Please be aware that the train tracks east of Wiliston, ND to at least Devils Lake are almost impassible
I'm assuming it's from the heavy oil.tankers going over them. This is going to be a big problem for the country.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@jehova Thy might sit up and take notice when a section of track collapses under a heavy train, or even if Amtrak orders very low speeds to reduce the risk of that.
I once saw a documentary video - I'm afraid I lost the link - explaining why the USA's railway system is still largely Diesel-hauled and although it still carries huge volumes of bulk and containered goods, there are no fast passenger-trains. By "fast" I don't just mean ultra-high speed ones on specially-built lines as in Japan or France, but using trains built to cruise routinely at around 100-120mph, on existing lines suitably up-graded and maintained for that to be safe; and with at least the main routes electrically-powered.
It boiled down to a mixture of competition from air-travel for cross-continental distances, and intense pro-road lobbying in the 1940s and 50s from the automotive and fuel manufacturers for the government to reduce investing in the railways.
I once saw a documentary video - I'm afraid I lost the link - explaining why the USA's railway system is still largely Diesel-hauled and although it still carries huge volumes of bulk and containered goods, there are no fast passenger-trains. By "fast" I don't just mean ultra-high speed ones on specially-built lines as in Japan or France, but using trains built to cruise routinely at around 100-120mph, on existing lines suitably up-graded and maintained for that to be safe; and with at least the main routes electrically-powered.
It boiled down to a mixture of competition from air-travel for cross-continental distances, and intense pro-road lobbying in the 1940s and 50s from the automotive and fuel manufacturers for the government to reduce investing in the railways.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@jehova In the USA or generally? Worldwide it seems patchy, with some countries owning their railway systems completely and others in partial ways.
Here in the UK, we use commercial operators on State-owned lines. This is from Network Rail's own web-site:
So essentially a government-owned company.
This owns the track, signalling and stations; but the trains are owned and operated commercially, and I think those companies also manage the stations they serve. To muddy the water further, and help raise the fares, the "Train Operating Comanies" (TOCs), or some of them anyway, do not own rolling-stock and locomotives but lease them from middle-men agencies who are the actual buyers from the builders.
The TOCs are not all British either. The UK-based First Group does handle much of the passneger traffic under an assortment of badges to disguise the fact; but at least one major operator is the German government via its state-owned Deutsche Bahn company that also handles most UK goods traffic and oddly, the licencing of preserved steam locomotives for main-line excursions! The UK Government can, and has, taken services back under State control where the TOC fails to meet its service obligations to sufficient standard.
So Germany has maintained full State ownership of her own railways.
While UK railway history ought be an object-lesson in how politics can stop anything being operated properly for the benefit of the nation..
Originally Britain's railways were all fully commercial, slowly amalgamating into larger combines. These built, owned and maintained almost all of their equipment in their own premises, by their own staff. In the 1930s the Government of the day, perhaps recognising their importance but also the threat from growing road transport, "Grouped" them compulsorily into four single companies.
A few years after WW2 had caused enormous damage to them - more by war-time neglect and shortages than by Herr Goering's efforts - the new Labour Government nationalised the railways along with other vital industries and services; and this new British Railways did embark on comprehensive modernising. The most noticeable effect was that steam traction ended in 1968; but rather than moving straight to electrification throughout the network, the government and BR created a long Diesel transition process still far from complete.
Then in the 1980s the Conservative government privatised them all without realising the eventual results that in my view and that of many others, in hindsight were inevitable from a policy based purely on an over-optimistic, very shaky economic theory. I think all these public services should still be state-owned but with the politicians nowhere near running them, nor the Treasury allowed to cream off too much of the operating-profits. (As happened with BR.)
The railways are, or can be, very fast, very efficient, very safe ways to transport huge numbers of people and enourmous tonnages of freight around the country. Unfortunately they are also costly to run and look after; and the better you make their capacity and speed as their users want, the costlier they are. Though in recent decades the railways here have attracted so much trade many routes, where often the trains themselves are at full capacity, so a delay on one service can have very wide effects on the others.
I don't think there is a railway network in the world that is not at least partially State-owned or heavily State subsidised. They are too expensive, but also too valuable!
Here in the UK, we use commercial operators on State-owned lines. This is from Network Rail's own web-site:
As a public sector arm’s length body of the Department for Transport, we retain the commercial and operational freedom to manage Britain’s railway infrastructure in England, Wales and Scotland within regulatory and control frameworks.
So essentially a government-owned company.
This owns the track, signalling and stations; but the trains are owned and operated commercially, and I think those companies also manage the stations they serve. To muddy the water further, and help raise the fares, the "Train Operating Comanies" (TOCs), or some of them anyway, do not own rolling-stock and locomotives but lease them from middle-men agencies who are the actual buyers from the builders.
The TOCs are not all British either. The UK-based First Group does handle much of the passneger traffic under an assortment of badges to disguise the fact; but at least one major operator is the German government via its state-owned Deutsche Bahn company that also handles most UK goods traffic and oddly, the licencing of preserved steam locomotives for main-line excursions! The UK Government can, and has, taken services back under State control where the TOC fails to meet its service obligations to sufficient standard.
So Germany has maintained full State ownership of her own railways.
While UK railway history ought be an object-lesson in how politics can stop anything being operated properly for the benefit of the nation..
Originally Britain's railways were all fully commercial, slowly amalgamating into larger combines. These built, owned and maintained almost all of their equipment in their own premises, by their own staff. In the 1930s the Government of the day, perhaps recognising their importance but also the threat from growing road transport, "Grouped" them compulsorily into four single companies.
A few years after WW2 had caused enormous damage to them - more by war-time neglect and shortages than by Herr Goering's efforts - the new Labour Government nationalised the railways along with other vital industries and services; and this new British Railways did embark on comprehensive modernising. The most noticeable effect was that steam traction ended in 1968; but rather than moving straight to electrification throughout the network, the government and BR created a long Diesel transition process still far from complete.
Then in the 1980s the Conservative government privatised them all without realising the eventual results that in my view and that of many others, in hindsight were inevitable from a policy based purely on an over-optimistic, very shaky economic theory. I think all these public services should still be state-owned but with the politicians nowhere near running them, nor the Treasury allowed to cream off too much of the operating-profits. (As happened with BR.)
The railways are, or can be, very fast, very efficient, very safe ways to transport huge numbers of people and enourmous tonnages of freight around the country. Unfortunately they are also costly to run and look after; and the better you make their capacity and speed as their users want, the costlier they are. Though in recent decades the railways here have attracted so much trade many routes, where often the trains themselves are at full capacity, so a delay on one service can have very wide effects on the others.
I don't think there is a railway network in the world that is not at least partially State-owned or heavily State subsidised. They are too expensive, but also too valuable!
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jehova · 31-35, M
@ArishMell not about mental capability if that were the requirement a 7 year old could run for office. Nowadays many children are far more capable then senile old men in congress. It is about employment opportunity and livable wage while raising children\a family. It is about the average amount of time politicains remain honest to their represented citizens (given endorsements kickbacks, preffered treatments etc.)
Thats why term limits exist and i believe age limit shoud too.
One must be 35 to be eligible to be president can work and pay income taxes at
at 16 and is considered an adult at 17. Therefore if 35-17 is 18 years that an adult is ineligible to be president one would reasonably conclude that 4.5 presidential terms of inelligibility should equally be valid for people after aging out of the workforce.
Again, therefore, 65; the age of retirement originally, plus 18 years is 83 as the "age of disqualification" from political office.
At the time retirement age was set the average lifecexpectancy for a man was 58, thus most workers werent expected to reach retirement age. Obviously conditions have changed. Either the age of retirement needs to be increased or more people need to be forced to retire.
Personally i think 2 terms over retirement age (8 years for president) should be the age limit. That would be 65+8=73.
Thats why term limits exist and i believe age limit shoud too.
One must be 35 to be eligible to be president can work and pay income taxes at
at 16 and is considered an adult at 17. Therefore if 35-17 is 18 years that an adult is ineligible to be president one would reasonably conclude that 4.5 presidential terms of inelligibility should equally be valid for people after aging out of the workforce.
Again, therefore, 65; the age of retirement originally, plus 18 years is 83 as the "age of disqualification" from political office.
At the time retirement age was set the average lifecexpectancy for a man was 58, thus most workers werent expected to reach retirement age. Obviously conditions have changed. Either the age of retirement needs to be increased or more people need to be forced to retire.
Personally i think 2 terms over retirement age (8 years for president) should be the age limit. That would be 65+8=73.