daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 9th, 2012, 06:59 AM   #2301
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,534
Likes (Received): 21241

I guess you are missing the point. Just because you are taking a long trip, it doesn't mean "time means nothing". Especially because we are talking of freaking scheduled services, not some hiking expedition to Mont McKinley.

If I'm taking a 2h-train trip, is a 12 minutes delay acceptable just as in "deal with it"? I doubt. Why then so a proportional 2h delay on 20h service would be acceptable?

Think of people taking the train in the middle of the journey: should they just be prepared to sit idle for 1h45 waiting for a train that is late - for instance?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 9th, 2012, 12:11 PM   #2302
XAN_
Registered User
 
XAN_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,034
Likes (Received): 760

Quote:
Originally Posted by krnboy1009 View Post
Why the hell are you complaining? You took a train which you KNEW would take 20 hours. Its merely 2 hours late (compared to 20 hours it takes its nothing).

If you are in a hurry DONT TAKE THE TRAIN.

Goodness gracious.
Somehow Russian railways manage to run 24 hours trains across half of continent with less than half an hour punctuality.
Well, it have all trackage under single owner, iy may helps a bit, but it is separated from the passenger carrier (First Federal Passenger Corp.)
__________________
"I'm lost but still I know//There is another world"
-H. Kürsch, 1995
"Well, we all know there's no other side"
-H. Kürsch, 2002
XAN_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2012, 06:55 PM   #2303
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
If I'm taking a 2h-train trip, is a 12 minutes delay acceptable just as in "deal with it"? I doubt. Why then so a proportional 2h delay on 20h service would be acceptable?
For me a 12min delay in a 2h ride is completely meaningless. If done by car much more time could be wasted in a traffic jam or in a coffee break.

About the 2h in 20h, I think that for who makes start-to-end trips this is no big deal, you are right that for intermediary stops a 1h30 delay is terrible. So in this case indeed the train should have a better planning to avoid such delays in order to offer a decent service for the intermediary stops.
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2012, 07:29 PM   #2304
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodalvesdepaula View Post
Talkin' about Chicago freight train "crosstown" problem (NYT report):


There aren't no project to build a new railroad to freight train across Chicago Region by South, in 70 miles far from city? I think Union Pacific and BNSF could make a partnership with Norfolk Southern to use It railroads from Kansas City to Ohio, avoiding Chicago Metropolitan Area... Let's see this map below:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...go.html?ref=us

The Kansas City-Cleveland line don't have heavy traffic of freight trains (20 milions of ton.) and conect the "Eastern Coast Network" with Transcontinental Railroad. By the way, Kansas City don't have commuter train system and freight trains would have no problems to cross the city.

I believe It's cheaper pay the right of way to NS or transfer wagons in Kansas City than cross Chicago in a transcontinental freight trip.
Actually, the Kansas City area already is North America's 'second' nexus of freight railroading.

In the Chicago area, there are a couple of 'beltline' railroads, one called the Indiana Harbor Belt (IHB) and the other the former Elgin, Joliet and Eastern (EJ&E), the latter now part of CN (Canadian National). The east-west part of the EJ&E across Chicago's south suburbs would, IMHO, be the busiest freight railroad in the World (measured in both train frequency and tonnage) if it was open to use by all railroad operating companies on a non-discriminatory basis, likely needing at least four mainline tracks. For comparison, the nearby paralleling Borman/Kingery Expressway (I-80/94 by the Illinois-Indiana state line) is one of the, if not the, heaviest traffic volume truck/lorry highways anywhere in the World - eight lanes and a third to a half of all of the vehicles that use it are big-rig trucks/lorries on cross-country trips. As it stands, that EJ&E line is only a single mainline track and nearly all of that rail freight volume must transit closer 'in' to the city.

One of the sticking points with the USA's public on tax-financing of railroad infrastructure upgrade projects is that they are still completely *private* corporate entities, with the operating companies generally owning their own track infrastructure ("Why should WE help out these private corporations?"). IMHO, if North America's rails were organized like they are in much of the rest of the World (separate ownership of the trains vs. the track infrastructure), the public would be much more willing to use tax financing for upgrades.

Mike

Last edited by mgk920; May 9th, 2012 at 07:36 PM.
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2012, 08:20 PM   #2305
XAN_
Registered User
 
XAN_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,034
Likes (Received): 760

mgk920 why can't government of Chicago build a railroad from one intersection of different railroads to other major intersection, and than just sell timeslots to freight companies?
__________________
"I'm lost but still I know//There is another world"
-H. Kürsch, 1995
"Well, we all know there's no other side"
-H. Kürsch, 2002
XAN_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2012, 08:29 PM   #2306
Rodalvesdepaula
Scooter/motorbike lover
 
Rodalvesdepaula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sorocaba (SP), Brazil
Posts: 49,517
Likes (Received): 40848

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgk920 View Post
Actually, the Kansas City area already is North America's 'second' nexus of freight railroading.

