====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
China's not alone in the predominance of coal in its freight operations-- coal makes up 40% of US rail business. The only real passenger vs. freight issue is that fact that the bourgeoisie can't make any money off passenger service. Having jettisoned that service, and having spun off much of its "local" freight service and lines into secondary, Class 2 "short lines," the railroads then had the great advantage of dealing with basically a uniform through-haulage, constant speed, operation. With trains moving at the same speeds, without "overtakes," physical plant could be rationalized, reducing double track territory to single track, or increasing the freight service to near saturation levels on double track, and getting a big more bang by utilizing centralized traffic control, allowing movement of trains in both direction on any track. No overtakes, no reason to have all those expensive passing sidings, interlockings, crossovers, and multiple tracks. "Rationalization" was so severe that the introduction of a single Amtrak train brought tears to the eyes of any train dispatcher working such rationalized territory. Traffic density of either class of service pretty much precludes running the other class of service during the peak density periods-- the difference in speeds is just too great to allow for passenger schedules. In fact, during the "good old days" of about a decade ago, after the Union Pacific took over the Western Pacific, Southern Pacific, Missouri Pacific, and made a right big mess, the UP just about paralyzed passenger train operations around Los Angeles by trying to run its freights during the "rush" hours. Of course, the UP almost paralyzed the entire national freight network too by having so many trains so severely delayed after the merger that freight shippers went screaming to the Surface Transportation Board, and then the US Congress. Anyway... can freight run at high speeds? If we are talking about 150 mph-- absolutely not. If we are talking about 100 mph, more than just probably not. We are talking about train lengths of 10,000 feet and weights of up to 20,000 tons. At 60 mph, such a train would require over 2 miles to stop, and would probably tear itself apart and derail if an emergency stop from those speeds was required. Shorter, lighter trains certainly can travel faster, particularly when the entire train is equipped with electronic controlled pneumatic braking, where an electronic signal is the instantaneous messenger instructing all cars in the train to brake at the same time, rather than simply the shared air system, where the signal is transmitted through a common pipe by compressed air, and consequently can take up to 30 seconds to travel the entire length of the train. Certainly freight trains-- particular unit consist container trains [fixed length, all carrying the freight in 40 ft or 20 ft containers] can, and do, operate at speeds up to 79 mph, depending on track conditions... but... but once you get out of the "flats" of the plains, and into the east with its intensely developed, and dense population centers, average trains speeds drop dramatically-- to about 20-25 mph [this of course includes time "working," setting off and picking up cars at yards]. And other than container traffic, or UPS trailers, or US Postal Service traffic, how fast does bulk freight really have to travel? There's no need for coal to travel quickly, since it can easily be stored on or near final destination. "Just in time" delivery of intermediate production inputs for the auto, chemical industries can save a lot of money, but they are rarely delivered directly from the place of origin to the final destination by a single train. Rather, running to a schedule, a consistent schedule to give logistics managers a reliable basis for targeting delivery is the essential requirement. Speed's nice, but only when its scheduled. Otherwise, it actually becomes just one more unscheduled inefficiency in the system which is more expensive than a scheduled "inefficiency" of planned reduced velocity. Did I mention I'm now a consultant with extensive experience in both passenger and freight options, and detailed knowledge and proven abilities in capacity optimization, schedule execution, and operating procedures? I did? Would you like my business phone number? ----- Original Message ----- From: "nada" <[email protected]> What is not discussed, and something S. Artisen knows something about, is the whole passenger vs freight issue and whether freight can railed at high speeds. Half of all Chinese rail hauls coal, from the North to the South. It's a major mess for them. One snow storm and half of south China blacks out. David ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
