had fixed capital that offered more capacity they let them to rust or ripped then up, as for upgrades same thing we don't see modernization efforts for example electrification of mainlines.



If you knew anything about railroad operations you would know that at certain lower speeds, capacity, throughput as number of trains per hour, actually improves, depending on the density of traffic.

This is far too supple a concept for a dunderhead like you, but we use this extensively when writing train schedules.

For example, in rush hours on the most congested parts of railroads, for example that part of the Northeast Corridor between Portal Swing Bridge and New York Penn Station, we write train schedules for operation at lower speeds so that we can increase the throughput, spacing the trains evenly so they can operate at a steady speed an a gradual rate of deceleration into the station.

We do the same thing on the Park Avenue Viaduct/Tunnel of Metro North Railroad. We right the schedule for operation at 35 mph rather than the 60 mph maximum authorized speed as this gives us a throughput close to the theoretical max of 32 trains per hour.

But again, you simply don't know anything and make shit up

True but that is not the issue here. The issue is lack of parallel tracks on the mainlines to allow for better mixing of different trains speeds on the lines.

[syndicat]

Thus it is clear US industry is in a state of industrial decline where the bourgeoisie are living on fixed capital yet refuses to properly maintain and upgrade fixed capital out of being frugal when it comes to investing in the production process.

The US Railways had fixed capital that offered more capacity they let them to rust or ripped then up, as for upgrades same thing we don't see modernization efforts for example electrification of mainlines.



You're quite wrong here. The railroads now carry more ton miles than they did before. Various technologies have been developed that facilitate use of a single track main such as bi-directional dignaling with CTC. so modernization has in fact occurred.

in some cases with public funding. an example is the Alameda Corridor project...a 2 track signaled subway for freight trains to and from the combined harbors of Long Beach & L.A. This has enabled an increase in average speeds for freights which was formerly 10 mph with many grade crossings thru a dense urban area. speeds on the grade separated 2 track route are now around 30 mph i believe.

electrification hasn't happened because the railroads have studied it and determined that it won't pay as an investment. in the '70s with the big jump in oil prices SP considered electrifying the main from L.A. to Yuma and UP looked at electrifying its busiest section from Cheyenne to Portland. but then oil prices declined.

capitalists don't make investments unless they determine it will pay. but it doesn't mean the freight railways have declined in capacity.

on the contrary, for example, the average tonnage per car has greatly increased. in the '50s a typical car had a 50 ton capacity. now cars typically carry 100 or more tons per car. they had to invest in bridges and tracks and cars to be able to do this.

again, it just shows you don't know what you're talking about.

[Psy]

You're quite wrong here. The railroads now carry more ton miles than they did before.

Only through heavier trains at the cost of less frequent service thus why US railways are getting their asses handed to them by trucks in everything but bulk freight.



Various technologies have been developed that facilitate use of a single track main such as bi-directional dignaling with CTC. so modernization has in fact occurred.

That other railways have been using for decades and national railways found not a substitute for double tracked main-lines. JNR experience with militant workers in the 1970's showed that worker militancy leads to train crews driving train slower. JNR had already doubled up its track so while militant train crews to backup mainlines by driving slowly did back up the line it was not as much as if it were a single track. Imagine what would happen to the US railways if militant US train crews drive as slowly as possible to back up the line so reactionary workers also have to slow down, without a double track management can easily pass the militant run train crawling down the lines.



in some cases with public funding. an example is the Alameda Corridor project...a 2 track signaled subway for freight trains to and from the combined harbors of Long Beach & L.A. This has enabled an increase in average speeds for freights which was formerly 10 mph with many grade crossings thru a dense urban area. speeds on the grade separated 2 track route are now around 30 mph i believe.

That doesn't counter the vast amount of rail capacity gone.



electrification hasn't happened because the railroads have studied it and determined that it won't pay as an investment. in the '70s with the big jump in oil prices SP considered electrifying the main from L.A. to Yuma and UP looked at electrifying its busiest section from Cheyenne to Portland. but then oil prices declined.

