How Did I Miss This One?

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:05:36 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>Exactly. The rail system in the USA is firmly planted in the 19th
>century. Government envolvement and union rules are probably my guess as
>to why.

Although I believe it's "involvement" that you meant to type, I think
we agree. Though remember, there's a lot of existing right of way and
existing track that rail companies try to use. I'd bet that in cases
like San Diego->Phoenix, the existing rail that leads through Mexico
is a big part of the costs/expenses of expanding rail travel.

Trying to link SAN and PHX with rail without entering Mexico would
require either new rail tunnels, or passing up to areas near I-10 to
find a flat enough grade to build across. Neither option is
particularly good for rail travel or San Diego, so instead millions
(or more) has been spend co-studying Mexican lands for part of the
rails.

On top of that, any rail lines that try to bypass that region by going
north have to pass through Downtown San Diego. Because Downtown SD
hasn't grade separated the rails from the roads there's a ton of
places that a train conductor has to honk the horn/be really careful
to get to LA/Points North.

Can it be done? Yes, slowly. What's needed? More grade-separated
rail/road crossings throughout urbanized areas. Double tracking areas
north of MCAS Miramar, connecting Escondido and the I-15 Mesas and
Villages to the rail lines, and double tracking of the Surfliner/Santa
Fe lines north of and through Del Mar.

Del Mar and Cali can't afford to move the rail off the bluffs, which
would lead to double-tracking. It's nost just unions and government,
but it's also a lack of useful land to complete existing rail lines.

Blaming the gov't/unions leaves out a bunch of the other issues, and
is at the very least a shortsighted way to improve internation rail
border crossings. Am I trying to argue with you? No. We both want
to see rail maximized to full usage, I'm just trying to point out that
there's a ton (thousands) of factors as to why rail isn't yet as
useful as it could me.

Does this cost get passed on to consumers? I think we can all answer
that.

Dave Hogan

In article >, SD Dave wrote:

> Blaming the gov't/unions leaves out a bunch of the other issues, and
> is at the very least a shortsighted way to improve internation rail
> border crossings. Am I trying to argue with you? No. We both want
> to see rail maximized to full usage, I'm just trying to point out that
> there's a ton (thousands) of factors as to why rail isn't yet as
> useful as it could me.

But the big problems IMO are the people that want to do it the way it's
always been done. Once they are removed, the other problems can be solved
much easier.

There is no reason to put out a better product. Government funding, what
do we need riders for? Rail freight seems much confined by methods dating
back to the 19th century.

Because of government, it's politics too. There are loud groups that are
simply anti-automobile. So transit is encouraged by attempts to make
driving painful or more painful. Making it impossible to park, this whole
scheme of tracking people with congestion taxing, etc and so forth. All
to force people into using a broken 19th century system instead of
building a 21st century system that people will use of their own accord.

In Chicago METRA has a proposal that basically recreates (in concept) a rail
line that existed in the 19th century. It's only going to take a decade
to build. And that doesn't even get into the politics of leaving out
certain areas from stops, etc and so forth.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:31:53 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>> The testing and administrative costs alone are staggering. We'll need
>>> an order of magnitude more cops for enforcement, since the people who
>>> lose their licenses will continue to drive anyway. And we'll need tons
>>> more jail space to house the ones who continue to flout the law.
>>
>>I don't think you grasp how expensive the controller technology will be
>
> How much did 1 MIP of computing power cost in 1970? 1980? 1990? Today?

Like I said, you don't grasp the total cost. (hint, it's not just
computing power)

>>and who will be in control of that technology.

> Yeah, you're afraid the Joan Clarbrooks of the world will set the
> speed limits at 55 MPH. And yet somehow the Metrolink train I ride
> manages to hit 90 MPH without any objection from the "speed kills"
> crowd.

And metra trains seem to barely average 25mph.

> I suspect similar reasoning will be able to overcome the Claybrookian
> objections once cars can drive themselves.

You think wrong. And even if briefly 90mph speeds are in use, the first
failure of the system will have it at 50mph or less in no time at all.
But I don't think speeds will ever be higher than the Carter era speed
limits due to legal libility reasons alone.


>>If there was an empty road to use, people wouldn't be on the congested
>>one.

> The same road can be both, depending on the time of day. If I drive to
> work at 7:30 AM, the freeway is noticeably more crowded than if I
> leave at 8:30. By 9:30 it's practically empty. And this is WITHOUT
> congestion pricing; if it cost people $9.00 to drive at 7:30 but only
> $2.00 to drive at 8:30, you'd see a lot more in the way of staggered
> work hours (and peak traffic would be spread out across more hours
> and/or more roads).

Why? Since when does an empolyer give a **** about how difficult it is or
how much it costs for employees to get to work. Hell, I just had an
employer decide that the time to have me in for an interview was 8am on a
monday. There's no need to fight rush hours traffic for an interview, but
here they are....

The companies aren't going to care if it costs employees an extra $2.00
to show up at 8am vs 8:15am.

"Greg Sutherland" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
> For a self titled "engineer" your contributions are light on for
> dispassionate, verifable analysis and high on emotional rhetoric! For
> example "Luddite fantasies", "rat holes of failed technology".

You seem not to understand engineering. There are multiple types. I am
not a detailed analysis engineer. I am one of the most creative engineers
in our company.

That creative characteristic requires jumping out of mental ruts quickly to
come up with new approaches. Engineers that do detail analysis seldom have
the capability to jump out of mental ruts and be creative.

Creative engineers do use high level visualizations and broad sweeping
conclusions. It is an extremely effective way of developing break through
technologies that most engineers can not do.

"Ned Carlson" <see-www-tubezone-net> wrote in message
...

