World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008
Palaces For The People
MesoFuel Inc. Tapped to Help Develop Fuel Cell Powered Train
World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for
2008
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Feb. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- MesoFuel, Inc., a
hydrogen
generation company, today announced that it has been awarded a
contract by
Vehicle Projects LLC of Denver, CO to design and manufacture the
hydrogen
generator for a fuel cell-powered train locomotive. This will be the
largest
fuel cell powered vehicle ever built. This project was conceived by
Vehicle
Projects and completion is scheduled for 2008.
"We selected MesoFuel to design and manufacture the ammonia-based
hydrogen
generation system because of the compactness and efficiency of its
MesoChannel(TM) hydrogen generation systems," said Vehicle Projects
LLC
President Arnold Miller. "MesoFuel is the leader in power-dense
hydrogen
generation from ammonia, and the ability to process this attractive
fuel was a
key consideration for us."
MesoFuel, along with multiple organizations, will work on the
multi-million dollar project in order to produce a complete fuel cell
power
source that is capable of replacing diesel engines in locomotives.
"Providing a simple, low fuel cost ammonia-based hydrogen
generation
system for this project is exciting because ammonia is an excellent
fuel
choice," said MesoFuel CEO Ned Godshall. "It has an extremely high
volumetric
energy content and is available nationwide via railcar.
Three-quarters of all
the atoms in ammonia are hydrogen atoms -- this liquid is one of the
most
energy-dense forms of hydrogen available -- and so is therefore ideal
for the
distribution and production of the hydrogen needed for hydrogen fuel
cells."
In addition to the fuel-cell-locomotive project, fuel cells are
expected
to soon have numerous commercial and defense applications because they
provide
an efficient, zero-emission power source required for future
technologically-advanced electronic systems and vehicles.
MesoFuel products enable the on-site, on-demand production of pure
hydrogen for fuel cells. The development of MesoFuel technologies
have been
partly funded under the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's
(DARPA)
Palm Power Program and the Army Research Office.
About MesoFuel, Inc.
MesoFuel, Inc. ( http://www.mesofuel.com ) of Albuquerque, NM is a
leading
company focused on the introduction of low-cost hydrogen generators
into
commercial fuel cell markets. Using micro- and meso-scale technology,
the
company produces on-site, on-demand hydrogen generators for
environmentally-friendly consumer, industrial, and military fuel cell
applications. MesoFuel has developed hydrogen generation systems that
operate
on a variety of fuels, including both light and heavy hydrocarbons,
de-carbonized fuels such as ammonia, and renewable fuels such as soy
diesel.
MesoFuel provides the fuel for fuel cells.
The Enlightenment
> http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK3.story&STORY=/www/story/02-10-2004/0002106420&EDATE=TUE+Feb+10+2004,+08:16+AM
>
> MesoFuel Inc. Tapped to Help Develop Fuel Cell Powered Train
>
> World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for
> 2008
>
> "We selected MesoFuel to design and manufacture the ammonia-based
> hydrogen
> generation system because of the compactness and efficiency of its
> MesoChannel(TM) hydrogen generation systems," said Vehicle Projects
> LLC
> President Arnold Miller. "MesoFuel is the leader in power-dense
> hydrogen
> generation from ammonia,
Ammonia is a deadley gas. Trains often crwsh. Next idea please.
Dave Gower
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> Ammonia is a deadley gas. Trains often crwsh. Next idea please.
Spell-checkers seldom crash. But I looked up this Mesofuel company, and
found that they are into formulating hydrogen from a variety of fuels, not
just ammonia. Included are natural gas (mainly methane) and methanol. So
there's no reason why this shouldn't work, although I have no idea how good
this particular company is.
Personally I think the future for very heavy equipment most probably lies
not in hydrogen reformulation of hydrocarbons, but in developing fuel cells
that can burn the carbon component as well. There's lots of work ongoing.
Vendicar Decarian
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:39556695.04021...@posting.google.com...
> Ammonia is a deadley gas.
Used in large scale refrigeration systems all over the world - including
your local grocery store.
Snicker.
Eric Gisin
Retard. Stop smoking pot and crack.
"Vendicar Decarian" <V...@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:Z9BWb.2454$Fp5...@read1.cgocable.net...
Vendicar Decarian
> > news:39556695.04021...@posting.google.com...
> > > Ammonia is a deadley gas.
>>"Vendicar Decarian" <V...@Pyro.net> wrote in message
> news:Z9BWb.2454$Fp5...@read1.cgocable.net...
> > Used in large scale refrigeration systems all over the world - including
> > your local grocery store.
"Eric Gisin" <eric...@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:c0eqa...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> When was the last time a refrigerator derailed?
Should a train derail and suffer enough damage to engine to release a few
hundred kilo's of ammonia, you have a far larger problem of the hundreds of
tonns of other dangrous cargo it will be carrying.
By the way Gisin, how do you think the ammonia gets to all of the grocery
stores, and apartment buildings and schools in your area?
Does it materialize out of thin air? Or is it transported by the tonne
via rail and truck?
Snicker....
Michael
"Palaces For The People" <P...@ecosyn.us> wrote in message
news:18dcc201.04021...@posting.google.com...
Project: Tax money being wasted...
Ian St. John
> "Palaces For The People" <P...@ecosyn.us> wrote in message
> news:18dcc201.04021...@posting.google.com...
>>
>
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK3.story&STORY=/www/story/02-10-2004/0002106420&EDATE=TUE+Feb+10+2004,+08:16+AM
>>
>> MesoFuel Inc. Tapped to Help Develop Fuel Cell Powered Train
>>
>
> Project: Tax money being wasted...
Not. Trains are an excellent area for savings as the size of the engine
normally must be way larger than required to get up a few steep slopes. This
can probably reduce fuel requirements enough to pay for the system and as
noted, anhydrous ammonia is both a dense fuel and easily accessable to
railroads as it is moved by tanker car.
You seem to be making a knee jerk reactions without even looking.
It is being funded by defense contract.
"The project is being funded by the U.S. Army Research in Warren, Mich. The
fuel cell technology will be used to retrofit an Army diesel-electric
locomotive. The locomotive will weigh 109 metric tons and have 1.2 megawatts
of pulling power."
It is noted that the defense department often funds such projects in order
to develop 'stealth' technologies such as recent moves to hybrid hummers
that can both power electronics but also creep up on the enemy without the
noise of a big diesel or gas engine.
I am not so sure of the choice of PEM technology for the fuel cell though.
While it may eventually provide a much better and low temperature solution
the current technology is relatively low efficiency and the size of the
locomotive means that the high temperature/high efficiency molten fuel cells
would not be a problem.
There is also a project called the "Green Goat" for train yard switcher
engines that can save over 50% of diesel fuel costs and drastically reduce
soot emissons, by using the hybrid concept. Pays for itself in a very short
time.
http://www.railpower.com/greengoat.php
Eric Gisin
Locomotives run for 10 years between rebuilds. The best a fuel cell can do is
one year.
The diesel-electric is 40% efficient, same as a PEM. Only a SOFC would beat
it.
A typical Hydrogen Fraud. How many billions more will be wasted?
"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:GlCPc.21292$Vm1.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Crusader
"Michael" <PostN...@RecoveryByDiscovery.com> wrote in message
news:2n85fiF...@uni-berlin.de...
Ian St. John
> A modern diesel locomotive is 4+ MW. Who the fuck would want a 1.2MW?
Well, as a road-switcher, the GP-10 does yard switching and *light* line
hauling. It doesn't need the output of the regular line hauler that has
heavy cargo and must haul up inclines. The engine of a diesel electric GP-10
is 1750 hp/1300 kw, so there is no signficant drop in power.
>
> Locomotives run for 10 years between rebuilds. The best a fuel cell
> can do is one year.
They do hope to improve the technology. No standing still with your mouth
hanging open, okay?
>
> The diesel-electric is 40% efficient, same as a PEM. Only a SOFC
> would beat it.
But puts out a lot of soot and pollutants on startup. The problem with
switchers is that they are *alwasy* starting up...
>
> A typical Hydrogen Fraud.
Typical reactionary drivel.
> How many billions more will be wasted?
What waste?
Ian St. John
> Instead of using it for what?Walfare checks.
You misspelled that. Warfare has an 'r'. And yes, Bush wants more warfare
checks.
Tim Ward
"Crusader" <y...@white.com> wrote in message
news:eIFPc.4648$vp....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Instead of using it for what?Walfare checks.
I suppose it could be spent on spelling bees.
Tim Ward
Ian St. John
To pollinate more flowers? How will teaching bees to read and write help?
P.S. Betchadid'dno I could spell pollinate.
>
> Tim Ward
"There are more ways to do stupid things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than
are dreamt of in your philosophies. (Piglet)"
Eric Gisin
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > A modern diesel locomotive is 4+ MW. Who the fuck would want a 1.2MW?
>
> Well, as a road-switcher, the GP-10 does yard switching and *light* line
> hauling. It doesn't need the output of the regular line hauler that has
> heavy cargo and must haul up inclines. The engine of a diesel electric GP-10
> is 1750 hp/1300 kw, so there is no signficant drop in power.
>
> > Locomotives run for 10 years between rebuilds. The best a fuel cell
> > can do is one year.
>
> They do hope to improve the technology. No standing still with your mouth
> hanging open, okay?
Wow, fuel cells will last two years. Pull your brain out of you ass.
>
> > The diesel-electric is 40% efficient, same as a PEM. Only a SOFC
> > would beat it.
>
> But puts out a lot of soot and pollutants on startup. The problem with
> switchers is that they are *alwasy* starting up...
>
Nope, locomotives run 24/7. There is no startup pollution.
> > A typical Hydrogen Fraud.
>
> Typical reactionary drivel.
>
Retard troll. Why don't you tell us how hydrogen fuel cells improve anything?
Hint: this is a sci newgroup.
The truth is obvious, hydrogen actually increases CO2 and switches from a
dependence of oil to LNG.
> > How many billions more will be wasted?
>
> What waste?
>
What a mental case. GW Bush is retarded, that is why he advocates hydrogen.
Why do you?
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:wlKPc.12430$Jq2.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>> But puts out a lot of soot and pollutants on startup. The problem
>> with switchers is that they are *alwasy* starting up...
>>
> Nope, locomotives run 24/7. There is no startup pollution.
Lie. Switchers have a duty cycle that is a lot of idleing and a few brief
periods of heavy use.
>
>>> A typical Hydrogen Fraud.
>>
>> Typical reactionary drivel.
>>
> Retard troll. Why don't you tell us how hydrogen fuel cells improve
> anything? Hint: this is a sci newgroup.
So what are you doing here??
>
> The truth is obvious, hydrogen actually increases CO2 and switches
> from a dependence of oil to LNG.
Not true. Anhydrous Ammonia comes from methane and steam, transforming most
of the energy into the produce. Very high efficiency.
http://www.agrium.com/products_services/ingredients_for_growth/nitrogen/anhydrous_ammonia.cfm.
Coupled with the high efficiency of direct converson to electricity the net
energy to the wheels is enhanced while also eliminating most of the idling
losses.
>
>>> How many billions more will be wasted?
>>
>> What waste?
>>
> What a mental case.
You sure are. Shitting out a hundred billions to promote a war that can't be
won and complaining about a few millions that will be recouped in lower fuel
use.
> GW Bush is retarded,
Must be some sort of bond between you.
> that is why he advocates hydrogen. Why do you?
I don't exactly advocate hydrogen. If I were 'advocating' anything, it would
be solar power satellites. However, I do object to mindless rhetoric in
place of reasoned thought. And you are a good source of mindless rhetoric.
Angelo Campanella
> A modern diesel locomotive is 4+ MW. Who the fuck would want a 1.2MW?
1500 HP is a common power for flatland cross-country diesel locomotives
such as the GP-9. Locomotives of 1000 HP and less are often used for
switchyards where a lot of little things have to be shucked around.
4,000 Hp would be for units doing the Rockies, I think... not sure.
Study you locomotive identifications...