In other words they don't want to invest in the fixed capital. Electrification is not just fuel prices it is also turn around time, diesel trains have to be refueled meaning the locomotive is not making money while electric locomotives can keep running, then you have lower maintenance costs and durability for example the Vladimir Lenin - 10 electric locomotives that were discontinued in 1977 are still the work horse of the Russian railway as they just keep working.



capitalists don't make investments unless they determine it will pay. but it doesn't mean the freight railways have declined in capacity.

If track is gone then capacity has declined as if that track was there they could have run freight over it.



on the contrary, for example, the average tonnage per car has greatly increased. in the '50s a typical car had a 50 ton capacity. now cars typically carry 100 or more tons per car. they had to invest in bridges and tracks and cars to be able to do this.

Which does nothing when the train is dead heading that is a fact of life for railways. It doesn't matter if a rail car can takes 50 extra tons when they are empty and your trying to move them through the lines.



again, it just shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Look it is simple the state wants to increase passenger service, yet if the track capacity was there they wouldn't need that much new track for the low ridership we are talking about. The capacity simply isn't there so they can't just increase passenger traffic on what is left of the rail network.

[syndicat]

If track is gone then capacity has declined as if that track was there they could have run freight over it.


this doesn't follow. much of the "capacity" you lament was unneeded. as I pointed out before, the American railway network had excess capacity due to over-construction fueled by competition. That is one of the well-known inefficiencies of capitalism.

in the Western USA the mainlines have always been single track. Where is the lost capacity? well, duplication has been eliminated. there were three class 1 railroads across the northern tier from Chicago & Minneapolis to Puget Sound. All three of those railways merged. They eliminated the unneeded duplication...thus increasing their profits without diminishing their ability to handle the actual freight volume. This is an actual increase in efficiency.


Only through heavier trains at the cost of less frequent service thus why US railways are getting their asses handed to them by trucks in everything but bulk freight.


again, you don't know what you're talking about. the higher volume means more frequent train operation, not less. That isn't the issue with truck vs rail competition. I already explained that.

you are what in this country is called a "bullshit artist". you keep flip-flopping and repeating yourself, not acknowledging points made before. I'm not going to answer your bullshit any longer.

[Psy]

this doesn't follow. much of the "capacity" you lament was unneeded.

Wrong if it was unneeded it wouldn't have been built, what happened was railways lost traffic thus abandoned tracks thus abandoned capacity. True they compensated by increasing tonnage for the tracks they kept but it still losing capacity. Also there must of have been traffic there or they wouldn't built the track.



as I pointed out before, the American railway network had excess capacity due to over-construction fueled by competition. That is one of the well-known inefficiencies of capitalism.

It was only excess capacity as capitalists refused to utilize the tracks.



in the Western USA the mainlines have always been single track.

Thus missing out in the ush for doubling track around the world that dated before the 1930's as prestigious railways were trying to push for faster and faster passenger service to stop the drop off in ridership and train speed records have industrial powers huge gloating rights.



Where is the lost capacity? well, duplication has been eliminated. there were three class 1 railroads across the northern tier from Chicago & Minneapolis to Puget Sound. All three of those railways merged. They eliminated the unneeded duplication...thus increasing their profits without diminishing their ability to handle the actual freight volume. This is an actual increase in efficiency.

Unneeded? If it was unneeded then passenger service would easily be able to move down mainlines where there is abandoned track.



again, you don't know what you're talking about. the higher volume means more frequent train operation, not less. That isn't the issue with truck vs rail competition. I already explained that.

No it just means more tonnage being moved. This is like saying replacing 100 trucks (evenly spaced apart) that could carry 10 tons with 75 trucks that can carry 15 tons more frequent truck operations.



you are what in this country is called a "bullshit artist". you keep flip-flopping and repeating yourself, not acknowledging points made before. I'm not going to answer your bullshit any longer.
What points? I here BS like that the USSR had single tracked mainlines that bullshit, look it up the USSR's largest mainline (trans-Siberian railway) was quickly double track (double tracking of it started under Stalin) and I'm the bullshit artist?

You seem to think single tracks work better then double track well tell that to any subway system or tram system and see if you can convince them their second track is unnecessary if they just pack more passenger in each car. They will tell you what I'm telling you, that you are ignoring how fast you can move rolling stock through regardless of load, that effects frequency of service you can have on the line.

[S.Artesian]

Yeah, you're a bullshit artist:

From the National Bureau of Economic Research publication: Freight Transportation in the Soviet Union: A Comparison with the United States, published in 1959 [that same period you cite facts and figures from]:


It has been said that the Soviet railways in recent years bear a
marked resemblance to the North American railways of the early
1920's. There is an element of truth in this statement, but it cannot
be accepted without qualification. Like American railways in the
period before highway and air competition, the Soviet system is
established upon the basis of moving tonnage in slow freight service,
but there is even less differentiation in Soviet freight service than on
the American railways of earlier times, for interrailroad competition
is absent and, beyond what is necessary to the security of perishables,
little concession has been made toward provision of fast freight services.
To maximize line capacity, the objective is to operate a railroad at
as nearly a constant speed as possible.And:

In average
speed of movement the Soviet system also shows up well. While train
speeds between initial and final terminals, including all delays on the
road, do not compare favorably with present speeds in the United
States, they are offset by faster movement through yards so that Soviet
over-all times correspond well with those for similar hauls in the
United States. Under the head of service amenities, however, virtually
nothing is provided except, over most main routes, a high frequency
of freight train service which arises naturally from the high density
and concentration of the freight traffic and the relatively light net
train load. By ignoring amenities that are forced upon carriers in
a competitive system, Soviet railroads simplify their task considerably.
And they go even further in this respect than the railroads of other
Countries in an earlier era, for they provide virtually no accommodation
for the less-than-carload consignment and for peddler services,3
thus forcing concentration into carload consignments and avoiding
the waste of cars inherent in lightly loaded less-than-carload business.4
In the production of mass slow-speed freight transportation, the
Soviet roads have worked with simple but rugged plant and have
carried standardization to an extreme degree.
And:


Freight car types are distinctly limited in
number and new construction has been consistently restricted to a
very small number of standard designs. The variety to be found in
the whole system is rather less than any individual large American
railway would boast of, particularly in dimensions and door arrangements
of box cars and dimensions and special equipment of gondolas.
The specialized car finds no favor on the Soviet roads and is provided
only as necessity dictates, e.g., in tank cars and refrigerator cars.
Standard all-purpose cars are made do where shippers in a competitive
economy would require better adjustment to their needs and would
secure it. The standard open gondola serves not only bulk loadings
but also much traffic which in the West would be loaded in covered
cars. This lack of specialized cars is very helpful in keeping empty
car-mileage at a low figure.And:

The Soviet pattern of development has been wholly intensive, not
extensive. Primary attention was placed upon strengthening the more
important select main lines of the existing system with a view to concentrating
the heavy traffic flows on them. Such routes were given
additional second main track, passing sidings, and signal facilities,
and were laid with heavier rail on improved roadway; in some instances,
grades and curvature on them were ameliorated. Important
yard expansion was necessary to permit these lines to operate at something
approaching a constant twenty-four-hour tempo, for the presence
of traffic that was pressing upon facilities and could be moved without
taking account of commercial conditions enabled these lines to handle
several times the train density that might congest a similar line in
another country, provided the yards were made adequate.The absence
of fast passenger trains was important since it greatly reduced the
passes required. Heavier power, four-axle freight car equipment, and
cars equipped with air brakes or with air lines were also concentrated
on such line segments to permit heavy train loads relative to the
system average.
bold added

And:


The relatively high freight traffic density per mile of line recorded
in the late 1930's for the Soviet system aroused some skepticism.26
What, then, must be said of a density which appears to have stood in
1954 at 59 per cent above the prewar peak of 1939? If comparison is
made with average freight densities in other parts of the world, the
Soviet performance appears improbable; but it is characteristic of
most Western systems, and of the U.S. railways in particular, that
they have much greater mileage of a character that seldom exists in
the Soviet system and that, where they have been developed on a
competitive plan as in North America or Great Britain, there is
much duplication of main lines and considerable overbuildingGet that, Mr. Bullshit Artist? Much overbuilding due to competition. That's called capitalism.