> Real engineers get their knickers in a twist over stuff like someone
> using a comma where one should use a semicolon. Unless "Jack" got a
> disability pass on exams as a dyslexic, he would've failed 8th grade
> industrial arts classes for his spelling & syntax.

No, I am not dyslexic, you just don't understand the characteristics of
highly creative engineers. If you think all engineers are highly detailed
oriented and only fit one mold, you do not understand the process.

"Martin Edwards" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:
>>
>>
>> I view through glasses of an engineer wanting thing to work instead of
>> pouring money down the rat holes of failed technology
> Another masterpiece of English composition for the Little Red Book.

I would never make it as a secretary which you seem to think is a very high
position;

I make a lot more money doing what I do than spending lots of time on the
Internet trying to make every thing perfect in my writing.

Are you new to the Internet? You seem not to have any of the concept of
rapid writing that is done in discussions.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:06:47 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>The companies aren't going to care if it costs employees an extra $2.00
>to show up at 8am vs 8:15am.

Get a better contract. Or, since you're trying to get a contract, I
think it's a test. If I worked in HR I'd want to see what lengths
people would go through to meet with me on time, but I might be a
sadist or something. That or I want an employee willing to sacrifice
if it's for their own (and my own) good.

My contract pays me mileage and expenses, which means if I pay for a
toll road to save on time or distance, 'they' still pay more but
'they' don't argue. 'They' want 20 minutes more real work than drive
time out of me, since I'm a lot more useful on a tech task than as a
driver.

Of course, plenty of people ask if I'll drive their car for them,
cause they trust me more than themself, apparently. For whatever it
might happen to be worth.

But hell, my bosses and most of my friends are smart, or so I'd like
to think.

Dave (Willing to sign my last name to this post!) Hogan

Ned Carlson <see-www-tubezone-net> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:45:00 +1100, Greg Sutherland wrote:
> > For a self titled "engineer" your contributions are light on for
> > dispassionate, verifable analysis and high on emotional rhetoric! For
> > example "Luddite fantasies", "rat holes of failed technology".
> >
> > Greg
>
> Real engineers get their knickers in a twist over stuff like someone
> using a comma where one should use a semicolon. Unless "Jack" got a
> disability pass on exams as a dyslexic, he would've failed 8th grade
> industrial arts classes for his spelling & syntax.

Dear Ned,

Just how anal retentive are you?

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:24:37 -0800, Jack May wrote:
>
> "Ned Carlson" <see-www-tubezone-net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Real engineers get their knickers in a twist over stuff like someone
>> using a comma where one should use a semicolon. Unless "Jack" got a
>> disability pass on exams as a dyslexic, he would've failed 8th grade
>> industrial arts classes for his spelling & syntax.
>
> No, I am not dyslexic,

In other words, you just don't care much about your readers? :>

(OK, I'm picky, it's far from being uncomprehensible and it's not like it has
signature attached on top of the reply)

Tarhimdugurth
--
[S1 - za sygnaturkê]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:51:54 GMT, SD Dave wrote:


> Trying to link SAN and PHX with rail without entering Mexico would
> require either new rail tunnels, or passing up to areas near I-10 to
> find a flat enough grade to build across. Neither option is
> particularly good for rail travel or San Diego, so instead millions
> (or more) has been spend co-studying Mexican lands for part of the
> rails.

Running a train across foreign territory to link two parts of the same
country *shouldn't* be a problem, Canadian National ran Montreal to
New Brunswick trains across Maine for years. The issue in this case
would be that Mexican law requires trains run in Mexican territory
to use crews of Mexican nationals. (There are excursion trains to Tecate,
how that's worked out, I don't know)

This issue partly contributed to the demise of the proposed San Antonio
to Monterrey Texas Eagle extension.

> More grade-separated
> rail/road crossings throughout urbanized areas.

This is needed all over the place, and not just in areas with
passenger traffic. Freight traffic is increasing every year and
grade crossing accidents kill lots of people. In the days of yore,
the average American rode trains as a matter of course and was
educated about rail safety, nowadays we aren't.

Chicago terminals handle about 35,000 carloads of freight
*per day*, but people who live in the city proper are barely
aware of the hundreds of train movements, because nearly all the
track is grade separated.

> Blaming the gov't/unions leaves out a bunch of the other issues,

The issues with Amtrak's loading procedures at Chicago Union Station
are simply matters of common sense, the silly procedures were
exacerbated by 9/11 security concerns and the famous Union Station
drug-dealer/feds a la Untouchables platform shootout. Despite all the
hassle for passengers, Amtrak employees are not using metal detectors,
X-ray machines, nor using bomb sniffing gizmos like the British.
They *could* just back the train up to the platform an hour ahead of time,
put a mobile X-ray/bomb-sniffer check-in at the platform gate, and let
passengers board at leisure.

Amtrak is, overall, doing a pretty good job considering how
hamstrung it is by federal funding. However, local services in places
like Illinois should be run by local authorities, as they are by
SEPTA, the LIRR and Jersey Transit. IOW, Illinois local rail services
should be an extension of Chicago METRA services, so I don't have to
book tickets a week ahead of time to go to Quincy or Springfield.

Unions? Operating trains is an industrial operation that requires
trained, skilled, drug-free personnel. Train conductors aren't Wal-Mart
greeters, you can't hire guys out of nursing homes and expect them to know
HEP connectors and safety procedures to keep idiot passengers from killing
themselves. It almost goes without saying that people who are smart
enough to be qualified to operate a railroad train, are smart enough
to organize to get the best benefits they can negociate. If they weren't
that smart, would you want them running *your* train?



--
Ned Carlson www.tubezone.net
South Side of Chicago,IL USA
1/31/2006 1:28:32 AM