Built like a Mercedes (?)

Rail is a pipe dream as a Big Solution. I saw the results of a study in the
UK about getting freight onto rail. If rail freight were doubled (!)
overnight (a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity, so imagine
the HUGE investment) then road freight would go down by a mere 10%.

Most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by rail.

On passenger traffic/cars, I wonder what diff it would make. I like to take
the train for city centre-to-centre journeys, but how may of those do I
make? Why is it that in major countries the only really viable routes are
the major ones like along the East Coast (Boston-Washington DC),
London-Glasgow or Edinburgh with only the cities on the route,
Munich-Hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way, Paris-Lyon.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Max Dodge" > wrote in message
news:t25Df.1264$0J3.1063@trndny08...
[...]
consumption. If you are that concerned sir, take up the cause of rail
> transport with your congresssman. A good rail system will cut use of
> personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the
> highways. This will save far more fuel than a Dodge Durango that weighs
> 600 pounds less.
>
> --
> Max
[...]

And I forgot to mention Huw's point about fuel per passenger mile. As
things are now many trains run at well below capacity so the unit use of
fuel can be high. Just because the power stations feeding the rail network
are out of sight does not mean they don't use fuel. Or the diesel engines
pulling the trains don't use prodigious amounts of diesel...

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> Rail is a pipe dream as a Big Solution. I saw the results of a study in
> the UK about getting freight onto rail. If rail freight were doubled (!)
> overnight (a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity, so imagine
> the HUGE investment) then road freight would go down by a mere 10%.
>
> Most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by rail.
>
> On passenger traffic/cars, I wonder what diff it would make. I like to
> take the train for city centre-to-centre journeys, but how may of those do
> I make? Why is it that in major countries the only really viable routes
> are the major ones like along the East Coast (Boston-Washington DC),
> London-Glasgow or Edinburgh with only the cities on the route,
> Munich-Hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way, Paris-Lyon.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "Max Dodge" > wrote in message
> news:t25Df.1264$0J3.1063@trndny08...
> [...]
> consumption. If you are that concerned sir, take up the cause of rail
>> transport with your congresssman. A good rail system will cut use of
>> personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the
>> highways. This will save far more fuel than a Dodge Durango that weighs
>> 600 pounds less.
>>
>> --
>> Max
> [...]
>
>

Comments4u wrote:
> With job cuts announced on both sides of the Atlantic, its clear
> Daimler-Chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. Even more,
> it has announced plans for increased production at the currently
> hot Chrysler unit without additional workers. That is truely
> cutting the fat. But observers wonder if Daimler-Chrysler
> has really identified all its fat. Its not just in the workforce.
> It is in the cars and trucks.
>
> At the Chrysler unit, the new Dodge Dakota, which, perhaps only
> coincidentally, is selling poorly, picked up 600 pounds in its
> re-design, all for a paltry additional 2 inches back seat room.


How did you determine that the 600 pounds were added solely to allow 2
inches back seat room.

> But it merely followed the example of the Pacifica: over
> 4000 pounds for a six passenger vehicle that has all the
> luggage space - in both shape and volume - of a 78 Plymouth
> Horizon. The Pacifica isn't even in the same league as Chrysler's
> all time weight efficient 6 passenger vehicle: the (then)
> downsized 79 New Yorker, Newport, and St. Regis, at under 3800
> pounds.
>
> The extra weight is generally not evident on the road, thanks to
> Chrysler's potent engines. But it is at the gas station. And
> it certainly takes a toll in increased wear of mechanical
> parts.
>
> It may not matter, however, if the Chrysler unit can convince
> customers the extra weight means greater quality. Mercedes has
> been quite successful, until recently, with this strategy.
> Mercedes' economy car, the C230, makes its tires scream with
> a hefty load of 3405 pounds. In contrast, a Honda Civic with
> 5 cubic feet greater combined capacity weighs 777 pounds less.

One question that should be answered before deciding that the weight
should cut is what the weight is used for.


>
> But there is always opportunity. With the added weight,
> Lee Iacocca may be tagging Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep
> commercials with "Built like a Mercedes".

Do you really think that Chrysler (or any other car maker) is simply
adding steel to push the weight numbers up? Come on!

> Of course, if
> that turns out to be true, Chrysler Financial will soon
> be in the business of offering car equity loans for the
> repair bills.

In article >,
Comments4u > wrote:

> But there is always opportunity. With the added weight,
> Lee Iacocca may be tagging Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep
> commercials with "Built like a Mercedes". Of course, if
> that turns out to be true, Chrysler Financial will soon
> be in the business of offering car equity loans for the
> repair bills.

Some of these companies just keep missing the point. They could sustain
some corporate fat if they produced leaner (i.e., energy efficient)
products. An SUV, for example, that gets 50MPG would sell like hot
cakes, as would a sedan that's as economical.

The price of gas is only going to go up as Asian nations consume more of
it and compete for it on the world market. Anyone who has any sense and
who's in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most
economical vehicle that fits their needs.

Chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and
more reliable. When it does that, its financial problems will go away.
Likewise for GM and Ford.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:17:37 -0500, "Roy" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in message
. com...
>>> No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take back
>>> it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the EPA
>>> being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
>>
>>How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
>>hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the
>>hell here can afford a pay cut?
>
> Which would you rather have: your pay cut, or your job cut?

> A lot of Ford and GM workers are about to wish they had taken the pay
> cut...
> --
You folks continue with the same mantra. Cut the workers wages. It is damn
easy to say until it affects you. Also the same bs "it will be your job if
you don't take a pay cut" The jobs will go anyway.

Roy

"Roy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in message
> m...
> > No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take back
> > it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the EPA
> > being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
>
> How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
> hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the
> hell here can afford a pay cut?
>

And the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the
workers, never from the owners or upper management. Perhaps if the salaries
of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far more
competitive but God forbid that ever happens.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:24:13 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:

>>No. It's about getting America off its lardy ass and competing at
>>world standard productivity levels.
>
>
> You mean like they do over in Europe, which has both shorter work
> weeks and more vacation days every year than Americans do?

Imagine how much worse their presently abysmal unemployment numbers
would be if they had the longer work week and less vacation time (i.e.,
they'd have to lay people off to achieve the same number of work
hours/productivity/output levels).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Roy wrote:
> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:17:37 -0500, "Roy" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take
>>>> back it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts
>>>> and the EPA being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
>>>
>>> How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick
>>> of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all.
>>> Who the hell here can afford a pay cut?
>>
>> Which would you rather have: your pay cut, or your job cut?
>
>> A lot of Ford and GM workers are about to wish they had taken the pay
>> cut...
>> --
> You folks continue with the same mantra. Cut the workers wages. It is
> damn easy to say until it affects you. Also the same bs "it will be
> your job if you don't take a pay cut" The jobs will go anyway.
>


It may be a choice between some jobs going and a pay cut for the rest or all
of the jobs going.
All jobs are of the 'here today, gone tomorrow' type in a competitive
economy. There is a train of thought that all change is good because it is
always followed by innovation and increased competitiveness, but I'm not
sure I agree with that. The winners in a previous era are usually resentful
if they lose out to new winners. The trick I think is to make sure no one
loses out for long and a good standard of living with an opportunity of new
employment can be had by all.

Huw

None of what you are saying makes much sense. Evidence of this is your claim
that you'd buy Fiat, Peugot and Renault. Great, patronize your government by
purchasing known inferior cars. Meanwhile, you extoll the virtues of a free
market economy. Sorta hypocritical to throw government owned business in at
the top of the diatribe, then revert to free market, and THEN claim the U.S.
doesn't like a free market.

Not making sense to you? Great, neither does your essay.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)


"Huw" > wrote in message
...
> Budd Cochran wrote:
>> No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take
>> back it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and
>> the EPA being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
>>
>> If you want to buy American, it needs to be OWNED and built here.
>>
>> Japan and Germany didn't lose WW II, they just waited and bought us
>> off.
>
> That's put me off Jaguar, Volvo, Saab, Land Rover, Ford, Vauxhall, and all
> the other American owned brands we buy in Europe then. F*** 'um foreign
> things. We'll buy European domestic products like Renault, Fiat and
> Peugeot
> instead.
>
> But wait, how does nationalism and protectionism help all those American
> Ford and GM brands? Oh it doesn't, it guarantees even bigger losses for
> them.
> Perhaps Americans only believe in free trade when the going is good for
> them? Yes that is probably it.
>
> Fact is, there is only one way to stem those losses at Ford and GM and
> that
> is for them to become more efficient and trade their way out. It can be
> done. Just look at the example of Nissan which under French management has
> been transformed from imminent bancruptcy to a modern success story in
> less
> than ten years.
>
> There is nothing magical about Japanese or German industry. Just look at
> the present debacle at Mitsubishi which Daimler/Chrysler could not turn
> around.
>
> If you want a global recession where you are absolutely guaranteed to have
> fewer sales and total business failures then certainly go protectionist.
> If you want continued relitive prosperity and employment then become
> competitive and grow your economy.
> There is no stopping China and other major competitors becoming more
> prosperous because they are coming around to the American way of doing
> business. If enough trade is done both ways then both economies win.
> Obviously America has more to lose and China has more to win but what you
> need is a win/win situation. It is inevitable though that China will
> become a stronger economy than the USA in the medium term.
>
>
> Huw
>
>
>

Actually Tbone, look at what Zeitsche is about to do at DC...... cut
management jobs.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)


"TBone" > wrote in message
...
> "Roy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in message
>> m...
>> > No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take back
>> > it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the EPA
>> > being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
>>
>> How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
>> hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the
>> hell here can afford a pay cut?
>>
>
> And the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the
> workers, never from the owners or upper management. Perhaps if the
> salaries
> of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far
> more
> competitive but God forbid that ever happens.
>
> --
> If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
>
>