And this:


Nor has any large railroad system elsewhere so nearly made maximum use
of main-line trackage by not operating exceptionally high-speed trains
and by avoiding the bunching of trains at particular hours according
to the needs of traffic and in disregard of the commercial convenience
that carries much weight in a competitive system. As Sir William
Acworth puts it, "no one needs to be told that the running of trains
at varying rates of speed diminishes enormously the carrying capacity
of a line."Nor need one doubt that extensive multiple tracking
and improvement of signaling have been forced in the United States,
not by the amount of traffic to be dealt with in twenty-four hours,
but by the bunching of a good part of the day's traffic over certain
sections of the line in a limited span of hours. This happened because
of the necessity to schedule arrivals and departures of freight as well
as passenger trains to meet the public convenience under pain of
losing the business to a more accommodating competitor.
Well, apparently someone needs to be told it, Mr. Bullshit Artist to be precise.

Now we can look at the fSU railways during the period when it expanded its haulage dramatically, and what you find is that the system became so congested between 1978-1982, that it presented a serious obstacle to the rest of the economy. What was the plan to mitigate this problem--- uh.. the Soviets decided to reduce the number of trains, to run longer and heavier trains, in this way relieving congestion and actually improving turn-around time on locomotives, crews, and equipment.

With that plan in place, Soviet rail traffic again began to grow, but this growth was essentially meant operating the system at full capacity with..... a deterioration in track quality. A report by the Rand Corporation in 1991, based on statistical information gleaned from Soviet sources during the 1980s concluded:


Track and Other Structures. In the 1960s, the condition of
tracks was actually improving. The total number of discovered defects
declined and the number of derailments was stable. Conditions began to
deteriorate in the 1970s. Between 1971 and 1986, the number of
discovered defects almost doubled and derailments increased 3.7 times.
Deterioration of track has continued through 1988.
This has taken place despite efforts to improve the average weight
of rails on the main lines.

The point is that problems of capacity are problems of capacity. They have a physical, or "use" factor in the simple mathematics of safe train separation, braking distances, mixed service operations; and they have an "exchange" factor, a social factor in the need for the bourgeoisie [in the US] to maximize the return on assets, and in the inability of the Soviet economy to sustain its own fixed asset growth.

The Soviets approached these "use" physical problems by opting for slow service, lighter axle loads, and reduced speeds of passenger trains, initially, and then when that ran into the limits of the system, heavier, longer trains.

[Psy]

Yeah, you're a bullshit artist:

From the National Bureau of Economic Research publication: Freight Transportation in the Soviet Union: A Comparison with the United States, published in 1959 [that same period you cite facts and figures from]:

I guess you missed

Such routes were given additional second main track, passing sidings, and signal facilities, and were laid with heavier rail on improved roadway; in some instances, grades and curvature on them were ameliorated

So much for the idea the USSR had mostly single track mainlines. Also you seem to miss the fact we are talking about publication from 1959 when the USSR was running steam trains and the USSR steam locomotives were significantly slower then the steam locomotives of Japan, Europe and the USA. Yes the RHzD started dieselization in the 50's but they were not much faster. It wasn't till the ChS2 that rolled out in 1958 that they had a decent locomotives for fast passenger service.



Now we can look at the fSU railways during the period when it expanded its haulage dramatically, and what you find is that the system became so congested between 1978-1982, that it presented a serious obstacle to the rest of the economy. What was the plan to mitigate this problem--- uh.. the Soviets decided to reduce the number of trains, to run longer and heavier trains, in this way relieving congestion and actually improving turn-around time on locomotives, crews, and equipment.

Heavier then before

Here is a wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA3_coupler) article

Helper locomotives at the end of the train are rarely used in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The load of the freight per train is not as heavy as on American railways. This is due to the 3 kV DC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_systems_for_electric_rail_traction #3_kV_DC) electrification system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_system). Most of the catenary in the former Soviet Union is fed with 3 kV DC and its construction (except some lines around Moscow) does not allow more than 6,000 kW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt) (8,046 hp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower)) per electric section (one locomotive has power effort from 3,000 to 6,000 kW/4,023 to 8,046 hp).