Angelo Campanella
Damon Hill
> Eric Gisin wrote:
>
>> A modern diesel locomotive is 4+ MW. Who the fuck would want a 1.2MW?
>
> 1500 HP is a common power for flatland cross-country diesel locomotives
> such as the GP-9. Locomotives of 1000 HP and less are often used for
> switchyards where a lot of little things have to be shucked around.
> 4,000 Hp would be for units doing the Rockies, I think... not sure.
3000-4000 Hp is typical for most modern freight locomotives in North
America. There are a limited amount of 6000 Hp diesel-electric units, but
they haven't caught on very much. All locomotives have standard MU and
can be coupled together for as much power as needed, or distributed
through a train by remote control. I doubt power levels will ever go
beyond this point for individual units in freight service. Electric
locomotives for high speed passenger lines go up around 9000 hp, possibly
more.
The GP-9 and similar units are very old and survivors soldier on in yard
and local duty, and some shortlines where a lot of power isn't needed.
Railpower's conversion of old units to hybrid battery power with 100-200
Hp gensets may prove popular if they prove durable enough. It doesn't
make much sense to use an old 3000+ Hp SD-40 for yard duty; that big
engine uses a lot of fuel while idling and smaller gensets may also get
further cleanup via catalytic filters that wouldn't be practical for big
engines.
Railpower is also considering microturbines and fuel cells, as the
technology develops. I think they have a converted hybrid commuter rail
locomotive in development, since that type of service also involves a lot
of start-stop but average power demand is higher than most yard duty.
The benefits of small gensets versus big old-technology diesel engines
comes from the ability of the smaller units to run at a fixed power level
where they are most efficient. The small units can be turned off
routinely, which is impractical for the big engines for various reasons.
And the entire genset can be easily swapped out for service.
The big question for hybrid power is how well the lead-acid battery
technology will stand up to such constant use/abuse. One disadvantage is
that battery charge has to be kept at least 80%, so a lot of the stored
energy is simply not available without drastically shortening battery
life. I don't think any other battery technology is practical in railroad
service, at this time.
--Damon
Ian St. John
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:34:49 -0700, Angelo Campanella wrote:
>
>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>
>>> A modern diesel locomotive is 4+ MW. Who the fuck would want a
>>> 1.2MW?
>>
>> 1500 HP is a common power for flatland cross-country diesel
>> locomotives such as the GP-9. Locomotives of 1000 HP and less are
>> often used for switchyards where a lot of little things have to be
>> shucked around. 4,000 Hp would be for units doing the Rockies, I
>> think... not sure.
>
> 3000-4000 Hp is typical for most modern freight locomotives in North
> America. There are a limited amount of 6000 Hp diesel-electric units,
> but they haven't caught on very much. All locomotives have standard
> MU and can be coupled together for as much power as needed, or
> distributed through a train by remote control. I doubt power levels
> will ever go beyond this point for individual units in freight
> service. Electric locomotives for high speed passenger lines go up
> around 9000 hp, possibly more.
Actually there are twin engine units of 12,000 hp or more, however this is
in a quest for speed, not necessity.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/RadmilaIlyayeva.shtml
>
> The GP-9 and similar units are very old and survivors soldier on in
> yard and local duty, and some shortlines where a lot of power isn't
> needed.
Exactly. For switching and for hauling frieght over fairly level terrain at
reasonable speeds you do not need massive horsepower.
> Railpower's conversion of old units to hybrid battery power
> with 100-200 Hp gensets may prove popular if they prove durable
> enough. It doesn't make much sense to use an old 3000+ Hp SD-40 for
> yard duty; that big engine uses a lot of fuel while idling and
> smaller gensets may also get further cleanup via catalytic filters
> that wouldn't be practical for big engines.
Way off. The 1000 horsepower Green Kid was developed because the power of
teh 2000 hp Green Goat was excessive. And you are only about an order of
magnitude off.... They tend to save about 50% of the fuel in hybrid
operation and much more in terms of reduced pollution and CO2 emissions.
http://www.railpower.com/2support/GK10B.pdf
>
> Railpower is also considering microturbines and fuel cells, as the
> technology develops. I think they have a converted hybrid commuter
> rail locomotive in development, since that type of service also
> involves a lot of start-stop but average power demand is higher than
> most yard duty.
And yet the problem is that average power is MUCH less than the power rating
of the locomotive, since you have to size the engine for the worst case.
Hybrid design can still save massively unless you are hauling huge trains
over mountain passes at 200mph all of the time...
>
> The benefits of small gensets versus big old-technology diesel engines
> comes from the ability of the smaller units to run at a fixed power
> level where they are most efficient. The small units can be turned
> off routinely, which is impractical for the big engines for various
> reasons. And the entire genset can be easily swapped out for service.
The startup or stopping of diesels is not a problem. Typically the hybrid
line unit will have to have a larger engine ( to make for long sustained
efforts on mountain passes for instance,) and while this may lead to short
duty cyles on lightly loaded level travel, the fact is that the startup and
running of a smaller engine with the battery providing a 'boost' for the
peak levels required is less costly than running the full size engine full
time.
>
> The big question for hybrid power is how well the lead-acid battery
> technology will stand up to such constant use/abuse. One
> disadvantage is that battery charge has to be kept at least 80%, so a
> lot of the stored energy is simply not available without drastically
> shortening battery life. I don't think any other battery technology
> is practical in railroad service, at this time.
Nuts to you. The fact is that the weight of the batteries ( five times
larger to ensure that discharge doesn't go beyond 20% ) is an ADVANTAGE to
the locomotive which needs weight for traction. And the control of the
charge is what makes valve discharge lead acid batteries longer lasting than
traditional flooded batteries.
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/print-partone-6.htm
>
> --Damon
Stephen Sprunk
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > A modern diesel locomotive is 4+ MW. Who the fuck would want a 1.2MW?
>
> Well, as a road-switcher, the GP-10 does yard switching and *light* line
> hauling. It doesn't need the output of the regular line hauler that has
> heavy cargo and must haul up inclines. The engine of a diesel electric
GP-10
> is 1750 hp/1300 kw, so there is no signficant drop in power.
An SD90 has 4400hp. Long-distance freight trains in even lightly rolling
terrain may have two to six SD90s at the front (and sometimes more at the
back) of the consist. You think railroads want to quadruple the number of
engines they need?
If diesel were banned for environmental reasons, the railroads (the few that
wouldn't go bankrupt) would simply electrify their lines and switch to
6000hp electrics. It's a lot simpler, cheaper, more proven than any
hydrogen-based "solution".
> > Locomotives run for 10 years between rebuilds. The best a fuel cell
> > can do is one year.
>
> They do hope to improve the technology. No standing still with your mouth
> hanging open, okay?
The diesel engine is expected to last 30+ years, with rebuilds at 10-year
intervals. A rebuild doesn't mean replacing the engine. A current FC will
require 15-30 replacements during the expected lifetime of the loco,
presuming they can even last a year or two in the heavy industrial
conditions of a railroad -- unlikely for now.
> > The diesel-electric is 40% efficient, same as a PEM. Only a SOFC
> > would beat it.
>
> But puts out a lot of soot and pollutants on startup. The problem with
> switchers is that they are *alwasy* starting up...
Railroads typically leave locomotives (including switchers) idling rather
than shut them down and start them back up. This means FC locos would gain
a bit of ground, but the same is true of electrics.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:wlKPc.12430$Jq2.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>> A modern diesel locomotive is 4+ MW. Who the fuck would want a
>>> 1.2MW?
>>
>> Well, as a road-switcher, the GP-10 does yard switching and *light*
>> line hauling. It doesn't need the output of the regular line hauler
>> that has heavy cargo and must haul up inclines. The engine of a
>> diesel electric GP-10 is 1750 hp/1300 kw, so there is no signficant
>> drop in power.
>
> An SD90 has 4400hp. Long-distance freight trains in even lightly
> rolling terrain may have two to six SD90s at the front (and sometimes
> more at the back) of the consist. You think railroads want to
> quadruple the number of engines they need?
Because they want BIG trains to reduce the number of switching decisions and
personnel requirements.
>
> If diesel were banned for environmental reasons, the railroads (the
> few that wouldn't go bankrupt) would simply electrify their lines and
> switch to 6000hp electrics. It's a lot simpler, cheaper, more proven
> than any hydrogen-based "solution".
No. They would probably first adapt to turbine electic power. The
electificaiton of the rail is more costly.
>
>>> Locomotives run for 10 years between rebuilds. The best a fuel cell
>>> can do is one year.
>>
>> They do hope to improve the technology. No standing still with your
>> mouth hanging open, okay?
>
> The diesel engine is expected to last 30+ years, with rebuilds at
> 10-year intervals.
Only because they are massive as hell and this produces both long service
life and low rpm/power output. The precombusion chamber diesels that are
popular in europe have much higher revving and response but wear out about
as fast as a regular engine since the pistons and so on are of the same
strength, not having to resist the explosion forces of the fuel.
> A rebuild doesn't mean replacing the engine. A
> current FC will require 15-30 replacements during the expected
> lifetime of the loco, presuming they can even last a year or two in
> the heavy industrial conditions of a railroad -- unlikely for now.
And none of this has to do with the lifetimes of fuel cells. New technology
may change this fairly soon as the main problem is the Nafion membrane that
is the 'standard' for PEM fuel cells. There is one company that expects fuel
cell prices capital costs to reach $100/kw with it's technology.
>
>>> The diesel-electric is 40% efficient, same as a PEM. Only a SOFC
>>> would beat it.
>>
>> But puts out a lot of soot and pollutants on startup. The problem
>> with switchers is that they are *alwasy* starting up...
>
> Railroads typically leave locomotives (including switchers) idling
> rather than shut them down and start them back up.
And if you have ever seen one go to full power you know that it matters
hardly at all if it is idling or stopped. The smoke coming out is a signal
of the fact that diesels produce most of their pollutants while changing
power levels.
> This means FC
> locos would gain a bit of ground, but the same is true of electrics.
What is your thing with electrics? Anyway, if you take the examople of the
'green goat' or even the 'green kid' hybids save about 50% of the fuel in
typical intermittent operation. Not insignificant considering their thirst
for fuel in major quantities.
>
> S
Damon Hill
(numerous non-sequitirs and general incoherence deleted)
I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension implied by your
responses is so far off that no further explanations from
me would be worthwhile.
--Damon
Ian St. John
Sorry. I assumed that you were intelligent and aware. I hope your condition
is not congenital and that there is some hope of recovery. I mean, someone
who talks of 100 hp switching engines is obviously having problems with
reality.
But I concur that no further babble from you would make any difference. The
posts stand on their own.
>
> --Damon
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > An SD90 has 4400hp. Long-distance freight trains in even lightly
> > rolling terrain may have two to six SD90s at the front (and sometimes
> > more at the back) of the consist. You think railroads want to
> > quadruple the number of engines they need?
>
> Because they want BIG trains to reduce the number of switching decisions
and
> personnel requirements.
That doesn't justify using 24 FC locos where six diesel locos will do.
History shows the RRs want the biggest locos they can get for long-haul
routes, rather than stringing together a dozen (or two) tiny locos.
> > If diesel were banned for environmental reasons, the railroads (the
> > few that wouldn't go bankrupt) would simply electrify their lines and
> > switch to 6000hp electrics. It's a lot simpler, cheaper, more proven
> > than any hydrogen-based "solution".
>
> No. They would probably first adapt to turbine electic power. The
> electificaiton of the rail is more costly.
And what fuel would they be using to spin those turbines? Why not just use
that fuel to power a more conventional ICE?
> Only because they are massive as hell and this produces both long service
> life and low rpm/power output. The precombusion chamber diesels that are
> popular in europe have much higher revving and response but wear out about
> as fast as a regular engine since the pistons and so on are of the same
> strength, not having to resist the explosion forces of the fuel.
Most long-distance freight in Europe is electric; the diesel engines they
use are mainly for switching and short-haul movements. Totally different
requirements.
And that still doesn't address the issue that US RRs expect a loco engine to
last 30+ years. If buying six locos that lasted 5 years each were more cost
effective, they'd be doing it.
