 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / May 2008Resurgance of the railroads
There's an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002407.html > There's an interesting article on the front page of the Washington > Post. (Snip link) And as ton/mile efficiency becomes more and more important as gas and diesel prices go through the roof, you're likely to see the eventual resurgence of (gasp) passenger service and lightrail transportation systems as well. Yay! -Pete >> There's an interesting article on the front page of the Washington >> Post. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -Pete Agreed, but how long would the high price of gas have to continue OR how high would the price of gas have to go before peoplw are willing to change their ways? Where I live, there was an informal survey completed a couple of years ago that basically concluded that people wouldn't be willing to change their schedules to take advantage of public transportation. If they couldn't go where they wanted to go when they wanted to go, they weren't interested. We have really become used to our lifestyle; I think it would take quite some time to change. And, since it would take quite a bit of time to create the infrastructure for bonafide rail passenger service, I'd think that there would either be a new solution to the energy problem OR the current cost of fuel may drop significantly. But it is an interesting thought... : ) dlm >> And as ton/mile efficiency becomes more and more important as gas and >> diesel prices go through the roof, you're likely to see the eventual [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > high would the price of gas have to go before people are willing to change > their ways? Easy one. When enough people have to start choosing between food and gasoline, odds are that they'll choose food every time, and there are plenty of folks out there in America who are already having to make decisions about that choice. Gas is very unlikely to do anything but steadily rise in price for the foreseeable future due to the economic booms in China and India that will produce something like 2 *billion* new automotive/gasoline customers quite soon; and the concomitant rise in food prices due to increased production and transportation costs will do the same thing to inflationary food prices. At the rate things are developing now, look for gas to sell at between five and ten dollars a gallon within a few years -if that long- and look for irate Americans to demand that alternative transportation methods be found rapidly when skyrocketing gas and food prices start to seriously pinch. -Pete On 4/22/2008 11:42 AM P. Roehling spake thus: > At the rate things are developing now, look for gas to sell at between five > and ten dollars a gallon within a few years -if that long- and look for > irate Americans to demand that alternative transportation methods be found > rapidly when skyrocketing gas and food prices start to seriously pinch. High gas prices, on the order of what you descibe here, could be one of the best things to happen in the world at this point. (At least so far as transportation policy goes.) Notice I said *could* be.  SignatureThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill > On 4/22/2008 11:42 AM P. Roehling spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Notice I said *could* be. Hmmm... I think THAT one deserves an explanation. dlm >> On 4/22/2008 11:42 AM P. Roehling spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > dlm Start with: "North Americans have been using too much fuel." Signaturewolf k. > Start with: "North Americans have been using too much fuel." And then add, "with Europeans following close behind; and with India and China doing their collective best to catch up with the both of them". The time to start seriously researching and developing alternative energy/transportation resources is *before* a critical shortage of the conventional ones hits you right between the eyes. > > Start with: "North Americans have been using too much fuel." New Zealanders, who aren't that different to yanks, other than having half the population density and therefore twice the distance to travel, use about one third the US consumption, per head of population. > And then add, "with Europeans following close behind; About half the rate per head. > and with India and > China doing their collective best to catch up with the both of them". But currently using about 1% of US rates per head. You need a sense of proportion. > The time to start seriously researching and developing alternative > energy/transportation resources is *before* a critical shortage of the > conventional ones hits you right between the eyes. You could also try using less energy - everyone in the world does that better than the US. Regards, Greg.P. On 4/26/2008 11:38 PM Greg Procter spake thus: >>> Start with: "North Americans have been using too much fuel." > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But currently using about 1% of US rates per head. While I agree with the gist of your comments, I seriously question this figure you seem to have pulled out of ... thin air. While China and India, even with their rampant headlong rush towards industrialization, still may use less energy per capita than us (U.S.), there's no way that it's only 1% of what we use. I'm going to have to ask you for a cite on that one. In fact, I'd say that in a