With that plan in place, Soviet rail traffic again began to grow, but this growth was essentially meant operating the system at full capacity with..... a deterioration in track quality. A report by the Rand Corporation in 1991, based on statistical information gleaned from Soviet sources during the 1980s concluded:

.

The point is that problems of capacity are problems of capacity. They have a physical, or "use" factor in the simple mathematics of safe train separation, braking distances, mixed service operations; and they have an "exchange" factor, a social factor in the need for the bourgeoisie [in the US] to maximize the return on assets, and in the inability of the Soviet economy to sustain its own fixed asset growth.

The Soviets approached these "use" physical problems by opting for slow service, lighter axle loads, and reduced speeds of passenger trains, initially, and then when that ran into the limits of the system, heavier, longer trains.
Wait we believe the Rand Corporation? By 1991 reduced speed of passenger trains is a lie the RHzD rolled out the ER200 with a top speed of 200 KM/h and the TEP80 with a top speed of 271km/h that broke the speed record for a diesel locomotive


wwYXjxXFha0

(notice the double track mainline in the video)

Now the TEP80 was never mass produced but that was because the USSR dissolved before it could and the RZhD was planning on using them (and the ER200) for high speed passenger service. Even then the ChS2 had a top speed of 160 KM/h and that was 1958.

The USSR did not opt for slower passenger service in the 1950's it lacked the capabilities yet wanted them thus why RZhD sunk so much R&D into faster and faster passenger locomotives.

[greenwarbler]

wars and garbage, and also the fabrication of heavy equipment (the equipment itself, of course produced in Mexico, and or China, but mostly the former)

[ckaihatsu]

What does the US Produce?


Extended back-and-forth discussions over the technical details of railroads and their operations.


x D

[S.Artesian]

What does the US Produce?


Extended back-and-forth discussions over the technical details of railroads and their operations.


x D


What does the US produce?-- capital.

[28350]

weed
Eh, most cannabis in the US is imported from Mexico and Canada.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Can anyone provide a pie chart of the stuff produced in the US including the amount made? or a link to the data so I can make it?

Also, what would be the unit?

[Jose Gracchus]

Eh, most cannabis in the US is imported from Mexico and Canada.

Though I am loathe to continue hijacking this thread, I'm pretty sure this isn't the case, especially on the West coast. Much of it is grown in the U.S.

[Psy]

What does the US Produce?


Extended back-and-forth discussions over the technical details of railroads and their operations.


x D

Well we could also look at telecommunication bandwidth and how it has its expansion has drastically slowed, thus we have the rising trend of caps and lowering of caps as capitalists don't feel like investing in communication infrastructure so have gotten together with each other to agree on limits of supply and to collectively set prices, basically to work together to form monopolies in order to ensure the rate of profit rather then directly compete with each other.

[ckaihatsu]

Well we could also look at telecommunication bandwidth and how it has its expansion has drastically slowed, thus we have the rising trend of caps and lowering of caps as capitalists don't feel like investing in communication infrastructure so have gotten together with each other to agree on limits of supply and to collectively set prices, basically to work together to form monopolies in order to ensure the rate of profit rather then directly compete with each other.


True, of course, but if you keep playing "straight man" to my comedy stylings I'm just gonna riff off of it....


= )

[jake williams]

Can anyone provide a pie chart of the stuff produced in the US including the amount made? or a link to the data so I can make it?

Also, what would be the unit?
The CIA World Factbook gives:

Agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%
Industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%
Capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%
Consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0%


I found this pie chart, apparently from 2000:

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lid=215&type=educator

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/images_lessons/215_figure5a1.gif

[gorillafuck]

The only industry that has been basically completely outsourced is clothing. Besides that the US has a big domestic industry for basically everything. It's the largest manufacturer in the world.

[syndicat]

The only industry that has been basically completely outsourced is clothing. Besides that the US has a big domestic industry for basically everything.

there's still some apparel made in the USA...some tens of thousqnds of garment workers.

consumer electronics industry has adopted the same structure as garment industry...elaborate systems of contract suppliers, "production" firm is just marketing, money management, design and some software production. there are some exceptions here, too...still quite a bit of integrated circuit (semi-conductor) production in U.S. that's because it's the core technology in electronics.