> > A rebuild doesn't mean replacing the engine. A
> > current FC will require 15-30 replacements during the expected
> > lifetime of the loco, presuming they can even last a year or two in
> > the heavy industrial conditions of a railroad -- unlikely for now.
>
> And none of this has to do with the lifetimes of fuel cells. New
technology
> may change this fairly soon as the main problem is the Nafion membrane
that
> is the 'standard' for PEM fuel cells. There is one company that expects
fuel
> cell prices capital costs to reach $100/kw with it's technology.
Let us know when it arrives, can be manufactured in volume, has the
durability of an ICE, and has been proven in the field. Until then it's an
experiment.
> And if you have ever seen one go to full power you know that it matters
> hardly at all if it is idling or stopped. The smoke coming out is a signal
> of the fact that diesels produce most of their pollutants while changing
> power levels.
Modern locos I see every day do not emit visible smoke when changing from
idle to full-power operation. I wouldn't be surprised if older ones did,
but you have to compare to the current state of the art.
> > This means FC
> > locos would gain a bit of ground, but the same is true of electrics.
>
> What is your thing with electrics? Anyway, if you take the examople of the
> 'green goat' or even the 'green kid' hybids save about 50% of the fuel in
> typical intermittent operation. Not insignificant considering their thirst
> for fuel in major quantities.
Most diesel locos already are hybrids, just without the batteries needed to
store excess/regenerated power. A switcher would benefit from such, but
long-haul locos tend to maintain constant speeds for hours at a time; the
weight of the batteries would offset any gains made during (rare)
acceleration events.
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:LjWRc.7915$a65.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> An SD90 has 4400hp. Long-distance freight trains in even lightly
>>> rolling terrain may have two to six SD90s at the front (and
>>> sometimes more at the back) of the consist. You think railroads
>>> want to quadruple the number of engines they need?
>>
>> Because they want BIG trains to reduce the number of switching
>> decisions and personnel requirements.
>
> That doesn't justify using 24 FC locos where six diesel locos will do.
This is really stupid. There is nothing to say that FC locomotives cannot be
made in 4,000+ hp varieties. The size of the current one is exactly right
for the job it is doing. They even downsized a larger model because it was
oversized for the job. Now you want to use 24 light duty yard switchers to
pull line frieght trains?? Do you have ANY clue?
> History shows the RRs want the biggest locos they can get for
> long-haul routes, rather than stringing together a dozen (or two)
> tiny locos.
Sure. P.S. nice illogical non-sequitor or is it a red herring? If they build
FC line haulers they will be sized to the job. Fuck, you are clueless. Were
you always this dim or is it due to brain damage?
>
>>> If diesel were banned for environmental reasons, the railroads (the
>>> few that wouldn't go bankrupt) would simply electrify their lines
>>> and switch to 6000hp electrics. It's a lot simpler, cheaper, more
>>> proven than any hydrogen-based "solution".
>>
>> No. They would probably first adapt to turbine electic power. The
>> electificaiton of the rail is more costly.
>
> And what fuel would they be using to spin those turbines?
JP4 or something equivalent like diesel.
> Why not just use that fuel to power a more conventional ICE?
Beats the shit out of me. I have to assume you have some reason for
eliminating diesels as an option. But it is your delusion. I cannot read
your mind to estimate your motives.
>
>> Only because they are massive as hell and this produces both long
>> service life and low rpm/power output. The precombusion chamber
>> diesels that are popular in europe have much higher revving and
>> response but wear out about as fast as a regular engine since the
>> pistons and so on are of the same strength, not having to resist the
>> explosion forces of the fuel.
>
> Most long-distance freight in Europe is electric; the diesel engines
> they use are mainly for switching and short-haul movements. Totally
> different requirements.
The reason they use electrics is mostly because they want high power, low
cost, and low weight for high speed rail systems. Other than electic rail
the only other way to have such light weight high power is by turbine engine
and if you look at high speed rail proposals for the U.S. you will notice
that as the engine of choice.
Having power delivered from the lines reduces the weight of the locomotive
part allowing for a relatively light weight locomotive and cars with the
power to haul at high speed. Obviously, the same pressures would exist in
the U.S. if they made a similar investment in high speed commuter freight,
but let us not talk about fantasies. The U.S. requirements for rail will be
for slow speeds, heavy cargo and passenger rail will be an afterthought.
WAY too many level crossing.
>
> And that still doesn't address the issue that US RRs expect a loco
> engine to last 30+ years. If buying six locos that lasted 5 years
> each were more cost effective, they'd be doing it.
And yet, replacing the batteries every five to ten years or even rebuilding
the PEM cell would be a simple thing. Relative economics will be the real
issue and that is not yet known. Diesels in the 4,000 hp class are not cheap
either.
Are you babbling to hear yourself think or do you think you have some
universal principle or unconquerable problem that will force things to go
your way. And what way is that? Sometimes I think you are arguing for
electified rail and other times you seem to be saying that diesels will
never be replaceable.
>
>>> A rebuild doesn't mean replacing the engine. A
>>> current FC will require 15-30 replacements during the expected
>>> lifetime of the loco, presuming they can even last a year or two in
>>> the heavy industrial conditions of a railroad -- unlikely for now.
>>
>> And none of this has to do with the lifetimes of fuel cells. New
>> technology may change this fairly soon as the main problem is the
>> Nafion membrane that is the 'standard' for PEM fuel cells. There is
>> one company that expects fuel cell prices capital costs to reach
>> $100/kw with it's technology.
>
> Let us know when it arrives, can be manufactured in volume, has the
> durability of an ICE, and has been proven in the field. Until then
> it's an experiment.
Yup. Obviously we are not talking about the past. Or are you too dim to
notice?
>
>> And if you have ever seen one go to full power you know that it
>> matters hardly at all if it is idling or stopped. The smoke coming
>> out is a signal of the fact that diesels produce most of their
>> pollutants while changing power levels.
>
> Modern locos I see every day do not emit visible smoke when changing
> from idle to full-power operation. I wouldn't be surprised if older
> ones did, but you have to compare to the current state of the art.
I would expect some sort of soot suppression then. The physics of adding a
rich mixture to increase RPM just don't change. Rich mixtures do not burn
completely and unburned fuel becomes soot.
>
>>> This means FC
>>> locos would gain a bit of ground, but the same is true of electrics.
>>
>> What is your thing with electrics? Anyway, if you take the examople
>> of the 'green goat' or even the 'green kid' hybids save about 50%
>> of the fuel in typical intermittent operation. Not insignificant
>> considering their thirst for fuel in major quantities.
>
> Most diesel locos already are hybrids, just without the batteries
> needed to store excess/regenerated power.
So they are diesel electrics, not hybrids..... Halfway hybrids or whatever.
It just points to there being easy to convert to hybrids. Just add battery
storage and charging controllers.
> A switcher would benefit
> from such, but long-haul locos tend to maintain constant speeds for
> hours at a time; the weight of the batteries would offset any gains
> made during (rare) acceleration events.
No. The engines of pretty well any transport system are sized for peak
power. Aircraft do it on takeoff. Locomotives do it on hauling through the
mountains. Cars do it to accelerate onto the highway. Etc. Hybrids have the
advantage of being able to 'borrow' from the batteries to reduce the size of
the engine required for those peak times and not having to idle the engine
when power is not needed just to have it ready when the line moves a little
( more important in gasoline engines than diesels ) .
Even with line haulers, for heavy loads, or mountain passages, they tend to
add other engines and so the equation still ends up that engine capacity are
much higher than average loads. Say there was a four engine frieght with
three of the engines needed for a mountain pass. It may be that they can
idle three of the engines on flat level ground once up to speed. This
multiple engine frieght that can be 'customized' to the needs by shutting
down engines, to do the same thing as hybrids. That jobs is to to allow peak
power loads without the expense of a single massive engine that wastes fuel
90% of the time when not at peak loads.
I expect that line haulers, if built on the hybrid concept, would be 'light
hybrid' with limited battery storage, just to add a short boost when needed
for accelerating the train up to speed. Actually I expect that the rail
companies will not bother as they don't have any pressure to make such
savings and there are few companies more conservative than U.S. railroads.
The line switcher is another story, of course.
>
> S
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> > news:LjWRc.7915$a65.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >>> An SD90 has 4400hp. Long-distance freight trains in even lightly
> >>> rolling terrain may have two to six SD90s at the front (and
> >>> sometimes more at the back) of the consist. You think railroads
> >>> want to quadruple the number of engines they need?
> >>
> >> Because they want BIG trains to reduce the number of switching
> >> decisions and personnel requirements.
> >
> > That doesn't justify using 24 FC locos where six diesel locos will do.
>
> This is really stupid. There is nothing to say that FC locomotives cannot
be
> made in 4,000+ hp varieties. The size of the current one is exactly right
> for the job it is doing. They even downsized a larger model because it was
> oversized for the job. Now you want to use 24 light duty yard switchers to
> pull line frieght trains?? Do you have ANY clue?
If the goal was to make a yard switcher, it appears they've succeeded. That
wasn't the goal I'd gotten from previous messages in the thread.
> > History shows the RRs want the biggest locos they can get for
> > long-haul routes, rather than stringing together a dozen (or two)
> > tiny locos.
>
> Sure. P.S. nice illogical non-sequitor or is it a red herring? If they
build
> FC line haulers they will be sized to the job. Fuck, you are clueless.
Were
> you always this dim or is it due to brain damage?
But can they actually build long-distance FC locos with sufficient (and
safe) storage capacity to match the range a full-size diesel-electric loco
can do today?
> >>> If diesel were banned for environmental reasons, the railroads (the
> >>> few that wouldn't go bankrupt) would simply electrify their lines
> >>> and switch to 6000hp electrics. It's a lot simpler, cheaper, more
> >>> proven than any hydrogen-based "solution".
> >>
> >> No. They would probably first adapt to turbine electic power. The
> >> electificaiton of the rail is more costly.
> >
> > And what fuel would they be using to spin those turbines?
>
> JP4 or something equivalent like diesel.
You missed the entire point of what I said. Diesel ICEs are the most
cost-effective powerplant for locos today; the question was what they'd do
if diesel (and presumably other fossil fuels) were banned. They wouldn't
switch to H2, they'd go electric.
> > Most long-distance freight in Europe is electric; the diesel engines
> > they use are mainly for switching and short-haul movements. Totally
> > different requirements.
>
> The reason they use electrics is mostly because they want high power, low
> cost, and low weight for high speed rail systems.
Read closer. Europe uses electric for long-distance freight because, due to
their taxes, it's cheaper than diesel. Electric will be cheaper (and easier
to deal with) than H2 as well.
> Other than electic rail the only other way to have such light weight high
> power is by turbine engine and if you look at high speed rail proposals
for
> the U.S. you will notice that as the engine of choice.
The only HSR in the US (existing or proposed) uses overhead electric; try
again.
> Having power delivered from the lines reduces the weight of the
locomotive
> part allowing for a relatively light weight locomotive and cars with the
> power to haul at high speed. Obviously, the same pressures would exist in
> the U.S. if they made a similar investment in high speed commuter freight,
> but let us not talk about fantasies. The U.S. requirements for rail will
be
> for slow speeds, heavy cargo and passenger rail will be an afterthought.
> WAY too many level crossing.
Weight is actually an advantage for freight; electric locos actually require
ballast weight to improve traction. Nobody but you brought up passenger
rail.
> > And that still doesn't address the issue that US RRs expect a loco
> > engine to last 30+ years. If buying six locos that lasted 5 years
> > each were more cost effective, they'd be doing it.
>
> And yet, replacing the batteries every five to ten years or even
rebuilding
> the PEM cell would be a simple thing. Relative economics will be the real
> issue and that is not yet known. Diesels in the 4,000 hp class are not
cheap
> either.
So your position is that PEMs and batteries are cheap enough to
replace/rebuild every few years and still come out ahead of a 30+ year
service-life diesel loco?
