Re: BEFORE Trying To Simply Hike the Fuel Tax . . .

On Sun, 04 May 2008 14:05:40 -0400, daestrom wrote:

> 
> <BurtonUrny@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:8ef602b0-d0d7-40a8-bf09-2aeb7cac863d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 3, 5:40 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> HarryNadds wrote:
>> > What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? ****p? Carrier
>> > pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
>> > willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
>>
>> What would make more sense would be to nationalize the railroad right
of
>> way so that it would be owned and maintained by the government the same
>> as the highways, waterways, and air****ts.
>>
>> Then- permit investors to go into business with the running gear in an
>> open, and competitive free market rather than the regulated system the
>> massive rail cor****ations now have.
>>
>> Moreover, convert the rails to a new wide track design that could go
>> much faster and carry loads wider than a box car. In this case, they
>> could piggie back truck trailers or freighter containers side by side
on
>> flat cars, or use the flat cars to carry your car, at high speed, cross
>> country. You could drive on a flatcar at the station, with the driver's
>> side facing the front of the train, then drive off at your destination.
> 
> Widing the rails isn't really going to be practical.  There are
literally 
> thousands of tunnels and millions of bridges both large and small that
would 
> *not* accept wider rolling stock.

So the practical solution is to make the trains longer and faster.  The
"faster" may include the need for more/different "right of way".

> And to do as you suggest, it isn't really necessary.  'Trailer-Trains'
have 
> been around for decades and they allow driving tractor trailers right on
to 
> specially designed flat-bed cars that have short ramps that can be
lowered 
> to connect the cars together.  Trucks are driven on backward from one
end 
> and can drive the length of the train until reaching the desired
flat-car. 
> This was in the mid 70's.  These 'Trailer-Trains' can be off/on loaded
with 
> a minimal of facilities.  Just need a ramp that leads up to the right 
> elevation at the end of a railroad spur.

Actually, latter day 53 foot trailers are built to be lifted onto the flat
cars just like container cargo.

> The more common version now that replaces 'Trailer-Trains' is the 
> inter-modal container.  Standardized containers are off-loaded from
****ps 
> and put onto semi-tractor trailers -or- train cars directly.  But these 
> require overhead container-cranes to lift and load the containers
(sometimes 
> referred to as 'sea-vans' IIRC).

Both exist.  But the 53 foot trailers are for palletized cargo and believe
me when I tell you that palletized freight is a lot easier to load and
unload than is floor loaded freight in those containers.  So the ****p
stuff (from China et al) may be container efficient, but the stuff that
is "Made in America" is more efficiently moved on pallets in 53 foot
trailers.  The wheels are really not so expensive as you might think but
the stupidity was in the design of all those containers.  They were not
built to handle pallatized cargo.

The bottom line is that the trains will be moving a lot more LONG HAUL
freight and the trucks will be doing a lot more rail-yard to endpoint
stuff.  Those "sleepers" on the trucks can also be removed as well as my
dumbbells and my fridge and my lunchbox stove and all my books and stuff. 
But driver wages will need to go up so I can afford an apartment.  Long
haul truckers are gypsies.

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend