Are model trains "toys" or not?
|
|
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 79
|
|