Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Railroads / May 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Are model trains "toys" or not?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
David Nebenzahl - 24 May 2007 19:03 GMT
Inspired by one of Spender's comments in another thread here, I think
this is a good topic for discussion in its own right.

Basically, Spender committed (in some folks' eyes) the cardinal sin of
calling *all* model trains "toys". Well, I'd like both to suggest he's
right, as well as suggesting the error of his ways.

Wait a minute--how can I have it both ways? Can I have my cake and eat
it too?

Yes. So far as agreeing with him, that all models, regardless of how
expensive or exquisite they may be, are toys, this is what I call the
"man from Mars" view. Supposing a group of aliens were to land among us
and study us; they would inevitably categorize our activities and
possessions in various ways. One of the top-level divisions would be
between things that are essential for life--food, water, shelter,
clothing, medical care--and those that aren't. Model trains clearly fall
into this latter category; hence, they are toys, in the most generic
sense of the word. They're solely for amusement, for enjoyment. (The
only people for whom this isn't true are the pushers--the dealers we buy
our stuff from.)

But Spender really ought to be more careful around here, in this den of
railroad modelers. Because despite the truth of the matter explained
above, there clearly are distinctions to be made between the more
obvious "toys" on the one hand (like tinplate, including a lot of the
offerings in O scale), and what are rather mysteriously called "scale
models" on the other hand, meaning anything that aspires to a higher
level of realism or fidelity to the prototype.

Not that there's anything wrong with the "toys" (meaning the more
toy-like models). To illustrate: I visited the California State Railroad
Museum last week, and of course went upstairs to see the models. There
are several displays and layouts in various scales. One of the largest
is a beautifully-done O scale pike, probably larger than the average
size dining room in an American McMansion.

So far from being realistic looking, this was done to perfection with
all the stuff one gets from (I'm guessing) Lionel and MTH; the "grass"
that looks like green fabric; the buildings that look like, well,
plastic buildings. But the overall effect was quite enchanting, and one
could certainly see how kids, especially, could be transported to a
different world entirely if they were lucky enough to own such a "pike".
Certainly not the kind of layout I'd ever build (or buy, even if I
could), but one with its own qualities nonetheless.

So there really is enough to go around in this hobby, from the most anal
rivet-counter to those who love to just play with toys.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Ken Rice - 24 May 2007 20:51 GMT
>Inspired by one of Spender's comments in another thread here, I think
>this is a good topic for discussion in its own right.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>clip

I think the difference can be stated simply: If a child plays with it, it is a
toy. If an adult plays with it, it is a hobby and a model.

In short, the difference between a model train and toy is in the way it is
perceived and used.

Personally, I don't care what you call them. Just don't knock mine off the
track. <G>

Signature

Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
   Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
   Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
   Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.

David Nebenzahl - 24 May 2007 20:59 GMT
Ken Rice spake thus:

>>Inspired by one of Spender's comments in another thread here, I think
>>this is a good topic for discussion in its own right.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Personally, I don't care what you call them. Just don't knock mine off the
> track. <G>

There you go. My take on it is "I don't care if you call them toys or
not, just so long as I get to play with them".

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Spender - 25 May 2007 00:30 GMT
>Inspired by one of Spender's comments in another thread here, I think
>this is a good topic for discussion in its own right.

Thank God. As new as I am to the hobby, at least I have - if only by
accident - offered something worthy of the group.

>Basically, Spender committed (in some folks' eyes) the cardinal sin of
>calling *all* model trains "toys". Well, I'd like both to suggest he's
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>only people for whom this isn't true are the pushers--the dealers we buy
>our stuff from.)

I immediately saw an error in my statement when I started reading this. I
knew a man who used to buy every loco Lionel made, year after year. He had
no track. All he did was unpack the trains and put them in glass cabinets.

So along with being toys, model trains can be considered art.

An old neighbor, I had lost track of him some 15 years before his death.
Man, I wish I had been in his will...
Steve Caple - 25 May 2007 01:57 GMT
>  All he did was unpack the trains and put them in glass cabinets.
>
> So along with being toys, model trains can be considered art.

Collecting beer cans and puttin them in display cases does not make them
art.  Collecting "Village 69" or whatever clunky and kitschy pottery houses
the Franklin Mint or whoever makes does not make them art.  Buying a sappy
Kincade print with a few dry-brushed flecks of pale yellow-white does not
make that art.

Collection mania may be more pathological than playing with trains.

Signature

Steve

David Nebenzahl - 25 May 2007 02:10 GMT
Steve Caple spake thus:

>> All he did was unpack the trains and put them in glass cabinets.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Collection mania may be more pathological than playing with trains.

Indeed it is. Especially since it takes out of circulation trains that
*I* could be playing with instead.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Puckdropper - 25 May 2007 07:52 GMT
>>  All he did was unpack the trains and put them in glass cabinets.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Collection mania may be more pathological than playing with trains.

In the humanities class I had to take in college, I got the basic idea
that the text book authors defined "art" as anything you created with the
intent of it being art.  Wow, look at the boogers on the mirror.  What do
you mean that's not art?  (I think I have a definition of art that works:  
Art is a non-mass produced item designed or displayed to evoke an
emotional response from a general audience.)

Well, anyway I'm OT here again.  Happens.

So, you be the judge:  Is my G RS3 and boxcar display on top of the
entertainment center art?  Me?  I call it a good place to store the stuff
when I'm not using it.

Puckdropper
Signature

Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

Greg Procter - 25 May 2007 17:46 GMT
> >>  All he did was unpack the trains and put them in glass cabinets.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> that the text book authors defined "art" as anything you created with the
> intent of it being art.

Any time you find that you are defining a word using that same word as
the main definition, you've lost it!

>  Wow, look at the boogers on the mirror.  What do
> you mean that's not art?  (I think I have a definition of art that works:
> Art is a non-mass produced item designed or displayed to evoke an
> emotional response from a general audience.)

Why can art not be a mass produced item?
I think I know the answer, but I'm interested to hear your opinion.
(I bet you don't hear that very often)

Take a painting - that would seem to fit your definition of 'art'.
As the artist, produce a limited number of prints of that painting - is
that still art? (my clients seem to think so)
Get 50,000 prints made in China and have them distributed by a major
chain store - is it no longer art?
Ditto ditto at 50c a copy - still art?

> Well, anyway I'm OT here again.  Happens.
>
> So, you be the judge:  Is my G RS3 and boxcar display on top of the
> entertainment center art?  

Does it evoke an emotional response?

>Me?  I call it a good place to store the stuff
> when I'm not using it.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
David Nebenzahl - 25 May 2007 18:28 GMT
Greg Procter spake thus:

>>In the humanities class I had to take in college, I got the basic idea
>>that the text book authors defined "art" as anything you created with the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> chain store - is it no longer art?
> Ditto ditto at 50c a copy - still art?

Since you brought it up, that seeming contradiction is very easily
disposed of. It's simply the difference between original art and
reproductions. Nothing new, at least not since the widespread
availability of printed reproductions, which goes back to the 19th century.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Steve Caple - 25 May 2007 21:43 GMT
> Why can art not be a mass produced item?

By a broad definition, Kincade's stuff is "art"  -  albeit incredibly
schlocky, on a level with Keene paintings of kids with huge eyes, or 90% of
El Greco's output (ever been to Toledo?).

But for Kincade's McArt stores to take a print, have a "certified Kincade
(r) highlighter" apply a few daubs of paint, and sell this glorified poster
at original art prices, they've passed from the realm of art dealing to
bunco artist.

Signature

Steve

Want fries with that?

Puckdropper - 26 May 2007 01:55 GMT
>> In the humanities class I had to take in college, I got the basic
>> idea that the text book authors defined "art" as anything you created
>> with the intent of it being art.
>
> Any time you find that you are defining a word using that same word as
> the main definition, you've lost it!

That's one of my many problems with the book & class.

>>  Wow, look at the boogers on the mirror.  What do
>> you mean that's not art?  (I think I have a definition of art that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I think I know the answer, but I'm interested to hear your opinion.
> (I bet you don't hear that very often)

What I mean by this is that the item called "art" must be somewhat
unique.  Selling reproductions of the item doesn't make the original any
less art, but the reproductions are not art.


>> Well, anyway I'm OT here again.  Happens.
>>
>> So, you be the judge:  Is my G RS3 and boxcar display on top of the
>> entertainment center art?  
>
> Does it evoke an emotional response?

Not for me, but then I don't count... I'm too involved.

Puckdropper
Signature

Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

Dan Merkel - 30 May 2007 17:23 GMT
> In the humanities class I had to take in college, I got the basic idea
> that the text book authors defined "art" as anything you created with the
> intent of it being art.  Wow, look at the boogers on the mirror.  What do
> you mean that's not art?  (I think I have a definition of art that works:
> Art is a non-mass produced item designed or displayed to evoke an
> emotional response from a general audience.)

Even if that emotional response is outrage?

As to your locomotive, what if it evokes an emotional response from some,
but not others?  I don't kcare about an RS3, but get feelings of nostalgia
when I see an old articulated steam loco battling a grade with a string of
freight behind...

But to the original question, trains are toys to me... sophisticated toys,
but toys nonetheless.  But that isn't a bad thing other than the somewhat
negative connotation that our society puts on "playing with toys."  Is a
person who hops a motorcycle "playing with a toy" when he rides?  Probably,
because he could easily take a car, bus or bike.  But that isn't bad...