It's possible, but I'd like to see real numbers on that. Current FC cars
(which at least resemble locos) can't even break even on cost for a 5-year
service life.
> Are you babbling to hear yourself think or do you think you have some
> universal principle or unconquerable problem that will force things to go
> your way. And what way is that? Sometimes I think you are arguing for
> electified rail and other times you seem to be saying that diesels will
> never be replaceable.
Diesel wins hands-down in the US, except for HSR where it simply can't
provide enough traction power. Electric is the only other _proven_
technology and has the advantage (over fossil fuels) of no emissions at the
point of use, but it's more expensive in our current economy.
If the economics of various fuels change drastically, I might support
something else. Personally I'd rather see everything go to biodiesel and/or
ethanol, but right now it's just not cost-effective to do so.
> > Most diesel locos already are hybrids, just without the batteries
> > needed to store excess/regenerated power.
>
> So they are diesel electrics, not hybrids..... Halfway hybrids or
whatever.
> It just points to there being easy to convert to hybrids. Just add battery
> storage and charging controllers.
So to you, a power train consisting of a diesel engine, electric generator,
and electric motors does not qualify as a hybrid merely because it doesn't
have batteries?
> > A switcher would benefit from such, but long-haul locos tend to
> > maintain constant speeds for hours at a time; the weight of the
batteries
> > would offset any gains made during (rare) acceleration events.
>
> No. The engines of pretty well any transport system are sized for peak
> power. Aircraft do it on takeoff. Locomotives do it on hauling through the
> mountains.
Unlike aircraft and cars, locos are added to freight consists for trips up
and down steep grades; a typical freight consist in Kansas (running at peak
power just maintaining speed on level track) would never make it though
western Colorado.
> Cars do it to accelerate onto the highway. Etc. Hybrids have the
> advantage of being able to 'borrow' from the batteries to reduce the size
of
> the engine required for those peak times and not having to idle the engine
> when power is not needed just to have it ready when the line moves a
little
> ( more important in gasoline engines than diesels ) .
That assumes your hybrid has enough battery capacity to last through the
peak need. A loco heading into the mountains can spend _hours_ at peak
power, and then more hours at idle power braking down the other side. You'd
need many, many railcars full of batteries to hold enough energy to be
useful.
> Even with line haulers, for heavy loads, or mountain passages, they tend
to
> add other engines and so the equation still ends up that engine capacity
are
> much higher than average loads. Say there was a four engine frieght with
> three of the engines needed for a mountain pass. It may be that they can
> idle three of the engines on flat level ground once up to speed.
They generally remove the excess locos from the consist at the bottom of the
grade, unless logistics dictate they're needed somewhere else. There's
often a pool of "helper" locos at the bottom on each side, which are slapped
onto the end of freights coming through.
> I expect that line haulers, if built on the hybrid concept, would be
'light
> hybrid' with limited battery storage, just to add a short boost when
needed
> for accelerating the train up to speed.
Freight trains rarely stop between yards. Commuter trains, on the other
hand, are a perfect use for hybrids. Short but steep acceleration profiles
mean most systems have several times the capacity they need once up to
speed; the rolling resistance is so low it's not uncommon for the engineer
to run peak power coming out of a station, hit 60mph after a minute or so,
and then coast 3-5mi to the next station. A smart hybrid could use that
coasting time to charge the batteries for the next departure.
> Actually I expect that the rail companies will not bother as they don't
have
> any pressure to make such savings and there are few companies more
> conservative than U.S. railroads.
With most railroads teetering on the brink of bankrupcy for the last several
decades, they'll do anything to cut costs. But first there has to be strong
evidence they _will_ save money for them to make that commitment, and fuel
cells simply aren't proven even in the comparatively reckless auto industry.
> The line switcher is another story, of course.
Indeed. It's a great laboratory to make experiments, because the cost of
failure is low and the requirements for success are even lower. In another
decade or two enough evidence might be collected that fuel cells could be
considered for long-distance use.
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:ti8Sc.12425$a65.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:LjWRc.7915$a65.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> An SD90 has 4400hp. Long-distance freight trains in even lightly
>>>>> rolling terrain may have two to six SD90s at the front (and
>>>>> sometimes more at the back) of the consist. You think railroads
>>>>> want to quadruple the number of engines they need?
>>>>
>>>> Because they want BIG trains to reduce the number of switching
>>>> decisions and personnel requirements.
>>>
>>> That doesn't justify using 24 FC locos where six diesel locos will
>>> do.
>>
>> This is really stupid. There is nothing to say that FC locomotives
>> cannot be made in 4,000+ hp varieties. The size of the current one
>> is exactly right for the job it is doing. They even downsized a
>> larger model because it was oversized for the job. Now you want to
>> use 24 light duty yard switchers to pull line frieght trains?? Do
>> you have ANY clue?
>
> If the goal was to make a yard switcher, it appears they've
> succeeded. That wasn't the goal I'd gotten from previous messages in
> the thread.
The fact that it was a GP-10 was prominent. How could you confuse a GP-10
with an SD90??
>
>>> History shows the RRs want the biggest locos they can get for
>>> long-haul routes, rather than stringing together a dozen (or two)
>>> tiny locos.
>>
>> Sure. P.S. nice illogical non-sequitor or is it a red herring? If
>> they build FC line haulers they will be sized to the job. Fuck, you
>> are clueless. Were you always this dim or is it due to brain damage?
>
> But can they actually build long-distance FC locos with sufficient
> (and safe) storage capacity to match the range a full-size
> diesel-electric loco can do today?
No. But then we are talking about hybrids not all electric storage. Is this
something like dyslexia, where you cannot help but confuse what is being
discussed?
>
>>>>> If diesel were banned for environmental reasons, the railroads
>>>>> (the few that wouldn't go bankrupt) would simply electrify their
>>>>> lines and switch to 6000hp electrics. It's a lot simpler,
>>>>> cheaper, more proven than any hydrogen-based "solution".
>>>>
>>>> No. They would probably first adapt to turbine electic power. The
>>>> electificaiton of the rail is more costly.
>>>
>>> And what fuel would they be using to spin those turbines?
>>
>> JP4 or something equivalent like diesel.
>
> You missed the entire point of what I said.
No. You talked about banning diesels for environmental reasons. That would
mean for their pollution, especially fine particulates. The turbines do not
have this problem.
> Diesel ICEs are the most cost-effective powerplant for locos today;
Not necessarily. For high output, the turbine would be the choice as it is
for high speed rail. Diesels are just the traditional choice.
> the question was what they'd do if diesel (and presumably other fossil
fuels) were banned.
> They wouldn't switch to H2, they'd go electric.
Ah. So you are not banning diesels. You are banning fossil fuels? Why did
you not say so. If they banned fossil fuels I expect that they would just
continue on using diesel engines but develop biodiesels supplies. Much
cheaper. It is commercially available now and a small part of the Sonorran
desert could potentially provide enough biodiesel fuel to power the U.S.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
>
>>> Most long-distance freight in Europe is electric; the diesel engines
>>> they use are mainly for switching and short-haul movements. Totally
>>> different requirements.
>>
>> The reason they use electrics is mostly because they want high
>> power, low cost, and low weight for high speed rail systems.
>
> Read closer. Europe uses electric for long-distance freight because,
> due to their taxes, it's cheaper than diesel. Electric will be
> cheaper (and easier to deal with) than H2 as well.
Think a second. The rails are electified for high speed rail. Whay would
they use inefficienc onboard diesels when they already have the power freely
available. Do not confuse the driving motivation with the opportunity cost.
>
>> Other than electic rail the only other way to have such light weight
>> high power is by turbine engine and if you look at high speed rail
>> proposals for the U.S. you will notice that as the engine of choice.
>
> The only HSR in the US (existing or proposed) uses overhead electric;
> try again.
If you have an example where they have electified, it is news to me.
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/amtrak/
Hmm. It mentions the problems of carrying the 25kv catenary over lifting
bridges. The engineering challenges are not trivial and I imagine that level
crossing must be avoided and that must costs a LOT. Only one place has the
traffic to afford this in the U.S. I guess.
http://www.house.gov/mica/rlhigh.htm
"In the United States, the 400-mile route between Washington, DC and Boston
(the Northeast Corridor) is virtually the only track with enough overhead
electric lines to supply electricity to a high-speed rail train."
which is why, I imagine, that the majority of proposals have been for
turbine powered locomotion.
>
>> Having power delivered from the lines reduces the weight of the
>> locomotive part allowing for a relatively light weight locomotive
>> and cars with the power to haul at high speed. Obviously, the same
>> pressures would exist in the U.S. if they made a similar investment
>> in high speed commuter freight, but let us not talk about fantasies.
>> The U.S. requirements for rail will be for slow speeds, heavy cargo
>> and passenger rail will be an afterthought. WAY too many level
>> crossing.
>
> Weight is actually an advantage for freight; electric locos actually
> require ballast weight to improve traction. Nobody but you brought
> up passenger rail.
Actually, you did with your referecne to high speed passenger trains in
Europe using electricity.
>
>>> And that still doesn't address the issue that US RRs expect a loco
>>> engine to last 30+ years. If buying six locos that lasted 5 years
>>> each were more cost effective, they'd be doing it.
>>
>> And yet, replacing the batteries every five to ten years or even
>> rebuilding the PEM cell would be a simple thing. Relative economics
>> will be the real issue and that is not yet known. Diesels in the
>> 4,000 hp class are not cheap either.
>
> So your position is that PEMs and batteries are cheap enough to
> replace/rebuild every few years and still come out ahead of a 30+ year
> service-life diesel loco?
No. My position is that the future is not here and you cannot predict it
from reading chicken entrails.
>
> It's possible, but I'd like to see real numbers on that. Current FC
> cars (which at least resemble locos) can't even break even on cost
> for a 5-year service life.
Are you claiming that PEM fuel cell trains are cost effective today? Where
did you read that and how do you justify it? Man. Just discuss the potential
advances in engineering with you and automatigically you go into fantasy
land where everything is NOW.
>
>> Are you babbling to hear yourself think or do you think you have some
>> universal principle or unconquerable problem that will force things
>> to go your way. And what way is that? Sometimes I think you are
>> arguing for electified rail and other times you seem to be saying
>> that diesels will never be replaceable.
>
> Diesel wins hands-down in the US, except for HSR where it simply can't
> provide enough traction power.
Well, you are still ignoring turbine electric which provides enough power
for high speed rail.
> Electric is the only other _proven_
> technology and has the advantage (over fossil fuels) of no emissions
> at the point of use, but it's more expensive in our current economy.
Overhead electicity is only feasible in the one area it is already in use.
>
> If the economics of various fuels change drastically, I might support
> something else.
The economic of fuel cells are currently shitty. That is why I pointed to
the hybrid systems.
> Personally I'd rather see everything go to biodiesel
> and/or ethanol, but right now it's just not cost-effective to do so.
Nothing is cost effective before the infrastructure is built. Afterwards
nobody can understand why they didn't switch sooner.
>
>>> Most diesel locos already are hybrids, just without the batteries
>>> needed to store excess/regenerated power.
>>
>> So they are diesel electrics, not hybrids..... Halfway hybrids or
>> whatever. It just points to there being easy to convert to hybrids.
>> Just add battery storage and charging controllers.
>
> So to you, a power train consisting of a diesel engine, electric
> generator, and electric motors does not qualify as a hybrid merely
> because it doesn't have batteries?
A 'hybrid' is not a 'diesel electrci'. A clue can be gotten from the fact
that they have different names for different things. A hybrid has onboard
power storage so that it can both provide a boost to reduce peak power
requirements ( and thus engine size) increasing efficiency as well as
regenerative power from braking ( to cut down on losses from start/stop
cycles.).
>
>>> A switcher would benefit from such, but long-haul locos tend to
>>> maintain constant speeds for hours at a time; the weight of the
>>> batteries would offset any gains made during (rare) acceleration
>>> events.
>>
>> No. The engines of pretty well any transport system are sized for
>> peak power. Aircraft do it on takeoff. Locomotives do it on hauling
>> through the mountains.