few years, both of those places could easily surpass the US in sheer extravagance of energy usage (and wastage). None of which changes the fact that the US is still the world's biggest energy hog. SignatureThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill > On 4/26/2008 11:38 PM Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > In fact, I'd say that in a few years, both of those places could easily > surpass the US in sheer extravagance of energy usage (and wastage). That is a physical impossibility - there is not that amount of oil, or other sources of energy, in the world. > None of which changes the fact that the US is still the world's biggest > energy hog. Hey, don't dispair, the rest of us are trying really hard to catch up! We never will, but if you cut your usage by 75% you'll be in line with the rest of us energy hogs. Greg.P. > On 4/26/2008 11:38 PM Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > it's only 1% of what we use. I'm going to have to ask you for a cite on > that one. http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/67018.htm "China's auto fleet reaches 10 million." Population 1,4 billion. That's 0.7/1000pop. http://www.econ.nyu.edu/dept/courses/gately/DGS_Vehicle%20Ownership_2007.pdf US ownership 850/1000pop. or Chinese ownership to US ownership = 0.823% Sorry, my 1% was a bit optomistic. You really need that dose of realisim and a bit less of that yank political brainwashing. Regards, Greg.P. On 4/28/2008 1:47 PM Greg Procter spake thus: >> While I agree with the gist of your comments, I seriously question this >> figure you seem to have pulled out of ... thin air. While China and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "China's auto fleet reaches 10 million." Population 1,4 billion. > That's 0.7/1000pop. That source is only 5 years out of date; try 57 million autos: http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/03/10/car-ownership-up-32-in-2007 That puts it closer to 4%. SignatureThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill > On 4/28/2008 1:47 PM Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That source is only 5 years out of date; try 57 million autos: Greg cherry picked some usless old information to prop up his anti US rant??? NOOooo say it ain't so. > http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/03/10/car-ownership-up-32-in-2007 > > That puts it closer to 4%. Signature-- 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 On 4/28/2008 9:01 PM Paul Newhouse spake thus: >> On 4/28/2008 1:47 PM Greg Procter spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Greg cherry picked some usless old information to prop up his anti US > rant??? NOOooo say it ain't so. Well, like I said, I agree with the gist of what he said; he was wrong about this particular number, but it doesn't refute the fact that we (U.S.) are the world's energy hogs. SignatureThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill > > On 4/28/2008 1:47 PM Greg Procter spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > That puts it closer to 4%. Ok, so I used info that was out of date, so we had better start again: - US has 255 million registered vehicles for 300 million people. - China has 57 million registered vehicles for 1400 million people. When China has circa 1190 million vehicles, you yanks can start whining that the Chinese are _as bad_ as you. Until then, _you_ are the problem. Get real! >> > On 4/28/2008 1:47 PM Greg Procter spake thus: >> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Get real! Keeping in mind that a fair number of those vehicles are taxi, bus, and trucking fleets. Cheers, John > On 4/28/2008 1:47 PM Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That puts it closer to 4%. Oh WOW! China has 4% of the US's automobiles per head of population - they are responsible for all the oil usage! Now do you see how you're conned by US political brain washing? I guess not. On 4/29/2008 11:04 AM Greg Procter spake thus: > Oh WOW! China has 4% of the US's automobiles per head of population - > they are responsible for all the oil usage! That's 4% and rising fast: just look at the difference between your source of 5 years ago and the situation today. At this rate, they'll easily catch up with us in a decade or so. SignatureThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill > On 4/29/2008 11:04 AM Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > source of 5 years ago and the situation today. At this rate, they'll > easily catch up with us in a decade or so. So essentially you're complaining that an economically backward country is improving it's lot and has circa 20% equivalent of the oil wasting vehicles the US has for 5 times the population! Perhaps the US could reduce it's fleet by 20% to compensate? Meanwhile, the price of oil will increase 1000% over the next decade and I'll be spending more on petrol to get to the supermarket than I will be on groceries. Regards, Greg.P. > > On 4/28/2008 1:47 PM Greg Procter spake thus: > Oh WOW! China has 4% of the US's automobiles per head of population - > they are responsible for all the oil usage! > Now do you see how you're conned by US political brain washing? > I guess not.