These things change... when frontiersmen lived on the edge of the
wilderness, being a good shot with a rifle often kept you alive or put food
on the table.  But as that need for that skill became less & less, the guns
they carried became more and more "toys."  Few people today need to be
competent with firearms, but they enjoy handling them just the same.  The
same could be said about many things... but those changes go both ways.
There was a time when a personal computer was largely regarded as a toy.
Today, more & more of us rely on them for many things other than
entertainment or relaxation.  As our needs change, so does the purpose of
things around us.

My thoughts...

dlm
Spender - 30 May 2007 21:45 GMT
>These things change... when frontiersmen lived on the edge of the
>wilderness, being a good shot with a rifle often kept you alive or put food
>on the table.  But as that need for that skill became less & less, the guns
>they carried became more and more "toys."  Few people today need to be
>competent with firearms, but they enjoy handling them just the same.  The

The military misses those days. In WWI & WWII, rifle training was nowhere
near as difficult for the trainers. Most of the recruits had fired rifles
before. Today, they are lucky if a recruit has even held a rifle.

>same could be said about many things... but those changes go both ways.
>There was a time when a personal computer was largely regarded as a toy.
>Today, more & more of us rely on them for many things other than
>entertainment or relaxation.  As our needs change, so does the purpose of
>things around us.

So I'll refine my statement that model trains are toys once more. Model
trains are also relaxation/meditative aids.

At least they are for me.
Jon Miller - 25 May 2007 17:36 GMT
> Yes. So far as agreeing with him, that all models, regardless of how
> expensive or exquisite they may be, are toys, this is what I call the
"man from Mars" view. Supposing a group of aliens were to land among us and
study us; they would inevitably categorize our activities and
possessions in various ways. One of the top-level divisions would be
between things that are essential for life--food, water, shelter, clothing,
medical care--and those that aren't.<

   This concept is really a Puritanism approach.  That food, water, etc. is
all that is required or needed for life.  In our modern age I think most
would say that we need forms of relaxation or our minds will figured
something else out.  What they would figure out most of us would not like!
Under the concept that the human mind needs these things, they are not toys!
Spender - 26 May 2007 03:55 GMT
>> Yes. So far as agreeing with him, that all models, regardless of how
>> expensive or exquisite they may be, are toys, this is what I call the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>something else out.  What they would figure out most of us would not like!
>Under the concept that the human mind needs these things, they are not toys!

I would say they are toys, or art to some. The origin of art in human
culture was not a part if mankind's initial survival. It pretty much
coincided with the development of cultures that manages to produce a
surplus of food and water. That resulted in a situation where not every
member of society had to work directly for life's basic needs.

In short, it was the birth of fart arounds.
Pac Man - 26 May 2007 02:16 GMT
<snip>

> Yes. So far as agreeing with him, that all models, regardless of how
> expensive or exquisite they may be, are toys, this is what I call the
> "man from Mars" view.

   Sorry, but I disagree with that absolute.  Models come in all shapes and
sizes, and used for all kinds of purposes.  A model of an ship's hull built
for hydrodynamic testing is not a toy.  A model of a human torso built for
doctors, or an architectural model of a nuke plant built for security
exercises, or a model of an atom for a classroom are all _not_ toys.  Just
because something is built to a likeness of something else in a different
scale (IOW, a "model") does *not* make it a toy.  The purpose for which it
was built is one of the things that makes something a toy or not...not the
fact that it's a model.

> Supposing a group of aliens were to land among us
> and study us; they would inevitably categorize our activities and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> into this latter category; hence, they are toys, in the most generic
> sense of the word.

   Using that logic, that makes most everything a toy.  Airliners are not
essential for life.  Does that make a 787 a toy?

> They're solely for amusement, for enjoyment. (The
> only people for whom this isn't true are the pushers--the dealers we buy
> our stuff from.)

   So something that's solely for our amusement and enjoyment are toys?  If
I read books for enjoyment (say, a David Weber space opera, or a Dennis
Lehane mystery), does that make them toys?

> But Spender really ought to be more careful around here, in this den of
> railroad modelers. Because despite the truth of the matter explained
> above,...

   The "truth"?  That sounds a teeny, tiny, little bit arrogant, don't you
think?  To label your own opinions as the "truth"?  No offense intended, but
I didn't know if that's the way you meant it.

> ...there clearly are distinctions to be made between the more
> obvious "toys" on the one hand (like tinplate, including a lot of the
> offerings in O scale), and what are rather mysteriously called "scale
> models" on the other hand, meaning anything that aspires to a higher
> level of realism or fidelity to the prototype.

   Of course.  One of the definitions of "toys" is that they were made to
be played with by children.  Lionel, American Flyer and the like (tinplate)
were originally made for children.  Therefore they are "toys".  They are
also models, but they are toys, too.
   Models like Atlas Dash 8-40CW's are *not* made for children with all
their fragile parts that can be easily broken off, swallowed and choked on.
It's a model, not a toy.

<snip>

> So there really is enough to go around in this hobby, from the most anal
> rivet-counter to those who love to just play with toys.

   Oh, there's room in the hobby for everyone (except for elitists like
John Bortle, A.K.A. CNJ999...he can leave any time he wants.  LOL  Jus'
kiddin' John.  Mostly.).

   To sum it up, you have the following definitions of "Toy" from
www.m-w.com:

Noun -
1 obsolete a : flirtatious or seductive behavior b : PASTIME; also : a
sportive or amusing act : ANTIC
2 a : something (as a preoccupation) that is paltry or trifling b : a
literary or musical trifle or diversion c : TRINKET, BAUBLE
3 : something for a child to play with
4 : something diminutive; especially : a diminutive animal (as of a small
breed or variety)
5 : something that can be toyed with
6 Scottish : a headdress of linen or woolen hanging down over the shoulders
and formerly worn by old women of the lower classes

Intransitive Verb -
1 : to act or deal with something lightly or without vigor or purpose <toyed
with the idea>
2 : to engage in flirtation
3 : to amuse oneself as if with a toy : PLAY <they're just toying with him>

Adjective -
1 : of diminutive size compared to a standard form or breed <a toy dog>
2 : designed or made for use as a toy <a toy stove>

   Which one of the above do you think applies to scale model trains?

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Spender - 26 May 2007 04:01 GMT
><snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>was built is one of the things that makes something a toy or not...not the
>fact that it's a model.

Hence my feeling that unless a model is built with the intent of using it
for some technical purpose in relation to the prototype, it is a toy (or
art, to some.)

Model trains are built for the purpose of having fun. The only exception
would be if the layout was classified as a diorama for the purpose of
education.
Greg Procter - 26 May 2007 05:11 GMT
> ><snip>
> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> for some technical purpose in relation to the prototype, it is a toy (or
> art, to some.)

My train models are built to be a part of a greater representation of an
operating railway which is in itself a sociological representation tool
for gaining greater understanding of a recent but past society.
They also serve to improve my craft abilities, as well as being testbeds
for technological advances which I hope will one day improve man's place
in the world.

Regards,
Greg.P.
Spender - 26 May 2007 23:34 GMT
>> Hence my feeling that unless a model is built with the intent of using it
>> for some technical purpose in relation to the prototype, it is a toy (or
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>for technological advances which I hope will one day improve man's place
>in the world.

Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 00:32 GMT
> >> Hence my feeling that unless a model is built with the intent of using it
> >> for some technical purpose in relation to the prototype, it is a toy (or
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?

Railways never went out of fashion in the real world.
OTOH as oil goes up in cost freight will have to travel by rail.
Spender - 27 May 2007 05:14 GMT
>> >My train models are built to be a part of a greater representation of an
>> >operating railway which is in itself a sociological representation tool
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Railways never went out of fashion in the real world.
>OTOH as oil goes up in cost freight will have to travel by rail.

I suspected that when I responded. I wonder at what price point it become
cheaper for UPS to use the rails as opposed to planes.
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 20:55 GMT
> >> >My train models are built to be a part of a greater representation of an
> >> >operating railway which is in itself a sociological representation tool
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I suspected that when I responded. I wonder at what price point it become
> cheaper for UPS to use the rails as opposed to planes.

Rail has held on to bulk freight - coal, ore, etc and dangerous freigt -
oil, chemicals etc.
The next step is the freight carried by trucks, ISO containers,
piggy-back trailers etc.
I think airfreight has post and parcels long distance  for a long time
yet.
It's bulk vs commodity value and product life.
One would never fly coal, other than in a situation like the Berlin
Crisis, nor would one rail a JIT consignment of computer chips, or
strawberries. It's the block of commodities in between that will be
forced to move from road to rail.
Pac Man - 27 May 2007 21:32 GMT
<snip>

> One would never fly coal, other than in a situation like the Berlin
> Crisis, nor would one rail a JIT consignment of computer chips, or
> strawberries. It's the block of commodities in between that will be
> forced to move from road to rail.

   While I agree with all the rest, strawberries are a good USA rail
commodity as they can be shipped by the car load to East coast markets by
reefer.  IIRC, UP and CSX have something going with West coast perishables,
don't they?  Something about run-through, high priority freights was in a
Trains magazine a couple years ago.  And strawberries, lettuce, etc. are the
targets, IIRC.  I can't see it being too much different from the Tropicana
Orange Juice trains on CSX from Florida.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
What have you done to save r.m.r today?
*************
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 22:15 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> targets, IIRC.  I can't see it being too much different from the Tropicana
> Orange Juice trains on CSX from Florida.

Well, we like our strawberrys fresh ;-)
Pac Man - 29 May 2007 14:53 GMT
> Well, we like our strawberrys fresh ;-)

   Agreed.  I have a patch in my back yard (part of my family's little
"hobby farm").  But even the best strawberry plants don't offer berries in
January here in Massachusetts.  I have found that even relatively tasteless
strawberries are better than none, especially after you sugar them and put
them in a strawberry shortcake with whipped cream.

Yum.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Steve Caple - 29 May 2007 18:39 GMT
> But even the best strawberry plants don't offer berries in
> January here in Massachusetts.  

That's where the Slow Food principle of "fresh, local, IN SEASON" comes in.

> I have found that even relatively tasteless strawberries are better than
> none, especially after you sugar them and put them in a strawberry
> shortcake with whipped cream

Perhaps you coud find strawberry flavored twinkies and get the same sugar
rush.  Or freeze your own berries (we have icecream with rasperry sauce and
chocolate in the middle of winter, thanks to the chest freezer in the
garage.

Signature

Steve

Pac Man - 30 May 2007 15:56 GMT
> > But even the best strawberry plants don't offer berries in
> > January here in Massachusetts.
>
> That's where the Slow Food principle of "fresh, local, IN SEASON" comes in.

   Still, it's better than nothing.

> > I have found that even relatively tasteless strawberries are better than
> > none, especially after you sugar them and put them in a strawberry
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> chocolate in the middle of winter, thanks to the chest freezer in the
> garage.

   Um, I do have a chest freezer in my basement.  We do pick and freeze our
own vegetables, and if we have a bumper crop of strawberries we'll freeze
'em, too.  We even make our own jelly and jam (grape, currents, etc.).

   I don't know what the heck this has to do with model railroading
anymore, but I'm gonna get hungry if we keep this up. LOL

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Steve Caple - 30 May 2007 17:00 GMT
>     I don't know what the heck this has to do with model railroading
> anymore, but I'm gonna get hungry if we keep this up. LOL

Mmmmm  -  just had a bowl of blackberries, fully ripened to that perfumy
nectar stage.  Now gotta go out and ballast the back yard (laying bluestone
flags).

Signature

Steve

Puckdropper - 31 May 2007 02:47 GMT
*snip: Garden goodies*

>     I don't know what the heck this has to do with model railroading
> anymore, but I'm gonna get hungry if we keep this up. LOL
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Weather Or No Go New Haven
> *************

Strawberries are just the right size for O scale hoppers.  For our
relatively small patch, we only would need a couple at a time, but for
larger, established patches, you could run entire unit trains out to the
garden.

There's always G gauge for the really big stuff like tomatoes. :-)

If your SWMBO lets you run track into the kitchen for vegetable delivery,
she's pretty smart.  If she encourages you to install a rotary dumper
over the sink, she's an outright genius!

Puckdropper
Signature

Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

Steve Caple - 27 May 2007 23:42 GMT
> strawberries are a good USA rail commodity as they can be shipped by the
> car load to East coast markets by reefer

Well, yeah, if ya pick'em half ripe and let them "ripen" in transit.  But
you'd need to smoke some reefer to work up an appetite for that sort.  You
can grow strawberries in most of the US or in your back yard.  Buy fresh,
buy local, buy in season.  Let 'em feed the Chilean peaches to Pinochet.

We got a flat of berries up the road a few miles; wonderful fully ripe,
would never move farther than a local market without going to mush and
mold.  Made jam from some, ate a lot fresh, made homemade ice cream with
the rest.  Now we're eating blackberries and raspberries from the back
yard, and the Black Tartarian cherries are coming ripe; two batches of jam
already with some that were still a bit red (the minor tartness helps).

Signature

Steve

Pac Man - 27 May 2007 21:28 GMT
> I suspected that when I responded. I wonder at what price point it become
> cheaper for UPS to use the rails as opposed to planes.

   Well, UPS already uses a lot of TOFC.  They are one of the USA's biggest
rail shippers.  I assume you mean for things like next day service?  The
answer in that case will be never.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
What have you done to save r.m.r today?
*************
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 22:16 GMT
> > I suspected that when I responded. I wonder at what price point it become
> > cheaper for UPS to use the rails as opposed to planes.
>
>     Well, UPS already uses a lot of TOFC.  They are one of the USA's biggest
> rail shippers.  I assume you mean for things like next day service?  The
> answer in that case will be never.

but the day will come where long distance next day service might cease
to exist.
Pac Man - 29 May 2007 14:58 GMT
> but the day will come where long distance next day service might cease
> to exist.

   I highly doubt it.  However, there may come a day when *affordable* long
distance, next day service might cease to exist.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
What have you done to save r.m.r today?
*************
Greg Procter - 29 May 2007 18:49 GMT
> > but the day will come where long distance next day service might cease
> > to exist.
>
>     I highly doubt it.  However, there may come a day when *affordable* long
> distance, next day service might cease to exist.

That's much the same thing!
B'ichela - 29 May 2007 22:57 GMT
>> > but the day will come where long distance next day service might cease
>> > to exist.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That's much the same thing!
    Not exactly the same. Now if  you Want Next Day you can get
it. AS long as you are WILLING to Pay the  high costs to have it.
    OTOH.... If no one WANTS to pay... the option will eventually
disappear.

Signature

             From the Desk of the Sysop of:
Planet Maca's Opus, a Free open BBS system. telnet://pinkrose.dhis.org
Web Site: http://pinkrose.dhis.org, Dialup 860-618-3091 300-33600 bps
            The New Cnews maintainer
                B'ichela

Pac Man - 30 May 2007 16:08 GMT
> > > but the day will come where long distance next day service might cease
> > > to exist.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That's much the same thing!

   But not *exactly* the same thing.  Sort of like comparing air travel of
the 1930's vs. modern air travel.  A year ago, I flew to Florida from Rhode
Island to Orlando for $65 one-way ($165 for the return flight) on Southwest.
Now, that's cheap any way you slice it.  But back in the 1930's, the only
people who flew commercial (for the most part) were rich as only they could
afford it.
   Some goes for some future time if transportation costs skyrocket.  Only
the rich (or rich corporations) will have freight flown and the average to
small business will not.  But it will still exist.  Much, much smaller, of
course.  But it's not going away.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
What have you done to save r.m.r today?
*************
Greg Procter - 30 May 2007 21:05 GMT
> > > > but the day will come where long distance next day service might cease
> > > > to exist.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> small business will not.  But it will still exist.  Much, much smaller, of
> course.  But it's not going away.

The point here is that when oil rises to the point that air transport
costs in the order that it did in 1930, only very high value goods will
be airfreighted. Businesses will favour the fuel efficient modes of
transport which equates to rail. As they've found in Europe, rail can
cope with both bulk and high speed container traffic. LCL and parcels
went to trucking because it was labour intensive and a niusance to
"streamlined" rail service.
Spender - 30 May 2007 21:34 GMT
>    But not *exactly* the same thing.  Sort of like comparing air travel of
>the 1930's vs. modern air travel.  A year ago, I flew to Florida from Rhode
>Island to Orlando for $65 one-way ($165 for the return flight) on Southwest.
>Now, that's cheap any way you slice it.  But back in the 1930's, the only
>people who flew commercial (for the most part) were rich as only they could
>afford it.

Thank God for the rich. They are the first to buy many things which causes
those things to become affordable for the average man.
Spender - 29 May 2007 20:30 GMT
>> but the day will come where long distance next day service might cease
>> to exist.
>
>    I highly doubt it.  However, there may come a day when *affordable* long
>distance, next day service might cease to exist.

I feel like an alien. The only two trains I have ever ridden are the Metra
in Illinois - from Crystal Lake to Chicago, and the miniature train at the
Milwaukee County Zoo.
Greg Procter - 29 May 2007 21:22 GMT
> >> but the day will come where long distance next day service might cease
> >> to exist.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I feel like an alien.

I wouldn't have suggested that.
;-)

> The only two trains I have ever ridden are the Metra
> in Illinois - from Crystal Lake to Chicago, and the miniature train at the
> Milwaukee County Zoo.
David Nebenzahl - 30 May 2007 01:59 GMT
Spender spake thus:

>>>but the day will come where long distance next day service might cease
>>>to exist.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> in Illinois - from Crystal Lake to Chicago, and the miniature train at the
> Milwaukee County Zoo.

Wow, I thought *I* was an alien, having never ridden a steam train.
(Except for the little one they have here up in Tilden Park in Beserkeley.)

I rode Metra before it was Metra--the C&NW North Shore route, then green
& yellow (I used to live near the Main Street station in Evanston). Same
double-decker cars, I believe. (Also the same ones I saw in Alaska on
the ferry train to Portage, strangely enough.)

I do pity your lack of train experience. You ought to jump on the next
train you get a chance to. Even Amtrak is a lot better than nothing.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Steve Caple - 30 May 2007 07:44 GMT
> I feel like an alien. The only two trains I have ever ridden are the Metra
> in Illinois - from Crystal Lake to Chicago, and the miniature train at the
> Milwaukee County Zoo.

Wabash from Decatur to Peru  -  and back;  Pennsy from Fort Wayne to New
York and return; Nickel Plate from Noblesville to Peru in the caboose and
in the cab (grandpa); also Wabash from Wabash to Fort Wayne in the cab
(great uncle); and El Capitan from Chicago to San Diego (courtesy of the US
Navy; met a girl on the train and got laid - although on dates after
arrival, not on the train; sorry to have missed that experience, but hard
to do traveling coach).

Signature

Steve

Pac Man - 30 May 2007 16:23 GMT
> I feel like an alien. The only two trains I have ever ridden are the Metra
> in Illinois - from Crystal Lake to Chicago, and the miniature train at the
> Milwaukee County Zoo.

   I dunno where this comes from (after all, we were talking about next day
freight service).  But in a small way I feel your pain.  I've never been on
a train trip that's lasted more than one day (no sleepers).
   However, I spent 5 years commuting to college on the MBTA's Attleboro
line, and I spent a short season working for a tourist line (Cape Cod).
I've also ridden on the Mt. Washington Cog Railway in NH, the Wolfeboro RR
in NH, the Valley RR in CT, the Roaring Camp & Big Trees RR in CA, Edaville
RR in MA, and at Steamtown in Scranton, PA (all behind steam).  Plus the
Maine Narrow Gauge Museum in Portland, ME, the Maine Eastern to Rockport,
ME, and the Wiscasset, Waterville & Farmington in ME.  And I suppose
counting the rest of the MBTA's rail systems as well as several other cities
(Toronto, Montreal, San Francisco, New York City, etc.).  Heck, I've even
ridden the rails at Disneyland and Disney World.
   I've taken Amtrak to New York City three times, once as a kid and twice
on the Acela (and once, back on the "Bay State").  And I've also ridden
Amtrak to Washington, D.C. back in 1989.
   But the only thing I've yet to ride that I want to is to go across
country by train, 1st class.  Someday.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
David Nebenzahl - 30 May 2007 18:30 GMT
Pac Man spake thus:

>>I feel like an alien. The only two trains I have ever ridden are the Metra
>>in Illinois - from Crystal Lake to Chicago, and the miniature train at the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> freight service).  But in a small way I feel your pain.  I've never been on
> a train trip that's lasted more than one day (no sleepers).

Ah, then you haven't lived, my friend. One of the few high points of my
childhood was the annual summer vacation we took for several years in
Colorado (Estes Park). We took the Denver Zephyr (Burlington) from
Chicago. Us kids got our own sleeper. I still remember lying in the
bunk, looking out the window at night, scenery rushing by, rain sweeping
across the glass, watching the most tremendous Midwestern lightning
displays I've ever seen.

That, of course, was back in the American good old days, when Trains
Were Trains ...

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Spender - 30 May 2007 21:50 GMT
>Ah, then you haven't lived, my friend. One of the few high points of my
>childhood was the annual summer vacation we took for several years in
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>That, of course, was back in the American good old days, when Trains
>Were Trains ...

Every old movie I see with people riding on trains makes me wish passenger
service was still the same. Slower service, but we move too fast today in
many respects.

A ride on the Hogwart's Express would be fun also.
Spender - 30 May 2007 21:38 GMT
>> I feel like an alien. The only two trains I have ever ridden are the Metra
>> in Illinois - from Crystal Lake to Chicago, and the miniature train at the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>freight service).  But in a small way I feel your pain.  I've never been on
>a train trip that's lasted more than one day (no sleepers).

And to think I have an uncle and a cousin who are/were engineers. They live
in a different state. But if I had shown interest as a child I may have
gotten a ride on an actual working freight line.

>    However, I spent 5 years commuting to college on the MBTA's Attleboro
>line, and I spent a short season working for a tourist line (Cape Cod).
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>(Toronto, Montreal, San Francisco, New York City, etc.).  Heck, I've even
>ridden the rails at Disneyland and Disney World.

Ah, the monorail at Disney world. I forgot that one. I rode it twice.
Pac Man - 31 May 2007 16:20 GMT
> Ah, the monorail at Disney world. I forgot that one. I rode it twice.

   Actually, I was thinking more of the live steam narrow gauge engines at
Disneyland and Disney World at the Magic Kingdoms.  And, the diesel-steam
engine at the Wold Kingdom park.  That was the funniest thing.  You get
behind an engine that *looks* like a steam engine of Euro design, but when
it accelerates, you think Peterbuilt or Mack diesel from the sound and
smell.  Heh.
   Anyways, Walt D. was quite the model railroader (trying to get back on
topic), and so were many of his "Imagineers".  As much as I dislike the
mammoth corporation that Disney Co. has become, I have to say that I like
Walt and respect his hobby efforts.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Spender - 31 May 2007 21:08 GMT
>> Ah, the monorail at Disney world. I forgot that one. I rode it twice.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>mammoth corporation that Disney Co. has become, I have to say that I like
>Walt and respect his hobby efforts.

I didn't even know they had other trains. Of course I haven't been there
since I was 11, and it was just one day. It was too much to see in one day
even back then.
John Fraser - 27 May 2007 17:18 GMT
>> >> Hence my feeling that unless a model is built with the intent of using
>> >> it
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Railways never went out of fashion in the real world.
> OTOH as oil goes up in cost freight will have to travel by rail.

   It depends on the demographics of the area.  I recall when the Sears
store in Halifax would unload boxcars as a single boxcar could carry the
load of two tractor trailers.  Unfortunately, it meant tying up a locomotive
and switchman much of the day shuttling cars around whereas a truck could
drop the trailer and the driver could come back several hours later after a
nap, hook up, and leave within five minutes.  The only businesses keeping
the rail alive in Nova Scotia are the Autoport, container and gypsum piers
in Halifax, and a container pier in Sydney.  Even the Trenton Rail Works
closed recently because there is either no viable market for rails.

Cheers,
John
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 21:00 GMT
> >> >> Hence my feeling that unless a model is built with the intent of using
> >> >> it
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> drop the trailer and the driver could come back several hours later after a
> nap, hook up, and leave within five minutes.

Here in NZ we move goods wagons by tractor or forklift on private
sidings. Of course they were/are smaller than US cars, but it's a simple
and economic process. (end-beam center buffer coupling)

> The only businesses keeping
> the rail alive in Nova Scotia are the Autoport, container and gypsum piers
> in Halifax, and a container pier in Sydney.  Even the Trenton Rail Works
> closed recently because there is either no viable market for rails.

Yeah, US railways seem to have gone as low as they can, but the rest of
the world has generally had more sense.

Regards,
Greg.P.
Brian Smith - 27 May 2007 21:16 GMT
> Yeah, US railways seem to have gone as low as they can, but the rest of
> the world has generally had more sense.

   As a point of interest Nova Scotia is in Canada, not the United States.
{;^)
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 22:17 GMT
> > Yeah, US railways seem to have gone as low as they can, but the rest of
> > the world has generally had more sense.
>
>     As a point of interest Nova Scotia is in Canada, not the United States.
> {;^)

I realise that, but there doesn't seem to be much distinction these days
;-)
(railway-wise)
Brian Smith - 27 May 2007 23:05 GMT
> I realise that, but there doesn't seem to be much distinction these days
> ;-)
> (railway-wise)

   If you hadn't included the "railway-wise", I would be offended.    {;^)
Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 01:19 GMT
> > I realise that, but there doesn't seem to be much distinction these days
> > ;-)
> > (railway-wise)
>
>     If you hadn't included the "railway-wise", I would be offended.    {;^)

There's always the problem of a good insult retaining a link to reality!
;-)

Regards,
Greg.P.
NZ
Brian Smith - 28 May 2007 23:07 GMT
> There's always the problem of a good insult retaining a link to reality!
> ;-)

   LOL!
Pac Man - 27 May 2007 21:37 GMT
> Yeah, US railways seem to have gone as low as they can, but the rest of
> the world has generally had more sense.

   Sorry, but no.  The 1970's was the absolute nadir of American
railroading.  There was talk of Federalizing all RR's, for pete's sake.
These days, the Class I's are doing very well.
   Modern US freight railroading is just as advanced over the rest of the
world's freight trains as US passenger railroading is behind the rest of the
world's passenger trains, IMHO.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 22:21 GMT
> > Yeah, US railways seem to have gone as low as they can, but the rest of
> > the world has generally had more sense.
>
>     Sorry, but no.  

Oh dear - that sounds bad!
;-)

> The 1970's was the absolute nadir of American
> railroading.  There was talk of Federalizing all RR's, for pete's sake.

We had national railways from the 1870s through to the 1980s - it all
went downhill when they were sold off to private (WC) ownership.
Our government was recently forced to buy the trackbed back for $1- to
stop the degradation.

> These days, the Class I's are doing very well.
>     Modern US freight railroading is just as advanced over the rest of the
> world's freight trains as US passenger railroading is behind the rest of the
> world's passenger trains, IMHO.

Nahh, you're 3rd world Freight as well.
(like NZ)

Greg.P.
David Nebenzahl - 27 May 2007 22:35 GMT
Pac Man spake thus:

>>Yeah, US railways seem to have gone as low as they can, but the rest of
>>the world has generally had more sense.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> world's freight trains as US passenger railroading is behind the rest of the
> world's passenger trains, IMHO.

To address this latter point, this discussion so far has been mainly on
the "pissing contest" level (i.e., whose trains are
bigger/longer/faster). Keep in mind that the issue is actually much more
complex than how long or fast one's trains are. The crucial thing is the
existence (or lack thereof) of a *rail network*. The problem is moving
stuff from point A to point B. That's all very well when both points A
and B are in major metropolitan areas with good rail connections (say,
from Boston to St. Louis), but what about those customers in East
Bumfuck, Idaho? Without a rail connection, their stuff *has* to move by
truck--no other choice.

The problem isn't just that the U.S. used to have a first-class
passenger rail system that was dismembered, piece by piece, leaving a
shell of a national passenger rail system (aka Amtrak); it's that large
portions of the entire rail *network*--branch lines, smaller
carriers--were likewise abandoned, the tracks ripped up, leaving us with
an incomplete system. Nowhere near "world class" compared to, say,
Europe, where goods can move door-to-door via rail.

Remember that cautionary bit about the "last mile", usually the most
difficult part of the transportation problem to solve.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Mark Newton - 27 May 2007 03:16 GMT
> Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?

Open your eyes, and look beyond the US. No need for a comeback, railways
never went away.
Spender - 27 May 2007 05:15 GMT
>> Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?
>
>Open your eyes, and look beyond the US. No need for a comeback, railways
>never went away.

No, they are still here. But we are way past the heydays of railroads.
Mark Newton - 27 May 2007 11:57 GMT
>>> Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big
>>> comeback?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> No, they are still here. But we are way past the heydays of
> railroads.

Are we now?

That's a very US-centric view, and I suspect not even strictly true for
the US.

As for the rest of the developed world, your opinion is wrong.
David Nebenzahl - 27 May 2007 20:59 GMT
Mark Newton spake thus:

>>>> Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big
>>>> comeback?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> That's a very US-centric view, and I suspect not even strictly true for
> the US.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I think by "we" he (Spender)
meant the US, not the rest of the world.

Hopefully he doesn't have his head stuck so far in the sand that he
doesn't realize that the rest of the world is light years ahead of "us"
(the US) in the realm of rail transport ...

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Pac Man - 27 May 2007 21:40 GMT
> Giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I think by "we" he (Spender)
> meant the US, not the rest of the world.
>
> Hopefully he doesn't have his head stuck so far in the sand that he
> doesn't realize that the rest of the world is light years ahead of "us"
> (the US) in the realm of rail transport ...

   Only for passengers, not in freight.  A typical non-North American
freight train is quite small compared to what's a daily occurance here in
the USA.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 22:36 GMT
> > Giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I think by "we" he (Spender)
> > meant the US, not the rest of the world.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> freight train is quite small compared to what's a daily occurance here in
> the USA.

European goods trains usually run on much shorter headways on signalled
track - in that situation 'bigger' isn't better, 'faster'is better.
You'll notice that almost all modern locomotives have 2 axle bogies - 3
axle bogies cause far more track damage. More track damage forces train
speeds down, which forces you to run ever heavier trains and heavier
axle loads which causes further damage and further slowing. It's a
vicious circle.
Pac Man - 29 May 2007 15:29 GMT
> European goods trains usually run on much shorter headways on signalled
> track - in that situation 'bigger' isn't better, 'faster'is better.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> axle loads which causes further damage and further slowing. It's a
> vicious circle.

   Speed isn't worth all that much in RR freight these days (not like the
days of yore when RR's were only competing against themselves).  Cost and
reliability are the keys for non-captive service.  Anything that's got to
move fast is going to go by air or by truck, but it's going to cost.  There
are a lot of shippers don't care if it takes a week or a month to get a
carload somewhere, they just want it to always take a week or a month, no
exceptions.  JIT manufacturing, for example, requires it.
   And if you think that C-C locos tear up the track, try speed.  More
speed = more money spent on maintenance to keep those speeds up.

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************
Greg Procter - 29 May 2007 19:05 GMT
> > European goods trains usually run on much shorter headways on signalled
> > track - in that situation 'bigger' isn't better, 'faster'is better.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> carload somewhere, they just want it to always take a week or a month, no
> exceptions.  JIT manufacturing, for example, requires it.

Any commodity sitting in a railway wagon obviously has value - someone
hands over money for the commodity and therefore doesn't have that money
to utilize while it is in transit.
The railway has a lot of money tied up in rolling stock - basically if
transit time is halved then only half that asset is required.
Start figuring a million dollars for each wagon and several million for
each load.
I guess you've got lower interest rates in the US, but that's a lot of
money tied up in slow trains!
BTW, this is my area of (work) expertise as an analysist in
international container shipping.

>     And if you think that C-C locos tear up the track, try speed.  More
> speed = more money spent on maintenance to keep those speeds up.

I quite agree, but I'd point you towards Japan, Europe etc where train
speeds are high - no 3 axle bogie locomotives and no slow drags.
If track repair is directly related to the weight of traffic passing and
increases at say the square of the speed, then wouldn't you expect to
see dozens of parallel lines, all with maximum tonage slow drags
bubbling along side by side? It just doesn't happen.
Consider that you can get about 12 tracks in the space of a four lane
highway and those are everywhere.

Greg.P.
Pac Man - 30 May 2007 02:30 GMT
> Any commodity sitting in a railway wagon obviously has value - someone
> hands over money for the commodity and therefore doesn't have that money
> to utilize while it is in transit.

   True enough.  However, while it's in transit, the consignee doesn't have
to pay taxes on warehousing it, either.  And that's JIT for you.
Eliminating the warehouse is saves money.  A week in transit is a lot better
than having a week's supply of parts taking up room somewhere.

> The railway has a lot of money tied up in rolling stock - basically if
> transit time is halved then only half that asset is required.
> Start figuring a million dollars for each wagon and several million for
> each load.

   Agreed.  But then you could also say that doubling the tonnage capacity
of the rolling stock halves the asset required, too (not literally, of
course, but the idea remains the same...increasing capacity reduces the
number of cars needed).

> I guess you've got lower interest rates in the US, but that's a lot of
> money tied up in slow trains!
> BTW, this is my area of (work) expertise as an analysist in
> international container shipping.

   RR'ing here in the States is all about cost, as in the cheapest method
of transportation possible on dry land.  US RR's will never be faster than
airplanes or purpose driven trucks (ie, with two drivers) as our air freight
and highways are too good to see RR's get that kind of business.  But, US
RR's can compete on price, so they focus on that.  To their success, BTW.
US RR'ing has made great strides business-wise since deregulation
(Stagger's).

> I quite agree, but I'd point you towards Japan, Europe etc where train
> speeds are high - no 3 axle bogie locomotives and no slow drags.

   Then I would point you at CSX.  Those nincompoops can barely keep the
rails from spreading under the weight of an enpty car, yet they are, to
their credit, a money making RR.  And they run C-C locos and just as heavy a
rail service as just about anyone else.

> If track repair is directly related to the weight of traffic passing and
> increases at say the square of the speed, then wouldn't you expect to
> see dozens of parallel lines, all with maximum tonage slow drags
> bubbling along side by side? It just doesn't happen.
> Consider that you can get about 12 tracks in the space of a four lane
> highway and those are everywhere.

Huh?  Why would I expect to see that?

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
What have you done to save r.m.r today?
*************
Greg Procter - 30 May 2007 04:16 GMT
> > Any commodity sitting in a railway wagon obviously has value - someone
> > hands over money for the commodity and therefore doesn't have that money
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Eliminating the warehouse is saves money.  A week in transit is a lot better
> than having a week's supply of parts taking up room somewhere.

JIT is JIT - if I order the components one week before I need them and
they take one week to deliver then they are JIT.
- if I order the components three days before I need them and they take
three days to deliver then they are JIT.
The difference is that for a one week delivery I pay for them four days
earlier.

> > The railway has a lot of money tied up in rolling stock - basically if
> > transit time is halved then only half that asset is required.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> course, but the idea remains the same...increasing capacity reduces the
> number of cars needed).

Doing that reduces the usefulness of the wagon to the small user - you
(the railway) paint yourself further into the corner of only serving the
bulk user, which of course reduces your income.

> > I guess you've got lower interest rates in the US, but that's a lot of
> > money tied up in slow trains!
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>     RR'ing here in the States is all about cost, as in the cheapest method
> of transportation possible on dry land.

Sorry, there's still canals and slurry that are cheaper.

> US RR's will never be faster than
> airplanes

Of course - on long routes, but in Europe rail gets close.

> or purpose driven trucks (ie, with two drivers) as our air freight
> and highways are too good to see RR's get that kind of business.

Railways can certainly match trucks, given siding to siding operation,
which is what existed in the past.
Given a truck and a train of equal speed capability, the train will win
point to point, particularly over 2 or more shifts.

> But, US
> RR's can compete on price, so they focus on that.  To their success, BTW.
> US RR'ing has made great strides business-wise since deregulation
> (Stagger's).

What we're facing is large increases in oil prices. So long as
(potential) supply outstrips demand the price will stay low, but once
oil usage surpasses supply the bidding wars will start by those who need
it most. I would predict that 90% supply would at least double the
price.
Fuel economic means of transport forms of transport will be in
tremendous demand overnight.

> > I quite agree, but I'd point you towards Japan, Europe etc where train
> > speeds are high - no 3 axle bogie locomotives and no slow drags.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> their credit, a money making RR.  And they run C-C locos and just as heavy a
> rail service as just about anyone else.