>
> Unlike aircraft and cars, locos are added to freight consists for
> trips up and down steep grades; a typical freight consist in Kansas
> (running at peak power just maintaining speed on level track) would
> never make it though western Colorado.
And the power to start or acceleate a frieght is not the same as the power
needed to keep it moving. Please understand what I am saying. Hybrids
provide higher effeiciency by load levelling. The same is true of multiple
engines but regardless of how many engines are active, the hybrid concept
can maximise the efficiency of that engine by regenerative braking and by
peak boosting.
>
>> Cars do it to accelerate onto the highway. Etc. Hybrids have the
>> advantage of being able to 'borrow' from the batteries to reduce the
>> size of the engine required for those peak times and not having to
>> idle the engine when power is not needed just to have it ready when
>> the line moves a little ( more important in gasoline engines than
>> diesels ) .
>
> That assumes your hybrid has enough battery capacity to last through
> the peak need.
That is why a locomotive hybrid would probably be a 'light hybrid' with
limited power boost for short term acceleration, not for inclines.
> A loco heading into the mountains can spend _hours_
> at peak power, and then more hours at idle power braking down the
> other side. You'd need many, many railcars full of batteries to hold
> enough energy to be useful.
You cannot 'load level' over a long high power use, yes. And yet you can and
do add engines reducing the issue to providing a short term boost for peak
duty even in mountian terrain. Perhaps for the biggest inclines or to
provide a boost during building up of speed. Hybrides do not work by having
massive storage. They can only provide a boost over a peak and recover some
energy from braking on inclines.
>
>> Even with line haulers, for heavy loads, or mountain passages, they
>> tend to add other engines and so the equation still ends up that
>> engine capacity are much higher than average loads. Say there was a
>> four engine frieght with three of the engines needed for a mountain
>> pass. It may be that they can idle three of the engines on flat
>> level ground once up to speed.
>
> They generally remove the excess locos from the consist at the bottom
> of the grade, unless logistics dictate they're needed somewhere else.
> There's often a pool of "helper" locos at the bottom on each side,
> which are slapped onto the end of freights coming through.
Idled or detached in a non-issue.
>
>> I expect that line haulers, if built on the hybrid concept, would
>> be 'light hybrid' with limited battery storage, just to add a short
>> boost when needed for accelerating the train up to speed.
>
> Freight trains rarely stop between yards.
And your point is?
> Commuter trains, on the
> other hand, are a perfect use for hybrids.
Rather, they would benefit more from 'light' hybrid design.
> Short but steep
> acceleration profiles mean most systems have several times the
> capacity they need once up to speed; the rolling resistance is so low
> it's not uncommon for the engineer to run peak power coming out of a
> station, hit 60mph after a minute or so, and then coast 3-5mi to the
> next station. A smart hybrid could use that coasting time to charge
> the batteries for the next departure.
Leaving room for regenerative braking on nearing the station.
>
>> Actually I expect that the rail companies will not bother as they
>> don't have any pressure to make such savings and there are few
>> companies more conservative than U.S. railroads.
>
> With most railroads teetering on the brink of bankrupcy for the last
> several decades, they'll do anything to cut costs.
Rather, they have become tremendously risk averse, avoiding any change as
potentially disasterous.
> But first there
> has to be strong evidence they _will_ save money for them to make
> that commitment, and fuel cells simply aren't proven even in the
> comparatively reckless auto industry.
Well, according to you we shoudl have electric cars with overhead wires on
our streets? There is a problem in comparing apples and oranges, don't you
know?
>
>> The line switcher is another story, of course.
>
> Indeed. It's a great laboratory to make experiments, because the
> cost of failure is low and the requirements for success are even
> lower. In another decade or two enough evidence might be collected
> that fuel cells could be considered for long-distance use.
Rather than a failure, the hybrid switcher is a roaring success. However it
is not a testbed for other situtations, only maybe the materials.
The ammonia based PEM locomotive will be a more interesting testbed.
>
> S
Stephen Sprunk
"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:AobSc.13997$a65.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > If the goal was to make a yard switcher, it appears they've
> > succeeded. That wasn't the goal I'd gotten from previous messages in
> > the thread.
>
> The fact that it was a GP-10 was prominent. How could you confuse a GP-10
> with an SD90??
"A modern diesel locomotive is 4+ MW. Who the fuck would want a 1.2MW?"
The only "modern diesel locomotives" in the 4MW range are long-haul
freights.
> >>> History shows the RRs want the biggest locos they can get for
> >>> long-haul routes, rather than stringing together a dozen (or two)
> >>> tiny locos.
> >>
> >> Sure. P.S. nice illogical non-sequitor or is it a red herring? If
> >> they build FC line haulers they will be sized to the job. Fuck, you
> >> are clueless. Were you always this dim or is it due to brain damage?
> >
> > But can they actually build long-distance FC locos with sufficient
> > (and safe) storage capacity to match the range a full-size
> > diesel-electric loco can do today?
>
> No. But then we are talking about hybrids not all electric storage. Is
this
> something like dyslexia, where you cannot help but confuse what is being
> discussed?
You have to store an FC's fuel somewhere, and H2 (the fuel they run on
today) has nowhere near the storage density that diesel has.
> >>>>> If diesel were banned for environmental reasons, the railroads
> >>>>> (the few that wouldn't go bankrupt) would simply electrify their
> >>>>> lines and switch to 6000hp electrics. It's a lot simpler,
> >>>>> cheaper, more proven than any hydrogen-based "solution".
> >>>>
> >>>> No. They would probably first adapt to turbine electic power. The
> >>>> electificaiton of the rail is more costly.
> >>>
> >>> And what fuel would they be using to spin those turbines?
> >>
> >> JP4 or something equivalent like diesel.
> >
> > You missed the entire point of what I said.
>
> No. You talked about banning diesels for environmental reasons. That would
> mean for their pollution, especially fine particulates. The turbines do
not
> have this problem.
So turbines have no pollution?
> > Diesel ICEs are the most cost-effective powerplant for locos today;
>
> Not necessarily. For high output, the turbine would be the choice as it is
> for high speed rail. Diesels are just the traditional choice.
Turbines do not exist anywhere in the world of HSR. Every HSR line in the
world, including those in the US both built and proposed, is powered by
overhead electric.
> > the question was what they'd do if diesel (and presumably other fossil
> > fuels) were banned. They wouldn't switch to H2, they'd go electric.
>
> Ah. So you are not banning diesels. You are banning fossil fuels? Why did
> you not say so. If they banned fossil fuels I expect that they would just
> continue on using diesel engines but develop biodiesels supplies. Much
> cheaper. It is commercially available now
At a price roughly double that of dino diesel. Electricity is between the
two in price.
And, while I know electricity in the US isn't pollution-free, neither is
biodiesel.
> and a small part of the Sonorran
> desert could potentially provide enough biodiesel fuel to power the U.S.
> http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
Get back to us when someone has the money to build that pipe dream.
> >>> Most long-distance freight in Europe is electric; the diesel engines
> >>> they use are mainly for switching and short-haul movements. Totally
> >>> different requirements.
> >>
> >> The reason they use electrics is mostly because they want high
> >> power, low cost, and low weight for high speed rail systems.
> >
> > Read closer. Europe uses electric for long-distance freight because,
> > due to their taxes, it's cheaper than diesel. Electric will be
> > cheaper (and easier to deal with) than H2 as well.
>
> Think a second. The rails are electified for high speed rail. Whay would
> they use inefficienc onboard diesels when they already have the power
freely
> available. Do not confuse the driving motivation with the opportunity
cost.
Europeans don't use diesel when electricity is available because diesel is
more expensive there. The opposite is true here: most freights running on
electrified rail lines still use diesel because it's more cost-effective.
> >> Other than electic rail the only other way to have such light weight
> >> high power is by turbine engine and if you look at high speed rail
> >> proposals for the U.S. you will notice that as the engine of choice.
> >
> > The only HSR in the US (existing or proposed) uses overhead electric;
> > try again.
>
> If you have an example where they have electified, it is news to me.
> http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/amtrak/
Amtrak's entire Northeast Corridor, from DC to NYC to Boston, is
electrified, as are many other railroads in the area. Bombardier's American
Flyer trains (used by Amtrak for Acela Express service) exclusively use
overhead power, and that's the only HSR trainset meeting US safety
standards. It was based on the French TGV, which is also exclusively
electric, though the Eurostar variants can use third-rail power instead of
overhead for low-speed runs on the UK side of the Chunnel.
> Hmm. It mentions the problems of carrying the 25kv catenary over lifting
> bridges. The engineering challenges are not trivial and I imagine that
level
> crossing must be avoided and that must costs a LOT. Only one place has the
> traffic to afford this in the U.S. I guess.
> http://www.house.gov/mica/rlhigh.htm
> "In the United States, the 400-mile route between Washington, DC and
Boston
> (the Northeast Corridor) is virtually the only track with enough overhead
> electric lines to supply electricity to a high-speed rail train."
> which is why, I imagine, that the majority of proposals have been for
> turbine powered locomotion.
No, the other proposals have all included similar electrification. As does
every existing HSR line in the world -- France, Germany, Spain, Japan, etc.
all use overhead electric, not turbines.
The only commercially available turbine loco, the TurboTrain, hasn't seen
use in the US in years and the last remaining one (in France of all places)
is being phased out becuase it's too damn expensive to operate and maintain,
and because the super-hot exhaust causes damage to tunnels, bridges, nearby
trains, overhead power lines, etc.
> >> Having power delivered from the lines reduces the weight of the
> >> locomotive part allowing for a relatively light weight locomotive
> >> and cars with the power to haul at high speed. Obviously, the same
> >> pressures would exist in the U.S. if they made a similar investment
> >> in high speed commuter freight, but let us not talk about fantasies.
> >> The U.S. requirements for rail will be for slow speeds, heavy cargo
> >> and passenger rail will be an afterthought. WAY too many level
> >> crossing.
> >
> > Weight is actually an advantage for freight; electric locos actually
> > require ballast weight to improve traction. Nobody but you brought
> > up passenger rail.
>
> Actually, you did with your referecne to high speed passenger trains in
> Europe using electricity.
No, I started by talking about "Most long-distance freight in Europe is
electric"; you mentioned passenger rail first.
> > So your position is that PEMs and batteries are cheap enough to
> > replace/rebuild every few years and still come out ahead of a 30+ year
> > service-life diesel loco?
>
> No. My position is that the future is not here and you cannot predict it
> from reading chicken entrails.
Okay, so at some undefined point in the future FC locos might be viable, or
they might not be. That's breathtaking news.
> >> Are you babbling to hear yourself think or do you think you have some
> >> universal principle or unconquerable problem that will force things
> >> to go your way. And what way is that? Sometimes I think you are
> >> arguing for electified rail and other times you seem to be saying
> >> that diesels will never be replaceable.
> >
> > Diesel wins hands-down in the US, except for HSR where it simply can't
> > provide enough traction power.
>
> Well, you are still ignoring turbine electric which provides enough power
> for high speed rail.
Not in practice, it doesn't. There is exactly one high-speed train using
turbine power, and it was a demonstrator built in France in the early 1970s;
it never saw revenue service and sits in a museum. Future models of what
became known as the TGV were all-electric because it was more
cost-effective.
> > Electric is the only other _proven_ technology and has the advantage
> > (over fossil fuels) of no emissions at the point of use, but it's more
> > expensive in our current economy.
>
> Overhead electicity is only feasible in the one area it is already in use.
It's feasible anywhere; in fact the NEC is most difficult place in the US to
use it, but also the area where it's most important. Catenary can be put up
on any rail line in the US; the only reason the RRs haven't done it is
because diesel is cheaper (for now).
> > If the economics of various fuels change drastically, I might support
> > something else.
>
> The economic of fuel cells are currently shitty. That is why I pointed to
> the hybrid systems.
Funny, I thought the Subject line said this was about the "World's First
Fuel-Cell Powered Train Locomotive". I didn't catch your message where we
shifted to diesel hybrid engines.
> > Personally I'd rather see everything go to biodiesel
> > and/or ethanol, but right now it's just not cost-effective to do so.
>
> Nothing is cost effective before the infrastructure is built. Afterwards
> nobody can understand why they didn't switch sooner.
Totally agreed.
> >>> Most diesel locos already are hybrids, just without the batteries
> >>> needed to store excess/regenerated power.
> >>
> >> So they are diesel electrics, not hybrids..... Halfway hybrids or
> >> whatever. It just points to there being easy to convert to hybrids.
> >> Just add battery storage and charging controllers.
> >
> > So to you, a power train consisting of a diesel engine, electric
> > generator, and electric motors does not qualify as a hybrid merely
> > because it doesn't have batteries?
>
> A 'hybrid' is not a 'diesel electrci'. A clue can be gotten from the fact
> that they have different names for different things. A hybrid has onboard
> power storage so that it can both provide a boost to reduce peak power
> requirements ( and thus engine size) increasing efficiency as well as
> regenerative power from braking ( to cut down on losses from start/stop
> cycles.).
One can debate the labels, but a diesel-electric loco is only a battery
string away from being a "hybrid" by your definition. Batteries, to me, are
not the defining characteristic of whether a drivetrain is hybrid or not.
> > Unlike aircraft and cars, locos are added to freight consists for
> > trips up and down steep grades; a typical freight consist in Kansas
> > (running at peak power just maintaining speed on level track) would
> > never make it though western Colorado.
>
> And the power to start or acceleate a frieght is not the same as the power
> needed to keep it moving.
That depends on how fast you go and how much power is available.
Aerodynamic and rolling resistance gets significant as speed increases, and
freight trains (including all the trailing cars) are hideously
unaerodynamic.
> Please understand what I am saying. Hybrids
> provide higher effeiciency by load levelling. The same is true of multiple
> engines but regardless of how many engines are active, the hybrid concept
> can maximise the efficiency of that engine by regenerative braking and by
> peak boosting.
Of course. But, for the efficiency improvement to pay for the added
equipment, you need either frequent stop/go cycles or a massive amount of
energy storage -- neither of which makes sense for a long-haul loco. It
does for commuter locos and yard switchers.
Ford's Escape Hybrid gets much worse fuel economy on the highway than in the
city because it never has an opportunity to make the hybrid drive useful. I
think a similar problem applies to trains, though obviously in the RR
industry there are different models sold for each use.
> >> Even with line haulers, for heavy loads, or mountain passages, they
> >> tend to add other engines and so the equation still ends up that
> >> engine capacity are much higher than average loads. Say there was a
> >> four engine frieght with three of the engines needed for a mountain
> >> pass. It may be that they can idle three of the engines on flat
> >> level ground once up to speed.
> >
> > They generally remove the excess locos from the consist at the bottom
> > of the grade, unless logistics dictate they're needed somewhere else.
> > There's often a pool of "helper" locos at the bottom on each side,
> > which are slapped onto the end of freights coming through.
>
> Idled or detached in a non-issue.
Hardly. Trains do not travel across the flatlands with 75% idle power just
so they'll be able to cross the mountains unaided.
> >> I expect that line haulers, if built on the hybrid concept, would
> >> be 'light hybrid' with limited battery storage, just to add a short
> >> boost when needed for accelerating the train up to speed.
> >
> > Freight trains rarely stop between yards.
>
> And your point is?
If you don't stop often then you don't accelerate often, and you don't need
that "short boost" often. A freight train may take 10 minutes to reach
operating speed, and I doubt many hybrid systems can store enough power for
that. Each freight car can weigh 100+ times as much as a single passenger
car, and there can be hundreds to over a thousand cars per train; you need a
lot of power stored up to provide any appreciable boost to a 4000hp loco.
> > Commuter trains, on the other hand, are a perfect use for hybrids.
>
> Rather, they would benefit more from 'light' hybrid design.
And what is your distinction between a "light" hybrid and a (I'm guessing)
"heavy" hybrid design?
> > But first there has to be strong evidence they _will_ save money for
> > them to make that commitment, and fuel cells simply aren't proven
> > even in the comparatively reckless auto industry.
>
> Well, according to you we shoudl have electric cars with overhead wires on
> our streets?
No, according to me we should all have hybrid cars with ethanol as the ICE
fuel. Railroads don't require a portable fuel source like cars do; they
only use one today because it's the most cost-effective solution.
> There is a problem in comparing apples and oranges, don't you
> know?
The auto industry is one of the main groups investigating FC technology
today; others looking at FCs for power plants or heating are even less
relevant to railroads because the cells aren't mobile.
> >> The line switcher is another story, of course.
> >
> > Indeed. It's a great laboratory to make experiments, because the
> > cost of failure is low and the requirements for success are even
> > lower. In another decade or two enough evidence might be collected
> > that fuel cells could be considered for long-distance use.
>
> Rather than a failure, the hybrid switcher is a roaring success. However
it
> is not a testbed for other situtations, only maybe the materials.
A roaring success? It's hard to tell how many have been made (the web page
phrasing makes it sound like a single unit) or how long they've been in
service (though it looks like less than a year). It's still an experiment,
though one that hasn't had any spectacular public failures so far.
Also, RRs are willing to test a switcher because they'll have others nearby
for when it fails (and it surely will). That's what I meant by the cost of
failure being low. Also, being able to haul a few cars around a flat yard
at 10mph isn't much of a bar for success, though it's necessary as a first
step.
> The ammonia based PEM locomotive will be a more interesting testbed.
Indeed.
Ian St. John
> [ alt.politics.republican removed, since my server doesn't carry it ]
>
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:AobSc.13997$a65.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> If the goal was to make a yard switcher, it appears they've
>>> succeeded. That wasn't the goal I'd gotten from previous messages
>>> in the thread.
>>
>> The fact that it was a GP-10 was prominent. How could you confuse a
>> GP-10 with an SD90??
>
> "A modern diesel locomotive is 4+ MW. Who the fuck would want a
> 1.2MW?"
Well, obviously a yard switcher would want 1.2 MW and is there is nothing to
say that a 'modern' yard switcher would need more!
>
> The only "modern diesel locomotives" in the 4MW range are long-haul
> freights.
If you say so. I gather that you do not like my reply to Eric Gisin, who
made the above claims?
>
>>>>> History shows the RRs want the biggest locos they can get for
>>>>> long-haul routes, rather than stringing together a dozen (or two)
>>>>> tiny locos.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. P.S. nice illogical non-sequitor or is it a red herring? If
>>>> they build FC line haulers they will be sized to the job. Fuck, you
>>>> are clueless. Were you always this dim or is it due to brain
>>>> damage?
>>>
>>> But can they actually build long-distance FC locos with sufficient
>>> (and safe) storage capacity to match the range a full-size
>>> diesel-electric loco can do today?
>>
>> No. But then we are talking about hybrids not all electric storage.
>> Is this something like dyslexia, where you cannot help but confuse
>> what is being discussed?
>
> You have to store an FC's fuel somewhere, and H2 (the fuel they run on
> today) has nowhere near the storage density that diesel has.
Again, you confuse the issue. The FC locomotive is not a 'hybrid'. The fuel
cell project was making a yard switcher/ short haul as a first step which
was clear from their selection of a GP-10 and 1.2 MW motor. The hybrid idea
was introduced by comparison to the Green Goat ( a hybrid yard switcher).
And if you had done some reading you would know that the FC swticher was
using anhydrous ammonia in a tank car as the fuel source, which is a fairly
dense storage for hydrogen and easily available since it is generally moved
and delivered by freight trains. An interesting concept really. Not much
use in cars as anhydrous ammonia is not very 'user friendly' but fine for
trains which carry the stuff anyway.
>>>>>>> If diesel were banned for environmental reasons, the railroads
>>>>>>> (the few that wouldn't go bankrupt) would simply electrify their
>>>>>>> lines and switch to 6000hp electrics. It's a lot simpler,
>>>>>>> cheaper, more proven than any hydrogen-based "solution".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. They would probably first adapt to turbine electic power. The
>>>>>> electificaiton of the rail is more costly.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what fuel would they be using to spin those turbines?
>>>>
>>>> JP4 or something equivalent like diesel.
>>>
>>> You missed the entire point of what I said.
>>
>> No. You talked about banning diesels for environmental reasons. That
>> would mean for their pollution, especially fine particulates. The
>> turbines do not have this problem.
>
> So turbines have no pollution?
Please take some remedial reading skills. I did not say that they did not
have pollution. I guarantee that they spew out CO2 and that is becoming a
pollutant these days, not to mention NOx, and any sulfur in the fuel is
bound to come out as SOx. The main advantage is no fine particulates or
organic vapors as they are very thorough at burning the fuel completely.
>
>>> Diesel ICEs are the most cost-effective powerplant for locos today;
>>
>> Not necessarily. For high output, the turbine would be the choice as
>> it is for high speed rail. Diesels are just the traditional choice.
>
> Turbines do not exist anywhere in the world of HSR. Every HSR line
> in the world, including those in the US both built and proposed, is
> powered by overhead electric.
You have a fascinating level of 'blind spotting'. Did you poke out an eye or
something?
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Content3.asp?P=653
http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/train.html
http://www.webprowire.com/summaries/465106.html
Turboliners Enter Service
Monday, April 14, 2003 marked the long-awaited start of revenue service with
the first of the refurbished RTL-III Turboliner trainsets. Amtrak is
currently utilizing Set #1 for one round trip each weekday between Albany
and New York's Penn Station. Set #2 is at the Rensselaer Maintenance
Facility, waiting for acceptance by Amtrak and Set #3 is scheduled for
delivery by Supersteel by the end of June.
Initial equipment reliability has been good for the first 30 days of
service, with reportedly only one planned trip having been missed. Passenger
impressions are generally favorable; however concern has been expressed with
the reduced aisle width, seat comfort and lack of convenient baggage
storage.
Amtrak plans to limit the Turboliner's use to Albany - New York runs in the
immediate future and will likely not start a second daily round trip until
the third set is delivered and accepted.
Bruce B. Becker, ESPA President
High speed rail using gas turbines in the U.S. goes back to 1950 with the
'blue goose'. Think of that. Five years after WW2. I'm not sure even
aircraft has turbines as a rule back then.
>
>>> the question was what they'd do if diesel (and presumably other
>>> fossil fuels) were banned. They wouldn't switch to H2, they'd go
>>> electric.
>>
>> Ah. So you are not banning diesels. You are banning fossil fuels?
>> Why did you not say so. If they banned fossil fuels I expect that
>> they would just continue on using diesel engines but develop
>> biodiesels supplies. Much cheaper. It is commercially available now
>
> At a price roughly double that of dino diesel. Electricity is
> between the two in price.
No. At quite competitive costs. http://www.esemag.com/0501/diesel.html
Note that you can buy commercial biodiesel in Toronto and have it delivered
by tanker truck. There are also two retail stations selling a 20% blend of
biodiesel/diesel.
>
> And, while I know electricity in the US isn't pollution-free, neither
> is biodiesel.
Exactly what pollution are we talking about? Pesticides?
>
>> and a small part of the Sonorran
>> desert could potentially provide enough biodiesel fuel to power the
>> U.S. http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
>
> Get back to us when someone has the money to build that pipe dream.
'Someone' had the money to build the current multi trillion dollar
investment in crude oil. By comparison, switching to biodiesel would be
pocket change. That 'someone' is John Q Public. Jojoba or palm oil,
depending on how much water can be delivered. Some output would probably be
needed to run desalination plants on the ocean border.
>>>>> Most long-distance freight in Europe is electric; the diesel
>>>>> engines they use are mainly for switching and short-haul
>>>>> movements. Totally different requirements.
>>>>
>>>> The reason they use electrics is mostly because they want high
>>>> power, low cost, and low weight for high speed rail systems.
>>>
>>> Read closer. Europe uses electric for long-distance freight
>>> because, due to their taxes, it's cheaper than diesel. Electric
>>> will be cheaper (and easier to deal with) than H2 as well.
>>
>> Think a second. The rails are electified for high speed rail. Whay
>> would they use inefficienc onboard diesels when they already have
>> the power freely available. Do not confuse the driving motivation
>> with the opportunity cost.
>
> Europeans don't use diesel when electricity is available because
> diesel is more expensive there.
Not the point. They could still have used diesel powered locomotives. The
driving force for the change came with high speed passenger rail which COULD
NOT use diesels and thus paid the 'cost of conversion' after which it became
simple for freight to use the same electification grid.
> The opposite is true here: most
> freights running on electrified rail lines still use diesel because
> it's more cost-effective.
Rather, there is only one area which has the electicity infrastructure to
support the electrified rail system. I pointed that out to you. Having
trouble with your reading skills again?
>
>>>> Other than electic rail the only other way to have such light
>>>> weight high power is by turbine engine and if you look at high
>>>> speed rail proposals for the U.S. you will notice that as the
>>>> engine of choice.
>>>
>>> The only HSR in the US (existing or proposed) uses overhead
>>> electric; try again.
>>
>> If you have an example where they have electified, it is news to me.
>> http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/amtrak/
>
> Amtrak's entire Northeast Corridor, from DC to NYC to Boston, is
> electrified, as are many other railroads in the area. Bombardier's
> American Flyer trains (used by Amtrak for Acela Express service)
> exclusively use overhead power, and that's the only HSR trainset
> meeting US safety standards. It was based on the French TGV, which
> is also exclusively electric, though the Eurostar variants can use
> third-rail power instead of overhead for low-speed runs on the UK
> side of the Chunnel.
I posted the link. It also notes the problems in running an overhead electic
system and other notes point out that this si the ONLY area that can
currrently electify their passenger rail system. Which explains why the New
York to Detroit run is using a turbine.
>
>> Hmm. It mentions the problems of carrying the 25kv catenary over
>> lifting bridges. The engineering challenges are not trivial and I
>> imagine that level crossing must be avoided and that must costs a
>> LOT. Only one place has the traffic to afford this in the U.S. I
>> guess. http://www.house.gov/mica/rlhigh.htm
>> "In the United States, the 400-mile route between Washington, DC and
>> Boston (the Northeast Corridor) is virtually the only track with
>> enough overhead electric lines to supply electricity to a high-speed
>> rail train."
>> which is why, I imagine, that the majority of proposals have been for
>> turbine powered locomotion.
>
> No, the other proposals have all included similar electrification.
No. Proposals for Florida, California, etc tend to be 'show me' at this
point and include things like mag lev or overhead suspension. Not to be
taken as serious commitments yet. As noted, there isn't the electicity
infrastructure for it yet and that would be a major cost.
> As does every existing HSR line in the world -- France, Germany,
> Spain, Japan, etc. all use overhead electric, not turbines.
I am not pushing turbines. I have just noted that the U.S. tends to propose
them as the only way to make a high speed rail service without the
development of the electical infrastructure.
>
> The only commercially available turbine loco, the TurboTrain, hasn't
> seen use in the US in years and the last remaining one (in France of
> all places) is being phased out becuase it's too damn expensive to
> operate and maintain, and because the super-hot exhaust causes damage
> to tunnels, bridges, nearby trains, overhead power lines, etc.
There is that blind spot again.
>
>>>> Having power delivered from the lines reduces the weight of the
>>>> locomotive part allowing for a relatively light weight locomotive
>>>> and cars with the power to haul at high speed. Obviously, the same
>>>> pressures would exist in the U.S. if they made a similar investment
>>>> in high speed commuter freight, but let us not talk about
>>>> fantasies. The U.S. requirements for rail will be for slow speeds,
>>>> heavy cargo and passenger rail will be an afterthought. WAY too
>>>> many level crossing.
>>>
>>> Weight is actually an advantage for freight; electric locos actually
>>> require ballast weight to improve traction. Nobody but you brought
>>> up passenger rail.
>>
>> Actually, you did with your referecne to high speed passenger trains
>> in Europe using electricity.
>
> No, I started by talking about "Most long-distance freight in Europe
> is electric"; you mentioned passenger rail first.
Well, that is splittting hairs. The electrifictions of rails in Europe was
primarily driven by the need for high power, low weigth for passenger travel
so it immediately comes to mind when discussing electrically powered trains
in Europe which YOU brought up.
Ian St. John
> [ alt.politics.republican removed, since my server doesn't carry it ]
>
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:AobSc.13997$a65.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>> So your position is that PEMs and batteries are cheap enough to
>>> replace/rebuild every few years and still come out ahead of a 30+
>>> year service-life diesel loco?
>>
>> No. My position is that the future is not here and you cannot
>> predict it from reading chicken entrails.
>
> Okay, so at some undefined point in the future FC locos might be
> viable, or they might not be. That's breathtaking news.
It seems to be to you.
>
>>>> Are you babbling to hear yourself think or do you think you have
>>>> some universal principle or unconquerable problem that will force
>>>> things to go your way. And what way is that? Sometimes I think you
>>>> are arguing for electified rail and other times you seem to be
>>>> saying that diesels will never be replaceable.
>>>
>>> Diesel wins hands-down in the US, except for HSR where it simply
>>> can't provide enough traction power.
>>
>> Well, you are still ignoring turbine electric which provides enough
>> power for high speed rail.
>
> Not in practice, it doesn't. There is exactly one high-speed train
> using turbine power, and it was a demonstrator built in France in the
> early 1970s; it never saw revenue service and sits in a museum.
> Future models of what became known as the TGV were all-electric
> because it was more cost-effective.
Blind spot again. Note: Every high speed record in the U.S. prior to the
Acela (fifth place) was set by a gas turbine train. Any question as to why?
>
>>> Electric is the only other _proven_ technology and has the advantage
>>> (over fossil fuels) of no emissions at the point of use, but it's
>>> more expensive in our current economy.
>>
>> Overhead electicity is only feasible in the one area it is already
>> in use.
>
> It's feasible anywhere;
Not without big money to build the power stations and ifnrastructure. So
far, this seems to be a stopper since the population density does not
warrant the investment. That is why they have not already done it and why
New York to Detroit uses a turbine.
> in fact the NEC is most difficult place in
> the US to use it, but also the area where it's most important.
More importantly they have the population density and the electicity
infrstructure. But it is only one area.
> Catenary can be put up on any rail line in the US; the only reason
> the RRs haven't done it is because diesel is cheaper (for now).
yes. Or more to the point, the reason they have not done it is that they do
not need the high power/low weight for rail passengers yet and if they do
they will probably go with turbines to avoid the high cost of building the
power infrastructure for a high speed transport program that may not pay
off.
>
>>> If the economics of various fuels change drastically, I might
>>> support something else.
>>
>> The economic of fuel cells are currently shitty. That is why I
>> pointed to the hybrid systems.
>
> Funny, I thought the Subject line said this was about the "World's
> First Fuel-Cell Powered Train Locomotive". I didn't catch your
> message where we shifted to diesel hybrid engines.
Yes. I have noticed a tendency for you to be very sloppy at reading and
blindly repeat your messages without any neural activity. However, the
thread has many subtexts.
>
>>> Personally I'd rather see everything go to biodiesel
>>> and/or ethanol, but right now it's just not cost-effective to do so.
>>
>> Nothing is cost effective before the infrastructure is built.
>> Afterwards nobody can understand why they didn't switch sooner.
>
> Totally agreed.
>
>>>>> Most diesel locos already are hybrids, just without the batteries
>>>>> needed to store excess/regenerated power.
>>>>
>>>> So they are diesel electrics, not hybrids..... Halfway hybrids or
>>>> whatever. It just points to there being easy to convert to hybrids.
>>>> Just add battery storage and charging controllers.
>>>
>>> So to you, a power train consisting of a diesel engine, electric
>>> generator, and electric motors does not qualify as a hybrid merely
>>> because it doesn't have batteries?
>>
>> A 'hybrid' is not a 'diesel electrci'. A clue can be gotten from the
>> fact that they have different names for different things. A hybrid
>> has onboard power storage so that it can both provide a boost to
>> reduce peak power requirements ( and thus engine size) increasing
>> efficiency as well as regenerative power from braking ( to cut down
>> on losses from start/stop cycles.).
>
> One can debate the labels, but a diesel-electric loco is only a
> battery string away from being a "hybrid" by your definition.
> Batteries, to me, are not the defining characteristic of whether a
> drivetrain is hybrid or not.
aarghhhh, Batteries are just one part of the hybrid, so no. They do not
DEFINE the hybrid. They are PART of the hybrid. Without batteries you have a
diesel electic, or a turbo electic, or a fuel cell, or something else.
Without power *storage* you do not have a hybrid. The bpont of a hybrid is
to store regeneated power and provide a boost to reduce the size of engine
needed for peak power thus allowign a smaller engine to run nearer peak
performance for longer periods.
>
>>> Unlike aircraft and cars, locos are added to freight consists for
>>> trips up and down steep grades; a typical freight consist in Kansas
>>> (running at peak power just maintaining speed on level track) would
>>> never make it though western Colorado.
>>
>> And the power to start or acceleate a frieght is not the same as the
>> power needed to keep it moving.
>
> That depends on how fast you go and how much power is available.
> Aerodynamic and rolling resistance gets significant as speed
> increases, and freight trains (including all the trailing cars) are
> hideously unaerodynamic.
No it does not depend on either aerodynamcis or rollign resistance. Those
things are the same in both cases and the power to accelerate means that the
accelerating train requires more power than a steady velocity at each point
in the acceleration curve. This 'power boost' can come from stored power.
>
>> Please understand what I am saying. Hybrids
>> provide higher effeiciency by load levelling. The same is true of
>> multiple engines but regardless of how many engines are active, the
>> hybrid concept can maximise the efficiency of that engine by
>> regenerative braking and by peak boosting.
>
> Of course. But, for the efficiency improvement to pay for the added
> equipment, you need either frequent stop/go cycles or a massive
> amount of energy storage
Not in the case of 'light hybrid' design which minimizes storage so as to
allow most of the advantages of hybrid at a much lower cost.
> -- neither of which makes sense for a
> long-haul loco. It does for commuter locos and yard switchers.
If you say so, and you keep repeating this mantra as if it were a fact
rather than your opinion.
>
> Ford's Escape Hybrid gets much worse fuel economy on the highway than
> in the city because it never has an opportunity to make the hybrid
> drive useful. I think a similar problem applies to trains, though
> obviously in the RR industry there are different models sold for each
> use.
apples vs oranges. Let us compare the Escape Hybrid with the Ford Escape
SUV.
"The EPA this week certified the 2005 Escape Hybrid at 36 mpg city/31 mpg
highway "
http://www.autoweb.com/content/research/vir/index.cfm/vehicle_number_int/1014675/Action/StandardFeatures
Ford Escape: MPG (City/Hwy) 20 / 25
I think that this speaks for itself. Even under the 'least advantageous'
conditions the hybrid still saves by power leveling and running the engine
at more efficient RPMs.
>
>>>> Even with line haulers, for heavy loads, or mountain passages, they
>>>> tend to add other engines and so the equation still ends up that
>>>> engine capacity are much higher than average loads. Say there was a
>>>> four engine frieght with three of the engines needed for a mountain
>>>> pass. It may be that they can idle three of the engines on flat
>>>> level ground once up to speed.
>>>
>>> They generally remove the excess locos from the consist at the
>>> bottom of the grade, unless logistics dictate they're needed
>>> somewhere else. There's often a pool of "helper" locos at the
>>> bottom on each side, which are slapped onto the end of freights
>>> coming through.
>>
>> Idled or detached in a non-issue.
>
> Hardly. Trains do not travel across the flatlands with 75% idle
> power just so they'll be able to cross the mountains unaided.
Duuuuh. The point was that "Idled or detached in a non-issue".Your statement
as to whether they are detached or idle just means that you cannot READ. You
can take the fucking things adn pour acid on them for all I care. If they
are not providing power ( because they are either detached or idle ) they do
not affect the power equations.
