HI Bob,

On Sat 2037-Jul-18 07:12, Bob Ackley (1:300/3) wrote to Dan Ceppa:

 DC> If done right, the RRs coukd take over ld transportation from otr
 DC> trucks.  

BA> That depends.  The major railroads have disposed of most of their
BA> branch lines and only seem to be interested in moving huge volumes
BA> of commodities (coal, grain, etc.) between major terminals.  IOW the
BA> railroads *can't* pick up and deliver door-to-door like they once
BA> could.

OF course, they've let that capability go by the boards.
MOst railroads used to have sister trucking companies to
handle that.  My dad used to work for the one affiliated
with Burlington NOrthern, back before it was Burlington
NOrthern, Iirc it was still C B & Q then.

BA> The railroads also cannot promise delivery on or by a certain date;
BA> the load will get where it's supposed to go, eventually.  Nor can
BA> they promise that a loaded railcar will be picked up on a certain
BA> date.  This sort of thing just does
BA> not work when companies need pickup and delivery *on time*.

OF course they can't.  What i see that isn't coal or grain
cars on trains these days is shipping containers on
flatcars.

BA> When I worked at the grain elevator in Hastings, IA, railcars were
BA> expected on a certain day but sometimes they didn't arrive until one
BA> or two days later; also when we had loaded railcars to go out they
BA> may or may not have been picked up on the day they were supposed to
BA> have been.  The railcars always appeared or disappeared in the
BA> middle of the night, so I guess that's when the local freight ran;
BA> most of the daytime traffic was 100+ car coal trains.

YEp, sounds like Bn rr.  YOur cars were probably picked up
by some smaller freight and then placed on a siding at one
of the larger railyards, Omaha, North Platte, etc.

A friend of mine's dad used to run the grain elevator in
INdianola, Ia.  They switched to trucking their grain, and
really dsiappointed the local lumberyard and a couple others because the
lumberyard used to get more cost effective
shipments by rail, but when the elevator quit using rail to
transport its grain they quit maintaining the siding there.

Where I grew up we had a GE plant that made switching
equipment for powerplants as well as a box factory and other factories all
easily accessible to tracks.  Those tracks
have now been overgrown with weeds, etc.  A decade ago was
the last time I was back there in the wooded area between
all those factories, using those rail lines as a shortcut,
and they were quite overgrown.

When I was a kid those tracks were always used.  YOu might
see a freght car prepared to load spark plugs from Champion
sparkplug, or equipment from GE.  NOw all those spurs of
siding sit idle, overgrown with weeds and brush.

BA> The only way to get the long distance hauling back on the rails
BA> (where IMO it belongs) is to force the truckers to pay the actual
BA> cost of the damage those huge loads are doing to the highways. 
BA> Putting the trailers on flatcars is a step in the right direction.

YEp, and that has been the argument since the '70's.  NEver
happen, too much money at stake.

BA> The last time (1994) I drove across Nevada there were stretches that
BA> had  signs posted for 18-wheelers to use the *left* lane. 
BA> Presumably to delay the wear and tear on the right lane.  I have
BA> noticed that most of the road damage on highways and Interstate
BA> highways seems to be in the lanes used by heavy trucks; adjacent
BA> lanes on the same roads have little if any damage. 

YEp, but the fear of the old monopoly and all the money
involved, small and large trucking firms means that we can't expect the
status quo to change.

BA> Usedtawas that there were very few really long distance OTR
BA> truckers.  That industry has grown mainly as a result of the
BA> Interstate highway system - paid for by the taxpayers.  Likewise,
BA> airports for air travel are paid for by the taxpayers.
BA> If the users of those highways and airports were required to pay the
BA> actual cost of providing those highways and airports there'd be a
BA> lot less travel on those  systems.  Note that rail passenger travel
BA> was *all* paid for by the respective railroads, and the cost of that
BA> rail ticket accurately reflected the cost of providing
BA> the service (unlike air and bus tickets).

INdeed.  But, were I going cross country and had the
difference, the higher fare I"d as soon go by train.  The
dining cars aren't as nice as they once were but still a
much more comfortable way to travel cross country.

Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+