I'll take a bet that they won't be able to cope with the potential
increase in traffic. They will need substancial investment in track bed
and rolling stock, not to mention major signalling improvements.

> > If track repair is directly related to the weight of traffic passing and
> > increases at say the square of the speed, then wouldn't you expect to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Huh?  Why would I expect to see that?

Outside the US.
Why aren't European and Japan building 12 track railways and running
slow drag trains rather than (germany) retaining restrictions of 150
axles and running goods trains at circa 160 km/hr?

> Paul A. Cutler III
> *************
> What have you done to save r.m.r today?
> *************
Mark Newton - 28 May 2007 06:44 GMT
> A typical non-North American freight train is quite small compared to
> what's a daily occurance here in the USA.

Hmm. European freight trains, perhaps. I would argue that it's not the
case these days in places like Australia, or China.
Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 16:30 GMT
> > A typical non-North American freight train is quite small compared to
> > what's a daily occurance here in the USA.
>
> Hmm. European freight trains, perhaps. I would argue that it's not the
> case these days in places like Australia, or China.

You're getting confused by the yank concept that 'bigger is better'
whereas in fact 'faster is better' as far as deliveries are concerned.
Mark Newton - 29 May 2007 01:42 GMT
>>>A typical non-North American freight train is quite small compared to
>>>what's a daily occurance here in the USA.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You're getting confused by the yank concept that 'bigger is better'
> whereas in fact 'faster is better' as far as deliveries are concerned.

No, not confused at all - here we do "big AND fast". I just like to
remind some of our American friends that they aren't the only ones
running freight trains...
Mark Newton - 28 May 2007 06:51 GMT
> A typical non-North American freight train is quite small compared to
> what's a daily occurance here in the USA.

Hmm. European freight trains, perhaps. I would argue that it's not the
case these days in places like Australia, or China.

But as was pointed out another poster, the practice outside the US is to
run smaller, faster trains more often.
Spender - 28 May 2007 07:19 GMT
>Mark Newton spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>doesn't realize that the rest of the world is light years ahead of "us"
>(the US) in the realm of rail transport ...

Yes, I meant the U.S. And no, I realize that rail travel, especially
passenger trains, are still very popular in Europe and elsewhere.

They'd probably still be popular here if Amtrak's schedules weren't grand
works of fiction and they did a better job of keeping the trains on the
rails.
Steve Caple - 28 May 2007 10:45 GMT
> They'd probably still be popular here if Amtrak's schedules weren't grand
> works of fiction and they did a better job of keeping the trains on the
> rails.

Which would of course require someone to get Uncle Pervert (or his east
coast counterparts) out of the way for scheduling and maintenance.

Signature

Steve

David Nebenzahl - 28 May 2007 19:23 GMT
Steve Caple spake thus:

>>They'd probably still be popular here if Amtrak's schedules weren't grand
>>works of fiction and they did a better job of keeping the trains on the
>>rails.
>
> Which would of course require someone to get Uncle Pervert (or his east
> coast counterparts) out of the way for scheduling and maintenance.

Yes. Contrary to popular mythology, especially among the more
laissez-faire, libertarian, let-the-market-sort-em-out crowd, Amtrak is
*not* responsible for its own delays, for the most part. Credit for
that, as Steve points out, goes to the freight carriers whose trains
Amtrak is forced to run around/behind.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 16:38 GMT
> >Mark Newton spake thus:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> works of fiction and they did a better job of keeping the trains on the
> rails.

If you're going to run axle loadings that are beyond the capacities of
the rails, 3 axle bogie locomotives and train lengths that have to be
nursed, then you're going to have crap track.
If you have crap track you're going to have slooow trains.
If you have slow trains and vast signal blocks then you're going to have
long delays.
Long delays and passenger trains at the bottom of the priority list ...
David Nebenzahl - 28 May 2007 20:11 GMT
Greg Procter spake thus:

>>>Mark Newton spake thus:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> long delays.
> Long delays and passenger trains at the bottom of the priority list ...

Which just shows *your* ignorance of North American railroad practice.
None of what you listed above have much of anything to do with Amtrak's
problems, or even with any significant problems with freight trains. In
particular, your obsession with 3-axle loco trucks is misplaced.

Just as a lot of the Americans who post here could do well to learn
about railroads outside of their country, you could benefit from better
knowledge of our practices.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 21:12 GMT
> Greg Procter spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> None of what you listed above have much of anything to do with Amtrak's
> problems, or even with any significant problems with freight trains.

Err, I may not know much, but I do know that poorly maintained, uneven
mialigned track isn't somewhere you want to run 300km/hr trains.

> In
> particular, your obsession with 3-axle loco trucks is misplaced.

Me and the rest of the world.

> Just as a lot of the Americans who post here could do well to learn
> about railroads outside of their country, you could benefit from better
> knowledge of our practices.

What would be the benefit, other than you not being able to arge the
unarguable?

> --
> Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
> (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)
David Nebenzahl - 28 May 2007 22:53 GMT
Greg Procter spake thus:

>>Greg Procter spake thus:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Err, I may not know much, but I do know that poorly maintained, uneven
> mialigned track isn't somewhere you want to run 300km/hr trains.

You're talking about high-speed rail, which the US has never even made a
pretense of having (well, except for, possibly, Acela in the Northeast
Corridor, which isn't really high-speed, compared with, say, TGV).
Besides which, freight, which makes up the overwhelming majority of rail
traffic in most corridors here, never moves anywhere near that fast.

It's true that there are *some* stretches of "poorly maintained, uneven
and misaligned" track here, but most of it is sufficient for our
standards (i.e., 79 mph limits in most places).

Again, nobody's claiming that the US has anywhere near world-class rail
service, but there's no point in just making up stuff about how bad you
*think* it is, a subject you're clearly out of your depth in.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Greg Procter - 29 May 2007 00:34 GMT
> Greg Procter spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Besides which, freight, which makes up the overwhelming majority of rail
> traffic in most corridors here, never moves anywhere near that fast.

Ok, 300km was overstating the situation ;-)
Substitute 100km/hr  (60 mph)

Err, I may not know much, but I do know that poorly maintained, uneven
misaligned track isn't somewhere you want to run 100km/hr trains.

> It's true that there are *some* stretches of "poorly maintained, uneven
> and misaligned" track here, but most of it is sufficient for our
> standards (i.e., 79 mph limits in most places).

Sure, I've heard comments from people who've ridden on Amtrak trains in
the last decade - the constant theme is how badly they ride, especially
when they are actually moving! (that and the ficticious timetables)

> Again, nobody's claiming that the US has anywhere near world-class rail
> service, but there's no point in just making up stuff about how bad you
> *think* it is, a subject you're clearly out of your depth in.

So why are you commenting?

Regards,
Greg.P.
Mark Newton - 29 May 2007 02:40 GMT
>>> Which just shows *your* ignorance of North American railroad
>>> practice. None of what you listed above have much of anything to
>>> do with Amtrak's problems, or even with any significant problems
>>> with freight trains.

> It's true that there are *some* stretches of "poorly maintained,
> uneven and misaligned" track here, but most of it is sufficient for
> our standards (i.e., 79 mph limits in most places).

Not so fast, David. That 79mph limit is for track that meets FRA Track
Safety Standard Class 4, and also meets the FRA signalling system
requirements - block signals or TCS.

That being the case, the 79mph for passenger trains does not apply in
*most* places...
Steve Caple - 28 May 2007 22:35 GMT
> 3 axle bogie locomotives

This does seem to be your favorite bogey-man.  What, pray tell, given the
lower axle loading for a given size of loco that more axles would lead to,
would make three axle power trucks more destructive than two axle trucks?

Signature

Steve

Greg Procter - 29 May 2007 00:28 GMT
> > 3 axle bogie locomotives
>
> This does seem to be your favorite bogey-man.  What, pray tell, given the
> lower axle loading for a given size of loco that more axles would lead to,
> would make three axle power trucks more destructive than two axle trucks?

- Flange to rail angle of outer axles.
- side pressure of three axles against rails on curves.

But don't just take my word for it, check out modern loco designs around
the world.  The only three axle bogie locos being built in the last
twenty years are US type heavy drag locos intended for slow speeds.

Regards,
Greg.P.
Steve Caple - 29 May 2007 08:10 GMT
> - Flange to rail angle of outer axles.
> - side pressure of three axles against rails on curves.

Man, those 4-12-2's must have really torn up those tight curves.

Signature

Steve

Mark Newton - 29 May 2007 13:39 GMT
>>- Flange to rail angle of outer axles.
>>- side pressure of three axles against rails on curves.

> Man, those 4-12-2's must have really torn up those tight curves.

Well, Steve, initially, they did. Eight engines, 9700-9707 were
delivered to the OWR&N, but did such damage to the curves on the Oregon
lines between Huntington & Reith they were quickly sold to the UP in
1929. And it's worth noting that the 9000s had lateral motion devices on
the leading coupled axle, and the 4th coupled axle flangeless.
Throughout their operating life there were limits on where they could go.

As I wrote earlier, as strange as it seems, Greg is basically correct.

Cheers,

Mark.
Greg Procter - 29 May 2007 18:46 GMT
> > - Flange to rail angle of outer axles.
> > - side pressure of three axles against rails on curves.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> --
>  Steve

Yes.
However, if you look at the way the driver wheelbase was constructed
most of the axles had side-play.
You might also notice that few railways had 12 coupled steam locos.
Wouldn't you think that a twelve coupled would be preferable to a double
six coupled Mallet???
Robert Small - 31 May 2007 23:45 GMT
>> > 3 axle bogie locomotives
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>- Flange to rail angle of outer axles.
>- side pressure of three axles against rails on curves.

Since the "side pressure" is a function of the engine weight, it would
be the same for a single axle, two axle or three axle truck.
In fact the 3 axle truck would be better because the forces are
distributed over three contact points rather than two.

>But don't just take my word for it, check out modern loco designs around
>the world.  The only three axle bogie locos being built in the last
>twenty years are US type heavy drag locos intended for slow speeds.

Pretty much all of the ZA main line diesels are 6 axle units (C-C)
mainly to reduce axle loadings.

Signature

Bob Small

Mark Newton - 29 May 2007 01:52 GMT
>>3 axle bogie locomotives
>
> This does seem to be your favorite bogey-man.  What, pray tell, given the
> lower axle loading for a given size of loco that more axles would lead to,
> would make three axle power trucks more destructive than two axle trucks?

Greater lateral forces on curves due to the long rigid wheelbase and
excessive rail-head wear, which is why both GE and EMD have been
developing radial-axle trucks. I  know it seems Greg has a bee in his
bonnet about this, but he is correct.
Jon Miller - 27 May 2007 16:36 GMT
>Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?<
> No, they are still here. But we are way past the heydays of railroads.<

   Well yes and no.  It depends on what you are talking about freight or
passenger.  In Europe as land area is small and people are congested rail
still works very good.  In the US and I suspect in China, etc. where land
mass is huge most freight is rail and passenger service tends to be air.
   In the US passenger cars are still around in huge numbers.  But as the
price of fuel keeps climbing as some point in time the passenger car _might_
become a very different object.  Not in my lifetime but soon.
   Currently more tonnage is moved by rail then any other means of
transportation and it will stay that way.  We use trucks for smaller items
like mail and packages but have you noticed the shipping rates (UPS, etc.)
go up every year based on cost of fuel (diesel).  What we have gotten use to
is rapid package delivery.  In the future we will probably decide to wait an
extra week or two to save 4 or 5 times the shipping costs and REA might make
a huge comeback.
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 22:38 GMT
> >Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?<
> > No, they are still here. But we are way past the heydays of railroads.<
>
>     Well yes and no.  It depends on what you are talking about freight or
> passenger.  In Europe as land area is small and people are congested rail
> still works very good.  In the US and I suspect in China,

Did you overlook "hard-class"? Tourist transport may well be by air, but
most people travel by train.

> etc. where land
> mass is huge most freight is rail and passenger service tends to be air.
>     In the US passenger cars are still around in huge numbers.  But as the
> price of fuel keeps climbing as some point in time the passenger car _might_
> become a very different object.  Not in my lifetime but soon.

You're 90?

>     Currently more tonnage is moved by rail then any other means of
> transportation and it will stay that way.  We use trucks for smaller items
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> extra week or two to save 4 or 5 times the shipping costs and REA might make
> a huge comeback.
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 22:28 GMT
> >> Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?
> >
> >Open your eyes, and look beyond the US. No need for a comeback, railways
> >never went away.
>
> No, they are still here. But we are way past the heydays of railroads.

The heyday was before roads and air transport became a major force.
Rising fuel prices will push the advantage back to the more economic
rail.
The US will probably hold out longer than the rest of us because your
oil reserves and warmongering allow some control of oil prices, but the
rest of us can see the light and feel the pinch.
Spender - 28 May 2007 07:22 GMT
>The US will probably hold out longer than the rest of us because your
>oil reserves and warmongering allow some control of oil prices, but the
>rest of us can see the light and feel the pinch.

I didn't know the U.S. controlled oil prices. OPEC might disagree with
that.
Paul Newhouse - 28 May 2007 07:47 GMT
>>The US will probably hold out longer than the rest of us because your
>>oil reserves and warmongering allow some control of oil prices, but the
>>rest of us can see the light and feel the pinch.
>
> I didn't know the U.S. controlled oil prices. OPEC might disagree with
> that.

Greg is just venting against the US, with his typical "the US is evil so it's
ok to invent, twist and misrepresent facts" rant, because we won't buy his
mutton.  

Paul
--
Excuse me, I'll be right back.  I have to log onto a server in Romania
and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information
before they suspend my accounts.

Working the rockie road of the G&PX
Steve Caple - 28 May 2007 10:47 GMT
> Greg is just venting against the US, with his typical "the US is evil so it's
> ok to invent, twist and misrepresent facts" rant, because we won't buy his
> mutton.

I'm a bit pissed myself that clean NZ lamb isn't easier to get here than
the made and adulterated in the USA hormone laced product.

Signature

Steve

Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 16:43 GMT
> > Greg is just venting against the US, with his typical "the US is evil so it's
> > ok to invent, twist and misrepresent facts" rant, because we won't buy his
> > mutton.
>
> I'm a bit pissed myself that clean NZ lamb isn't easier to get here than
> the made and adulterated in the USA hormone laced product.

You set a very low quota for our lamb - still, what else can one expect
from a socialist country?
Paul Newhouse - 28 May 2007 17:04 GMT
>> Greg is just venting against the US, with his typical "the US is evil so it's
>> ok to invent, twist and misrepresent facts" rant, because we won't buy his
>> mutton.
>
> I'm a bit pissed myself that clean NZ lamb isn't easier to get here than
> the made and adulterated in the USA hormone laced product.

Steve,

Does that lead you directly to the conclusion that the US is evil and
responsible for all the world's ills?   Which is where it leads Greg.

Paul
--
Excuse me, I'll be right back.  I have to log onto a server in Romania
and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information
before they suspend my accounts.

Working the rockie road of the G&PX
Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 17:13 GMT
> >> Greg is just venting against the US, with his typical "the US is evil so it's
> >> ok to invent, twist and misrepresent facts" rant, because we won't buy his
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Paul
> --

Paul, can you not understand the difference between a nation, and a
nation's actions?
I can.

Regards,
Greg.P.
Steve Caple - 28 May 2007 18:31 GMT
> Does that lead you directly to the conclusion that the US is evil and
> responsible for all the world's ills?

No, just the Bushies, the NeoCons, the NAM, and the Eastern financial elite
rulng class.  

Signature

Steve

Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 16:41 GMT
> >>The US will probably hold out longer than the rest of us because your
> >>oil reserves and warmongering allow some control of oil prices, but the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> ok to invent, twist and misrepresent facts" rant, because we won't buy his
> mutton.

You didn't take over Iraq???
Spender - 28 May 2007 21:10 GMT
>> >>The US will probably hold out longer than the rest of us because your
>> >>oil reserves and warmongering allow some control of oil prices, but the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>You didn't take over Iraq???

No. Iraq has an elected government. But the oil has nothing to do with it
anyway. Iraqi oil will still be placed on the commodity market. Even if the
U.S. government did get some cash from that, they certainly ain't going to
pass the savings on to U.S. citizens.
Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 21:33 GMT
> >> >>The US will probably hold out longer than the rest of us because your
> >> >>oil reserves and warmongering allow some control of oil prices, but the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> No. Iraq has an elected government.

I guess you have to believe that.

> But the oil has nothing to do with it
> anyway.

LOL.

> Iraqi oil will still be placed on the commodity market.

Iraqi oil wasn't on the commodity market.

> Even if the
> U.S. government did get some cash from that, they certainly ain't going to
> pass the savings on to U.S. citizens.

Think a bit wider - if Iraqi oil wasn't on the commodity market then
there would now be a world shortage = higher prices.
The US, being the biggest waster of oil is the most reliant on oil
prices remaining artificially low.
Anyway, we're wandering from railway politics to politics.

Greg.P.
David Nebenzahl - 28 May 2007 21:59 GMT
Spender spake thus:

>>>>>The US will probably hold out longer than the rest of us because your
>>>>>oil reserves and warmongering allow some control of oil prices, but the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> U.S. government did get some cash from that, they certainly ain't going to
> pass the savings on to U.S. citizens.

Well, leaving aside the gross absurdity of your statement about Iraq's
"elected" government, you've got it wrong. Forget about "cheap" oil:
think about getting *enough* oil. That's what it's all about (stated as
"strategic interests"). And of course the gov't doesn't set oil prices;
that's done by the folks who *really* run things around here.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Spender - 29 May 2007 05:55 GMT
>Spender spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>"strategic interests"). And of course the gov't doesn't set oil prices;
>that's done by the folks who *really* run things around here.

I'm always a little curious that some people seem to trust the last Iraqi
election less than the previous ones where Saddam Hussein received 100% of
the vote.

As for oil use, China and India are no slouches.
Greg Procter - 29 May 2007 06:20 GMT
> >Spender spake thus:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> election less than the previous ones where Saddam Hussein received 100% of
> the vote.

Why would you trust any "election" in an occupied country where the
foreign occupation forces choose the politicians and only allow limited
numbers of people to vote? Especially when said occupation forces still
run the country?

> As for oil use, China and India are no slouches.

Very true, but at their present usage they might equal one US state and
at present rate of increase match the US today around 2207.
Spender - 29 May 2007 20:28 GMT
>> I'm always a little curious that some people seem to trust the last Iraqi
>> election less than the previous ones where Saddam Hussein received 100% of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>numbers of people to vote? Especially when said occupation forces still
>run the country?