In the Chicago area, there are a couple of 'beltline' railroads, one called the Indiana Harbor Belt (IHB) and the other the former Elgin, Joliet and Eastern (EJ&E), the latter now part of CN (Canadian National). The east-west part of the EJ&E across Chicago's south suburbs would, IMHO, be the busiest freight railroad in the World (measured in both train frequency and tonnage) if it was open to use by all railroad operating companies on a non-discriminatory basis, likely needing at least four mainline tracks. For comparison, the nearby paralleling Borman/Kingery Expressway (I-80/94 by the Illinois-Indiana state line) is one of the, if not the, heaviest traffic volume truck/lorry highways anywhere in the World - eight lanes and a third to a half of all of the vehicles that use it are big-rig trucks/lorries on cross-country trips. As it stands, that EJ&E line is only a single mainline track and nearly all of that rail freight volume must transit closer 'in' to the city.

One of the sticking points with the USA's public on tax-financing of railroad infrastructure upgrade projects is that they are still completely *private* corporate entities, with the operating companies generally owning their own track infrastructure ("Why should WE help out these private corporations?"). IMHO, if North America's rails were organized like they are in much of the rest of the World (separate ownership of the trains vs. the track infrastructure), the public would be much more willing to use tax financing for upgrades.

Mike
There isn't interest of Amtrak (or Metra) to build a "Chicago cross-city south belt railroad", to use for all freight railroads (Union Pacific, BNSF, NS, Soo Line, CSX...) with a little tax to maintenance? The Northeast Corridor is owned by Amtrak and many railroads use their tracks (CSX, NS, NJ Transit...). So, as a state-owned company, Amtrak could build a new railroad to avoid traffic of freight trains inside Chicago Metropolis because It could increase speed of transcontinental trains and reduce costs in transportation coast-to-coast.
__________________

Rodalvesdepaula no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 04:48 AM   #2307
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by XAN_ View Post
mgk920 why can't government of Chicago build a railroad from one intersection of different railroads to other major intersection, and than just sell timeslots to freight companies?
The City of Chicago ISN'T going to take massive amounts of taxpayers' dollars and invest them in a government owned railway. Your proposal isn't even on the Federal level, and even the Feds would never do such a thing.

This isn't the Socialist States of America.
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 01:50 PM   #2308
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgk920 View Post
One of the sticking points with the USA's public on tax-financing of railroad infrastructure upgrade projects is that they are still completely *private* corporate entities, with the operating companies generally owning their own track infrastructure ("Why should WE help out these private corporations?"). IMHO, if North America's rails were organized like they are in much of the rest of the World (separate ownership of the trains vs. the track infrastructure), the public would be much more willing to use tax financing for upgrades.
A separate authority to operate infrastructure that then would be used by the different rialroads should be possible though. Even in the US. That's how the Alameda corridor was built, after all.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 09:35 PM   #2309
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan Railer View Post
The City of Chicago ISN'T going to take massive amounts of taxpayers' dollars and invest them in a government owned railway. Your proposal isn't even on the Federal level, and even the Feds would never do such a thing.

This isn't the Socialist States of America.
We already do just that (government at any level ownership, maintenance and finance of their infrastructure) for the private trucking and bus companies (roads), private airlines (airports and ATC), private merchant marine carriers (seaports), etc - why not also for the private railroad operating companies?

Mike
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 12:36 AM   #2310
tosic
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 512
Likes (Received): 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan Railer View Post
The City of Chicago ISN'T going to take massive amounts of taxpayers' dollars and invest them in a government owned railway. Your proposal isn't even on the Federal level, and even the Feds would never do such a thing.

This isn't the Socialist States of America.
Socialism does exist in america you know?
tosic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012, 08:15 PM   #2311
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,450
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan Railer View Post
The City of Chicago ISN'T going to take massive amounts of taxpayers' dollars and invest them in a government owned railway. Your proposal isn't even on the Federal level, and even the Feds would never do such a thing.

This isn't the Socialist States of America.
So the government spending money on publicly owned infrastructure is socialist now is it? You ******* tea baggers are insane.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012, 08:58 PM   #2312
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Heh Heh -- maybe SSA is more representative, coz wouldn't Socialist be more alliant a term compared to United?


Today's :
Amtrak’s Montreal-N.Y. two-hour screening stop to be eliminated
__________________
.
hee hee
.

Last edited by trainrover; May 12th, 2012 at 09:07 PM.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 06:49 AM   #2313
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
So the government spending money on publicly owned infrastructure is socialist now is it? You ******* tea baggers are insane.
I never said it was a bad thing, NOR am I a "Tea-Bagger" (I'm quite liberal leaning actually) so watch your indiscriminate language and labeling. I merely stated that in a country with the ideals that America has, it would be a long shot before the government on the city level decided to invest taxpayers' dollars for a project of that magnitude as to build it's own railway line to connect freight junctions. Voters would NEVER approve of it.

I'm not saying that this is a BAD thing, and in fact, I'd like to see more government involvement in areas of transportation, especially rail. So WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgk920 View Post
We already do just that (government at any level ownership, maintenance and finance of their infrastructure) for the private trucking and bus companies (roads), private airlines (airports and ATC), private merchant marine carriers (seaports), etc - why not also for the private railroad operating companies?
Mike
And to respond to this, in a civil manner, I might add, railroads are a completely different situation when you compare them to the examples that you have given.

Roads are used by the public (personal cars and vans), which means the government is, you could say, obligated to keep them in a good state of repair with taxpayer dollars. Same situation with seaports and airports. The companies using them may be privately owned, but transport the public, so hence the Government has a stake in safety regs and upkeep with tax dollars.

Railroads on the other hand, especially freight owned railroads, do NOT transport people, unless the trackage is leased out to Amtrak (government owned), and even then, the track owner still has jurisdiction on repairs and upkeep (hence the whole slowing down of Amtrak trains in freight territory). Because the public does not have as direct a stake in railroads as they do in roads, sea, and air travel, it does not make sense for the Government to use the public's taxpayer dollars to directly intervene in an industry that is highly protective of its property and does not involve the public on a day to day basis. The voters would never go for it, and the politicians who propose it would be jeopardizing their re-election chances.
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 06:50 AM   #2314
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by tosic View Post
Socialism does exist in america you know?
To an extent, yes it does. But not that most Americans would admit, if you know what I mean.
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 02:58 PM   #2315
tosic
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 512
Likes (Received): 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan Railer View Post
To an extent, yes it does. But not that most Americans would admit, if you know what I mean.
That american league called the NFL is very socialist....not that americans would admit it
tosic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 03:02 PM   #2316
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,534
Likes (Received): 21241

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan Railer View Post
Railroads on the other hand, especially freight owned railroads, do NOT transport people, unless the trackage is leased out to Amtrak (government owned), and even then, the track owner still has jurisdiction on repairs and upkeep (hence the whole slowing down of Amtrak trains in freight territory). Because the public does not have as direct a stake in railroads as they do in roads, sea, and air travel, it does not make sense for the Government to use the public's taxpayer dollars to directly intervene in an industry that is highly protective of its property and does not involve the public on a day to day basis. The voters would never go for it, and the politicians who propose it would be jeopardizing their re-election chances.
Transportation of goods is as important as transportation of people! Just take a look of ports...
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 03:30 PM   #2317
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Transportation of goods is as important as transportation of people! Just take a look of ports...
Tell that to people who will be paying more taxes for government funded railway improvement / construction. Most will have a cow if this was proposed in earnest. It's just the way our society is; people won't want to pay for something that doesn't directly benefit them, regardless of how important or beneficial it may actually be.
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 04:28 PM   #2318
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 660
Likes (Received): 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by tosic View Post
That american league called the NFL is very socialist....not that americans would admit it
Haha, ohh, some do, but regardless, the NFL is entertainment for those people, so they could care less if it was Socialist. Completely different story there. As long as it's the team's wealth is redistributed, and not their personal wealth, people don't give a crap. Lovely world we live in, huh?
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 09:53 PM   #2319
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan Railer View Post
Haha, ohh, some do, but regardless, the NFL is entertainment for those people, so they could care less if it was Socialist. Completely different story there. As long as it's the team's wealth is redistributed, and not their personal wealth, people don't give a crap. Lovely world we live in, huh?
The NFL looks upon itself as an entire package (the league) competing in the free market against all of the other forms of entertainment, not the individual teams competing against other forms of entertainment (except in their own respective local markets). Their model - keep all of the teams equally strong financially and the 'on the field' competition between then will be very close, with any team being very capable of defeating any other team on any given weekend - and developing intensive, and hugely profitable, fan interest in the process.

As for 'third-party', including government, ownership of railroad infrastructure here in the USA, the State of Wisconsin already owns a significant percentage of the ROW and mainline track in the state - most of which that the state owns being currently leased to the Wisconsin and Southern railroad ('WSOR') for operations.

Mike
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2012, 12:39 AM   #2320
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,644
Likes (Received): 5757

Our priorities are misguided...extending trains to rural Maine

Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
marc, rail, train

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium