nklr: sad day for american males

[Mike Frey]

Keep supporting rail travel! Pandrol, a worldwide rail fastener company, is our largest customer. Business right now is up. I hope it stays that way. RM wrote:

> In the case of Chicago, I was thinking more along the lines of moving > people rather than freight. Mass transit may not continue to be a loser > if the trend in oil sticks around. > > RM > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:07:24 -0700 (PDT), "E Hines" > > said: > > I work for one of the larger railroads and that is not completely true. > > The spurs do not make money (unless it is coal). > >

[E.L. Green]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, E Hines wrote:

> Look at the stock market, Union Pacific and BNSF are up.

100% utilization will do that fer ya . There's a lot of upgrading going on, mostly on the old Southern Pacific which had been neglected for decades (there was an old joke that the only freshly-painted Southern Pacific locomotive was either a new one or one that graffiti artists got ahold of, and that Southern Pacific actually encouraged graffiti artists to paint their rail cars because otherwise they'd dissolve into rust on the siding . And granted, some of the rail lines being scrapped are redundant -- for example, the old Western Pacific through eastern Santa Clara County is parallel to the old Southern Pacific to the west of it, but is much slower due to many more grade crossings, thus the old Southern Pacific gets virtually all of the traffic now that both lines are owned by UP, and the old SP parallel line through Altamont Pass is history because the WP line was faster (though one proposal for the California high speed rail to get it past the enviro-nazis is to run it on the old slow SP railgrade to get it over the Sierra Diablo, then go back to being a high speed line afterwards). Similarly, the old SP through Niles Canyon is history because the parallel WP is faster. On the other hand, there are some real needs for expanded rail capacity that are not being met. For example, the old Alviso SP mentioned above has enough traffic that it really needs to be double-tracked on all but the swamp crossing (which can't be double-tracked because the enviro-nazis would scream bloody hell, despite the fact that the "swamp" in question is actually sterile salt ponds owned by Cargille Salt). This will especially be true when CalTrain starts sending commuter trains across the rebuilt Dumberton trestle and wants to send them back down to San Jose to make a loop to their San Jose yard. But so far the only upgrades to that line have been signalling upgrades and maintenance (since it's an old SP line, they just finished pulling out a bunch of old rotten ties and laying down new ballast, fixing the results of decades of inadequate maintenance).

> They project that over 50% of the managers and train crews will be

retiring in the next 5 years. I suspect railroads will be a growth industry in the future, though nowhere near what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. For one thing, you can move a one ton car approximately 50 miles on a gallon of gasoline. You can move one ton of freight via rail approximately 400 miles on a gallon of diesel, vs. approximately 150 miles via truck. You do the math! -E

[stevedyer]

I want one of those 150 miles-per-gallon trucks. Steve A13

----- Original Message ----- From: "E.L. Green" (snip) I suspect railroads will be a growth industry in the future, though nowhere near what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. For one thing, you can move a one ton car approximately 50 miles on a gallon of gasoline. You can move one ton of freight via rail approximately 400 miles on a gallon of diesel, vs. approximately 150 miles via truck. You do the math! -E

[Dennis Griffin]

Not sure what you'd call that type of math, but if a semi moves 40 tons 3.75 miles on a gallon of fuel, then I suppose one could say that 1 ton could go 150 miles ( 40x3.75=150) on a gallon, as a common unit of reference.

On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:10 PM, stevedyer wrote: > I want one of those 150 miles-per-gallon trucks. > > Steve > A13 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "E.L. Green" > (snip) > > I suspect railroads will be a growth industry in the future, though > nowhere near what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. For one > thing, you can move a one ton car approximately 50 miles on a gallon > of gasoline. You can move one ton of freight via rail approximately > 400 miles on a gallon of diesel, vs. approximately 150 miles via > truck. You do the math! > > -E > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[E.L. Green]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "stevedyer" wrote:

> > I want one of those 150 miles-per-gallon trucks.

That's ton-miles per gallon, dude. As in, take a truck hauling a 40 ton load behind it, and said truck gets 3.75mpg. That truck gets 150 ton-miles per gallon. On a 400 mile trip, it would take 2.6 gallons for each ton hauled, or a total of 106 2/3 gallons of diesel. Meanwhile, a train hauling a 40 ton boxcar at 400 ton-miles/gallon would use 40 gallons of diesel to make the same haul or 1 gallon for each ton hauled, thanks to the more efficient diesel-electric power plant and less friction from steel-on-steel vs. rubber-on-asphalt. And it's fairly easy to make the diesel-electric locomotive even *more* efficient. Right now, excess energy from the diesel generators that power the electric motors that drive the wheels is dumped into massive load resisters and dissipated as heat. That energy could be stored in batteries and used to drive the wheels from time to time, meaning even more efficient use of the diesel generator (all current large locomotives are electric-powered, they just carry diesel generators with them rather than rely on high tension lines). If trains got the same government subsidies as cars and airlines, it'd be a no-brainer. Of course, they don't, so less efficient means of transporting goods are the norm for anything that's not high volume or high weight. _E

> ----- Original Message ----- > of gasoline. You can move one ton of freight via rail approximately > 400 miles on a gallon of diesel, vs. approximately 150 miles via > truck. You do the math! >

[stevedyer]

The general direction of the math makes sense to me. I was just trying to be a smart-ass. Steve

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Griffin" To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [DSN_KLR650] Re: NKLR - opportunities for mechanics > Not sure what you'd call that type of math, but if a semi moves 40 > tons 3.75 miles on a gallon of fuel, then I suppose one could say > that 1 ton could go 150 miles ( 40x3.75=150) on a gallon, as a common > unit of reference. > > On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:10 PM, stevedyer wrote: > >> I want one of those 150 miles-per-gallon trucks. >> >> Steve >> A13 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "E.L. Green" >> (snip) >> >> I suspect railroads will be a growth industry in the future, though >> nowhere near what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. For one >> thing, you can move a one ton car approximately 50 miles on a gallon >> of gasoline. You can move one ton of freight via rail approximately >> 400 miles on a gallon of diesel, vs. approximately 150 miles via >> truck. You do the math! >> >> -E >> >> >> >> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Archive Quicksearch at: > http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

[revmaaatin]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "E.L. Green" wrote:

> > > That's ton-miles per gallon, dude. As in, take a truck hauling a

40 > ton load behind it, and said truck gets 3.75mpg. That truck gets 150

> ton-miles per gallon. On a 400 mile trip, it would take 2.6 gallons > for each ton hauled, or a total of 106 2/3 gallons of diesel. > Meanwhile, a train hauling a 40 ton boxcar at 400 ton-miles/gallon > would use 40 gallons of diesel to make the same haul or 1 gallon for > each ton hauled, thanks to the more efficient diesel-electric power > plant and less friction from steel-on-steel vs. rubber-on-asphalt. >

SNIP

> > _E

Great Post Eric, You sure can easily satisfy/stimulate the itch known as curiosity. I moseyed down to the train yard (DME, central SD) and looked at the grain-hopper bottom cars here and see they are lighter than the 40T (or LT 80000) of a box car, of the first four cars in the yard, they were (LT=Light weight; LMT=max capacity) LT/LMT 62,300 / 200,700; 60,500 / 202,500; 61,900 / 224,000; 61,100 / 224,900 The first two cars were of similar construction and vintage ie 1971/2 and the last two were of similar construction and vintage 1980's. The fact that a grain car was lighter than a boxcar kind of intrigued me. The freight trains with box cars that used to come through my town in Bois D' Arc, MO (west of Springfield, near Ash Grove) were very slow and we would sometimes Hobo a mile or so for fun and I did not remember that the box cars were built so stout that they would weigh more than a grain car. All of this is just an observation/memory of a child. I found it interesting that two cars, similar in appearance (to the untrained and inexperienced eye) could be 1800 lbs difference and that two different grain cars could have a capacity of 10T more than another. Judging from the 'over-built' iron in the hopper car I would guess that some of the weight difference in empty weight might be from the loss of steel/iron from corrosion? The increased weight capacity of the first two cars, vs. the last two, the former had straight outer wall like a semi, and the latter two hopper cars had convex sides like a tank car. All of that said, your suggestion of cost per mile is even better when the train is carrying grain, based on the lt wt of a grain car. I suspect there is not a straight ton mile quote, and that somethings are given a better freight quote. YOur comment? Two springs ago I got to drive (solo) a vintage 1956 GE Diesel Electric (1600 HP) engine dragging ~29 hopper cars on a private siding as we loaded 3,980,000 lbs of wheat in less than 4 hours. This is out just one auger. Amazing. My next-door neighbor is the grain elevator manager and he said, "you can ring the bell and blow the whistle as much as you want" and with an offer like that, what kid could refuse? revmaaatin. Just some musings on a clear night in Central SD; the night is so black you can reach up and touch Venus.

> >

[WILLAM GILMORE]

We can only hope he died in the way many of us like to imagine -- In his bed eating chicken wings with a favorite employee under each arm -- and perhaps an A16 with a new doohicky parked in his driveway. Who could ask for a better way to depart? "E.L. Green" wrote: MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (AP) -- Robert Brooks, the chairman of Hooters of America, Inc. who made his fortune selling chicken wings served by scantily clad waitresses, was found dead at his home Sunday, officials said. He was 69. ... [Ah yes, a true visionary!] _E --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2 /min or less. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]