I don't buy the idea that the voters were chosen. In fact it seemed to have
been more open that previous elections. Some varieties of Muslims risked
their lives to vote.

I still don't think we'll end up doing any good there in the end. The
Iraqis have to change themselves, we can't do it for them. France rendered
assistance during the American revolution, but that was long after the
colonists had started the war, and it was merely assistance.

Of course France rendered assistance to the South during the Civil War (and
for the same reasons - economic interests), and would have offered more had
the Mexicans not kicked their a.ses.

The one thing we can learn from history is that nobody ever learns from
history.

>> As for oil use, China and India are no slouches.
>
>Very true, but at their present usage they might equal one US state and
>at present rate of increase match the US today around 2207.

From what I have read, China will match the U.S. in oil use very soon.
Greg Procter - 29 May 2007 21:20 GMT
> >> I'm always a little curious that some people seem to trust the last Iraqi
> >> election less than the previous ones where Saddam Hussein received 100% of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I don't buy the idea that the voters were chosen.

I didn't say that - candidates were chosen by the foreign occupation
forces.

> In fact it seemed to have
> been more open that previous elections. Some varieties of Muslims risked
> their lives to vote.

That doesn't alter the fact that there were very few polling locations,
particularly in Kurd territory.

> I still don't think we'll end up doing any good there in the end.

Not a chance - your supporting Saddam Hussein in power for those decades
and your inability to understand the Iraqi people ensures that.

> The
> Iraqis have to change themselves, we can't do it for them.

Iraq has never been one people - your insistance on forcing them to be
what they aren't guarentees failure.

> France rendered
> assistance during the American revolution, but that was long after the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> From what I have read, China will match the U.S. in oil use very soon.

Yes, 2107.
Mark Newton - 29 May 2007 13:20 GMT
>>> No. Iraq has an elected government. But the oil has nothing to do
>>> with it anyway. Iraqi oil will still be placed on the commodity
>>> market. Even if the U.S. government did get some cash from that,
>>> they certainly ain't going to pass the savings on to U.S.
>>> citizens.

>> Well, leaving aside the gross absurdity of your statement about
>> Iraq's "elected" government, you've got it wrong. Forget about
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Iraqi election less than the previous ones where Saddam Hussein
> received 100% of the vote.

I'd trust neither. But then, Saddam Hussein *never* seriously pretended
Iraq was a parliamentary democracy.

I'm curious that someone who appears to be otherwise reasonably
intelligent would support such an abhorrent and dishonest enterprise as
the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Leaving aside the number of locals
who have been killed or maimed, there's an ever increasing number of
your own countrymen - kids, mostly - being killed or maimed there.

You reckon that's a good thing?

> As for oil use, China and India are no slouches.

Non sequitur. Neither of these countries has anything like the
per-capita private vehicle ownership that the US has, which is the main
driver of your oil consumption. And neither country has any form for
getting involved in other people's wars to protect their oil supplies.
Steve the Other - 30 May 2007 03:57 GMT
> I'd trust neither. But then, Saddam Hussein *never* seriously pretended
> Iraq was a parliamentary democracy.

If you didn't vote for the one candidate you were killed.  Seems serious
to me.

> And neither country has any for[u]m for getting involved in other people's
> wars to protect their oil supplies.

They haven't had to yet.  

Paul
--
Excuse me, I'll be right back.  I have to log onto a server in Romania
and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information
before they suspend my accounts.

Working the rockie road of the G&PX
Mark Newton - 30 May 2007 12:07 GMT
>> I'd trust neither. But then, Saddam Hussein *never* seriously
>> pretended Iraq was a parliamentary democracy.
>
> If you didn't vote for the one candidate you were killed.  Seems
> serious to me.

As I stated before, no-one, least of all the the Iraqis, pretended the
place was a democracy.

>> And neither country has any for[u]m for getting involved in other
>> people's wars to protect their oil supplies.

Form, not "forum". Form in this case means you've done it before. You
know, prior convictions?

> They haven't had to yet.

Good on yer! At least there's one of you here willing to acknowledge
reality.
Mark Newton - 29 May 2007 01:28 GMT
>>> Greg is just venting against the US, with his typical "the US is
>>> evil so it's ok to invent, twist and misrepresent facts" rant,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> No. Iraq has an elected government. But the oil has nothing to do
> with it anyway.

Jesus, are you that naive? Are you that stupid?

Iraq has a huge occupation army in it, the majority being US troops.

Hadn't you noticed that?
Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 16:40 GMT
> >The US will probably hold out longer than the rest of us because your
> >oil reserves and warmongering allow some control of oil prices, but the
> >rest of us can see the light and feel the pinch.
>
> I didn't know the U.S. controlled oil prices. OPEC might disagree with
> that.

Well, I wasn't intending to suggest that the US had total control but
you have a major influence, buying, selling and taking over oil
producing nations to keep supplies relatively constant.
Greg Procter - 27 May 2007 22:24 GMT
> > Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?
>
> Open your eyes, and look beyond the US. No need for a comeback, railways
> never went away.

(W)European railways have lost their position as the major goods haulers
- their total tonnage has stayed much the same since WWII but the
percentage is barely in double figures.

Regards,
Greg.P.
Mark Newton - 28 May 2007 06:49 GMT
>>> Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big
>>> comeback?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> haulers - their total tonnage has stayed much the same since WWII but
> the percentage is barely in double figures.

Agreed. But then I wasn't just referring just to goods, or Western
European railways alone. Spender knows a little about US railways, and
mistakenly attempts to extrapolate that very limited knowledge onto the
rest of the world.
Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 16:33 GMT
>  >> Spender wrote:
>  >>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> mistakenly attempts to extrapolate that very limited knowledge onto the
> rest of the world.

Europe has vaguely the same population as the USa so it's reasonable to
compare the two, whereas a generalization about the 95% of the World
that isn't the USa is well, fairly broad. ;-)
Jon Miller - 28 May 2007 18:07 GMT
>Europe has vaguely the same population as the USa so it's reasonable to
compare the two<
   I don't know the answer so the question is, how is land area by
comparison?  G
Greg Procter - 28 May 2007 21:37 GMT
> >Europe has vaguely the same population as the USa so it's reasonable to
> compare the two<
>     I don't know the answer so the question is, how is land area by
> comparison?  G

I don't have an atlas handy, but working from roughly equivalent
populations and much of Europe having 2-3 times the population density
I'd guess that it has circa 1/2 - 1/3 the area.
;-)

Greg.P.
Spender - 28 May 2007 21:13 GMT
>> Agreed. But then I wasn't just referring just to goods, or Western
>> European railways alone. Spender knows a little about US railways, and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>compare the two, whereas a generalization about the 95% of the World
>that isn't the USa is well, fairly broad. ;-)

I never extrapolated anything to the whole world anyway. Most seemed to
understand I was speaking about America.
Mark Newton - 29 May 2007 02:47 GMT
>>>Agreed. But then I wasn't just referring just to goods, or Western
>>>European railways alone. Spender knows a little about US railways, and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I never extrapolated anything to the whole world anyway. Most seemed to
> understand I was speaking about America.

You wrote;

"No, they are still here. But we are way past the heydays of railroads",

and ;

"Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?"

If, as you now claim,  you were speaking about America only, you didn't
specify that in either post. But then , neither statement is true for
America, either.
Pac Man - 27 May 2007 21:27 GMT
> Do you really feel that railroads are going to make a big comeback?

   In US and Canada, railroads have already made a big comeback, both
passenger and freight.  If you compare today vs. the low point of North
American railroading (IOW, the 1970's), a lot more goods and people travel
by rail.  Freight RR's are actually attractive to Wall St. again (who da
thunk that?).
   Deregulation, containerization, modern labor agreements, and public
funding of passenger trains (not just Amtrak) has helped bring the RR's back
from the brink of total federalization.  If you have the time, pick up a
book called, "Railroads Triumphant".  It's about what almost did in North
American railroading and what has brought them back (even if it's a little
out of date by now).

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
What have you done to save r.m.r today?
*************
Greg Procter - 26 May 2007 05:05 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> was built is one of the things that makes something a toy or not...not the
> fact that it's a model.

Some of those items are/are built before the full sized article - that
makes the test item the original and the full sized nuclear reactor the
model! (or toy, if you will)
(that didn't help, but what the ... ;-)

Greg.P.
David Nebenzahl - 26 May 2007 06:41 GMT
Pac Man spake thus:

> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> was built is one of the things that makes something a toy or not...not the
> fact that it's a model.

You're right; I forgot about this class of models and should have
excluded them from my categorization as "toys".

Apart from that, I still stand by my contention that they (models, not
books, 747s and works of art) are toys. However, I'll refrain from
calling your $3,000 custom brass model a toy ... even if it is.

Signature

Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Spender - 26 May 2007 23:40 GMT
>Pac Man spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>books, 747s and works of art) are toys. However, I'll refrain from
>calling your $3,000 custom brass model a toy ... even if it is.

So in the end, a toy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

That makes sense. After all, to many men a woman can be beautiful, a model,
and a toy at the same time. Then there is friend, object of love,
companion, etc.

Still, if you possess an extraordinary model train, or an exceedingly
beautiful woman, and don't play with either of them... something's wrong.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.