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - As long as you're worshipping meaningless statistics, why don't you compare the two based on GDP of the respective nations? Seems to me that is as relevant as any sort of per capita comparison. China is "growing" in many ways to catch up with the US, but they aren't nearly close in terms of personal cars. That doesn't mean they won't catch up... and despite the huge gap in productivity and standard of living, their home grown pollution problems appear to be much worse than ours. Explain please? Is oil use now a sin unto itself? Ü On 5/1/2008 10:25 AM eüphemism spake thus: >>> On 4/28/2008 1:47 PM Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Is oil use now a sin unto itself? Good question, and I think the answer is "yes". At least the developed world *says* it's trying to get away from oil as fast as possible (even though there are no real signs of this happening any time soon), leaving the developing world to continue to pollute the planet at record levels. In reality, we are still an oil-based world and probably will remain so for a long time to come. SignatureThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill > On 5/1/2008 10:25 AM eüphemism spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > In reality, we are still an oil-based world and probably will remain so > for a long time to come. The future has to be an ever increasing cost of oil as more and more people want to use it. The US cannot hope to artificially hold down the price by invading and occupying ever more oil producing nations. > > On 5/1/2008 10:25 AM e�phemism spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The latest invasion and occupation doesn't seem to have held down the price any. > > > On 5/1/2008 10:25 AM e�phemism spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > The latest invasion and occupation doesn't seem to have held down the > price any. There are so many possible answers! ;-) eg. Where do you think the price would be now without Iraqi oil? or; Doesn't that demonstrate US strategic incompetence? or (add your own) >> > > On 5/1/2008 10:25 AM e�phemism spake thus: >> > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > or; Doesn't that demonstrate US strategic incompetence? > or (add your own) If it's true as has been alleged that certain Americans invaded Iraq for the procurement of oil, it's to their advantage if the price of crude goes up. Same goes for government taxes. Hey, it's a windfall all around, except for someone who just payed $45,000, for something which may get 15 mpg on a good day. Or, that new motorhome which gets 6 mpg. Cheers, John > >> > > On 5/1/2008 10:25 AM e�phemism spake thus: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Cheers, > John This may come across as anti-Iraq, but what else do they have that any yank would want? Is there a shortage of dried dates in the US? Holiday home development in Iraq? Export/import opportunities for sand? ... What did I miss? Greg.P. > > > On 4/28/2008 1:47 PM Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > As long as you're worshipping meaningless statistics, why don't you > compare the two based on GDP of the respective nations? Why would one do that? The meaningful comparison of vehicle usage can either be in total or in terms of per hhead of population. Either way, China is so much lower as to be irrelevant. > Seems to me > that is as relevant as any sort of per capita comparison. In what sense - do vehicles operate on a dollar basis? ie the more dollars a country has the more oil wastage? > China is > "growing" in many ways to catch up with the US, but they aren't nearly > close in terms of personal cars. That doesn't mean they won't catch > up... Of course they can't "catch up" in terms of vehicles per head of population - there isn't that much ongoing supply of oil in the World. > and despite the huge gap in productivity and standard of > living, their home grown pollution problems appear to be much worse > than ours. Explain please? Compare US polution in industrial cities at a comparable stage of development. > Is oil use now a sin unto itself? There is only a finite amount of oil in the World, once it's gone it's gone. Wastage of that resource is a sin against humanity. > On 4/26/2008 11:38 PM Greg Procter spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > it's only 1% of what we use. I'm going to have to ask you for a cite on > that one. Um I think the US uses 25%. of the world's annual energy usage. According to the wikipedia article on energy use in the US, for 2004, the world used 5.6 TW, and of that, the use used 1.34... and that's just in oil. mark On 4/28/2008 6:53 PM mark spake thus: >> On 4/26/2008 11:38 PM Greg Procter spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the wikipedia article on energy use in the US, for 2004, the world used 5.6 > TW, and of that, the use used 1.34... and that's just in oil. You'll have to do better than that; Wikipedia (the "encyclopedia" that any idiot can edit) is not what I would call a "reliable source" (to use their own jargon). Not that I didn't also say in the post you responded to that the U.S. is still the world's biggest energy hog. SignatureAny 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) >> On 4/26/2008 11:38 PM Greg Procter spake thus: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > mark Keep in mind that crude oil consumption doesn't necessarily mean road vehicle. That includes air transport and power utilities as well. Cheers, John >> Start with: "North Americans have been using too much fuel." > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > energy/transportation resources is *before* a critical shortage of the > conventional ones hits you right between the eyes. True, but all neo-capitalist gummints have drastically cut research, on the grounds that "The Market Will Take care Of It." And private companies won't undertake such research, since it won't pay off in the next couple of quarters, so they would fail in their responsibility to shovel money at the shareholders. The notion that "The Market" will "allocate resources rationally" is one of the most pernicious supertsitions ever invented. Economics is not science, and never has been. At best, it's been a handicapping system for the stockmarket; at worst it's been a prop to the ruling classes' ewxploitaion of everything and everybody. And if you think that statement excludes the leftists, think again - what do you think the Marxist economists were doing in the Soviet Union? Signaturewolf k. >>> Start with: "North Americans have been using too much fuel." >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > excludes the leftists, think again - what do you think the Marxist > economists were doing in the Soviet Union? It seems auto makers can squander small fortunes on making less than practical vehicles. But, they are far from alone as the fast food industry can rack up a lot of waste, too. For those who live in a democracy, being there permits a degree of freedom regarding waste. Cheers, John >>> On 4/22/2008 11:42 AM P. Roehling spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Start with: "North Americans have been using too much fuel." There is a reason why many citizens in China ride bicycles - cheap to acquire, cheap to use, and easy to store. I believe few Americans truly appreciate what is meant by fuel consumption. Nearly any racing event is about big engines and big horsepower. It all requires fuel. Cheers, John >>>> On 4/22/2008 11:42 AM P. Roehling spake thus: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Cheers, > John Back in the 70s (during the 70s fuel crisis) some sports magazine did a survey of the fuel consumption associated with various sports. Baseball and football had the highest. Partly because of all the team travel, but mostly because of the fan travel. I doubt that the figures have chnaged much since then. HTH Signaturewolf k. > >>> On 4/22/2008 11:42 AM P. Roehling spake thus: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > appreciate what is meant by fuel consumption. Nearly any racing event is > about big engines and big horsepower. It all requires fuel. And that's just the traffic lights! On 4/28/2008 7:50 AM John Fraser spake thus: > There is a reason why many citizens in China ride bicycles - cheap to > acquire, cheap to use, and easy to store. I believe few Americans truly > appreciate what is meant by fuel consumption. Nearly any racing event is > about big engines and big horsepower. It all requires fuel. I think your observation is based on a very common misconception, one seemingly shared by G. Procter and others here, that China still has millions of bicycles in the streets of its large cities. This once-romantic image, of Beijing streets full of bikes and few cars, is now a thing of the past as the Chinese take to the roads in cars with a vengeance. Automobile traffic in Beijing is at LA levels of gridlock. SignatureThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill > On 4/28/2008 7:50 AM John Fraser spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > now a thing of the past as the Chinese take to the roads in cars with a > vengeance. Automobile traffic in Beijing is at LA levels of gridlock. Whether or not China has bicycles on the streets of it's main cities (obviously there are huge numbers of IC vehicles) the number of vehicles per head of population is about 1% of the figure of the USa. There are huge numbers of bicycles, just as there are in most cities of the world. In Asia, people use bicycles, foul two stroke motor cycles and three wheelers, trains, buses and at the very bottom of the list, private cars. Try viewing reality instead of creating your own US-centric version. Regards, Greg.P. > On 4/28/2008 7:50 AM John Fraser spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a thing of the past as the Chinese take to the roads in cars with a > vengeance. Automobile traffic in Beijing is at LA levels of gridlock. I'm not saying their automobile transport is rare or nonexistent. My sister & brother-in-law are there as teachers and they ride bicycles which is still much the norm in many communities. Cheers, John > > On 4/28/2008 7:50 AM John Fraser spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Cheers, > John I have to admit that the air polution over Beijing, as it's shown to us on TV, is impressive, but it's not all private cars speeding on motorways! Here in New Zealand our largest city, Auckland, suffers "gridlock" from time to time because the ring-road conceived in the 1960s/70s is only about 80% complete and public transport was always developed/not developed subject to private enterprise rules. What I'm getting at there is that if you stuff enough vehicles into a city you will get traffic problems, especially when the streets and traffic system were designed to cope with bicycles, rickshaws and the occassional government motorcade. Regards, Greg.P. |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2008 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.