>
>>>> I expect that line haulers, if built on the hybrid concept, would
>>>> be 'light hybrid' with limited battery storage, just to add a short
>>>> boost when needed for accelerating the train up to speed.
>>>
>>> Freight trains rarely stop between yards.
>>
>> And your point is?
>
> If you don't stop often then you don't accelerate often, and you
> don't need that "short boost" often.
Yes, but as the example of the Ford Escape SUV shows, just reducing the size
of the required engine or runnign it at more optimal rpm can provide
savings.
> A freight train may take 10
> minutes to reach operating speed, and I doubt many hybrid systems can
> store enough power for that.
That depends on how much power is stored and how much boost is provided. I
guarantee that there is some solution for X*Y=C.
> Each freight car can weigh 100+ times
> as much as a single passenger car, and there can be hundreds to over
> a thousand cars per train; you need a lot of power stored up to
> provide any appreciable boost to a 4000hp loco.
For ten minutes???
>
>>> Commuter trains, on the other hand, are a perfect use for hybrids.
>>
>> Rather, they would benefit more from 'light' hybrid design.
>
> And what is your distinction between a "light" hybrid and a (I'm
> guessing) "heavy" hybrid design?
The controller is simpler, there is less emphasis on regenerative braking
( too complex for the energy recovered) and the power storage is smaller to
minimise added costs while still delivering a fair bit of the hybrid
advantages. Taken from discussion of car hybrids. The old prius cost $50,000
because they went with a complex hybrid designe emphasising a complete frame
to frame design specificially for hybrid operation including lightweigh
body, etc. It was going nowhere so they switched from the 'peak performance'
model to a 'give it an edge' model which resulted in a car of about the same
costs $20,000 or so but with higher gas mileage than the equivalent ICE only
car.
>
>>> But first there has to be strong evidence they _will_ save money for
>>> them to make that commitment, and fuel cells simply aren't proven
>>> even in the comparatively reckless auto industry.
>>
>> Well, according to you we shoudl have electric cars with overhead
>> wires on our streets?
>
> No, according to me we should all have hybrid cars with ethanol as
> the ICE fuel.
That isn't what you said about high speed rail. It should all be overhead
wires, you scream. Electiricty is cheap compared to liquid fuels you
trumpet.
> Railroads don't require a portable fuel source like
> cars do;
For high speed rail they do, except where there is the electicity
infrastructure. I do not know if you are aware of it but the startup and
stopping of trains is an 'intermittent load' that really fucks with power
generation. You need a lot of controller equipment and spinning reserve to
deal with it.
> they only use one today because it's the most cost-effective
> solution.
Still got them blinders on?
>
>> There is a problem in comparing apples and oranges, don't you
>> know?
>
> The auto industry is one of the main groups investigating FC
> technology today; others looking at FCs for power plants or heating
> are even less relevant to railroads because the cells aren't mobile.
Switching back to arguing about FCs which I have never promoted for
railroads? I find the article interesting mainly for the fuel storage which
does seen nicely adapted to railroads and it would not take a big
breaktrhough to change the economics of hydrogen storage for FCs. As long as
they use Nafion film, however, it is an experimental testbed, not a working
system.
>
>>>> The line switcher is another story, of course.
>>>
>>> Indeed. It's a great laboratory to make experiments, because the
>>> cost of failure is low and the requirements for success are even
>>> lower. In another decade or two enough evidence might be collected
>>> that fuel cells could be considered for long-distance use.
>>
>> Rather than a failure, the hybrid switcher is a roaring success.
>> However it is not a testbed for other situtations, only maybe the
>> materials.
>
> A roaring success? It's hard to tell how many have been made (the
> web page phrasing makes it sound like a single unit) or how long
> they've been in service (though it looks like less than a year).
> It's still an experiment, though one that hasn't had any spectacular
> public failures so far.
A success is something that delivers better value and costs, regardless of
what point in the retail marketing it is in. Duuuh. Halving the fuel
requirements for a switcher is just too good to ignore.
>
> Also, RRs are willing to test a switcher because they'll have others
> nearby for when it fails (and it surely will). That's what I meant
> by the cost of failure being low. Also, being able to haul a few
> cars around a flat yard at 10mph isn't much of a bar for success,
> though it's necessary as a first step.
What works is what works and there is no basis for your claiming unreliable
operation . You pulled that from your anal orifice wet and steaming.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>> news:AobSc.13997$a65.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> But can they actually build long-distance FC locos with sufficient
>>>> (and safe) storage capacity to match the range a full-size
>>>> diesel-electric loco can do today?
>>>
>>> No. But then we are talking about hybrids not all electric storage.
>>> Is this something like dyslexia, where you cannot help but confuse
>>> what is being discussed?
>>
>> You have to store an FC's fuel somewhere, and H2 (the fuel they run on
>> today) has nowhere near the storage density that diesel has.
>
> Again, you confuse the issue. The FC locomotive is not a 'hybrid'. The
> fuel
> cell project was making a yard switcher/ short haul as a first step which
> was clear from their selection of a GP-10 and 1.2 MW motor. The hybrid
> idea
> was introduced by comparison to the Green Goat ( a hybrid yard switcher).
Right; as I said, I missed the transition between the FC loco (which is
still in the Subject line) and the hybrid.
> And if you had done some reading you would know that the FC swticher was
> using anhydrous ammonia in a tank car as the fuel source, which is a
> fairly
> dense storage for hydrogen and easily available since it is generally
> moved
> and delivered by freight trains. An interesting concept really. Not much
> use in cars as anhydrous ammonia is not very 'user friendly' but fine for
> trains which carry the stuff anyway.
The article states the H2 for the FC would be generated from anhydrous
ammonia, not that the reformer would be on-board the train. It doesn't say
the generation isn't on the train either, but one would think that'd be an
important distinction for them to point out.
>>> No. You talked about banning diesels for environmental reasons. That
>>> would mean for their pollution, especially fine particulates. The
>>> turbines do not have this problem.
>>
>> So turbines have no pollution?
>
> Please take some remedial reading skills. I did not say that they did not
> have pollution. I guarantee that they spew out CO2 and that is becoming a
> pollutant these days, not to mention NOx, and any sulfur in the fuel is
> bound to come out as SOx. The main advantage is no fine particulates or
> organic vapors as they are very thorough at burning the fuel completely.
If one were to ban diesel, it would be for _all_ the various types of
pollution it causes, not just particulate matter. And, as I noted
elsewhere, modern freight locos don't emit much in the way of particulate
matter anyways. The main problems are NOx and SOx.
>>>> Diesel ICEs are the most cost-effective powerplant for locos today;
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. For high output, the turbine would be the choice as
>>> it is for high speed rail. Diesels are just the traditional choice.
>>
>> Turbines do not exist anywhere in the world of HSR. Every HSR line
>> in the world, including those in the US both built and proposed, is
>> powered by overhead electric.
>
> You have a fascinating level of 'blind spotting'. Did you poke out an eye
> or
> something?
...
> Turboliners Enter Service
>
> Monday, April 14, 2003 marked the long-awaited start of revenue service
> with
> the first of the refurbished RTL-III Turboliner trainsets.
Okay, I missed that press release; they weren't in service before last year;
incidentally, they went back out of service last week and were replaced with
GM P32 diesel engines. The Turboliners have a top speed of 125mph and
generate a pathetic 3200hp (Acela: 12,300hp) per trainset, not to mention
they're being used on tracks that are still limited to 79mph.
Amtrak's MetroLiners (electric MU) are/were in daily service on the NEC with
a top speed of 135mph, and before Acela were the highest-speed passenger
service available in the US for decades.
> High speed rail using gas turbines in the U.S. goes back to 1950 with the
> 'blue goose'. Think of that. Five years after WW2. I'm not sure even
> aircraft has turbines as a rule back then.
125mph is not HSR, and the Metroliner was marginal at 135mph. Acela's top
speed of 150mph appears to qualify, until you notice its average speed is
about half that -- 82mph -- due to the poor condition of the tracks, sharp
curves, congestion junctions, etc.
>> At a price roughly double that of dino diesel. Electricity is
>> between the two in price.
>
> No. At quite competitive costs. http://www.esemag.com/0501/diesel.html
> Note that you can buy commercial biodiesel in Toronto and have it
> delivered
> by tanker truck. There are also two retail stations selling a 20% blend of
> biodiesel/diesel.
Current national average pump prices (minus taxes) are $2.23/gal for
biodiesel and $1.10/gal for dino diesel. Theoretical costs of production
aren't interesting.
I misspoke on the relative price of electricity; it's actually more than
biodiesel (I was thinking of ethanol, which is higher). An amount of
electricity equivalent to a gallon of diesel is (excluding taxes) $2.47.
>> And, while I know electricity in the US isn't pollution-free, neither
>> is biodiesel.
>
> Exactly what pollution are we talking about? Pesticides?
Most electricity in the US comes from burning coal or NG, which obviously
both pollute (not to mention not being renewable). Even nuclear, which
doesn't pollute the air, has a nasty problem with spent fuel rods.
>>> Think a second. The rails are electified for high speed rail. Whay
>>> would they use inefficienc onboard diesels when they already have
>>> the power freely available. Do not confuse the driving motivation
>>> with the opportunity cost.
>>
>> Europeans don't use diesel when electricity is available because
>> diesel is more expensive there.
>
> Not the point. They could still have used diesel powered locomotives.
Europe could use diesel today, but they don't because it costs more.
> The driving force for the change came with high speed passenger rail
> which COULD NOT use diesels and thus paid the 'cost of conversion' after
> which it became simple for freight to use the same electification grid.
Once you have the catenary up, diesel is still cheaper in the US than
electricity. Even on Amtrak's NEC, which is completely electrified, most of
the freight trains and even many passenger trains use diesel because it's
cheaper. Only Acela, the Metroliners, and a few commuter trains use
electric.
>> The opposite is true here: most freights running on electrified rail
>> lines still
>> use diesel because it's more cost-effective.
>
> Rather, there is only one area which has the electicity infrastructure to
> support the electrified rail system. I pointed that out to you. Having
> trouble with your reading skills again?
See below.
> I posted the link. It also notes the problems in running an overhead
> electic
> system and other notes point out that this si the ONLY area that can
> currrently electify their passenger rail system. Which explains why the
> New
> York to Detroit run is using a turbine.
No, it says that's the only area with enough catenary to power high-speed
trains. Similar catenary could be installed on any other rail line in the
country. The real problem is that Amtrak doesn't own much track except for
the NEC, and they have no authority to force a private railroad to install
catenary -- and as I've noted, the freight RRs have no motivation to do it
for their own use.
>>> Hmm. It mentions the problems of carrying the 25kv catenary over
>>> lifting bridges. The engineering challenges are not trivial and I
>>> imagine that level crossing must be avoided and that must costs a
>>> LOT. Only one place has the traffic to afford this in the U.S. I
>>> guess. http://www.house.gov/mica/rlhigh.htm
>>> "In the United States, the 400-mile route between Washington, DC and
>>> Boston (the Northeast Corridor) is virtually the only track with
>>> enough overhead electric lines to supply electricity to a high-speed
>>> rail train."
>>> which is why, I imagine, that the majority of proposals have been for
>>> turbine powered locomotion.
>>
>> No, the other proposals have all included similar electrification.
>
> No. Proposals for Florida, California, etc tend to be 'show me' at this
> point and include things like mag lev or overhead suspension. Not to be
> taken as serious commitments yet. As noted, there isn't the electicity
> infrastructure for it yet and that would be a major cost.
The HSR proposal in Florida (FOX) was for a TGV derivative, using electric
power. Ditto for Texas. No other proposals have gotten to the funding or
planning stages (except, of course, for Acela on the NEC).
If you want to count projects proposed by crackpots with a vested interest
in other technologies, like maglev, yes there have been proposals -- but
none that have attracted the attention of anyone with the money to actually
make it happen.
>> As does every existing HSR line in the world -- France, Germany,
>> Spain, Japan, etc. all use overhead electric, not turbines.
>
> I am not pushing turbines. I have just noted that the U.S. tends to
> propose
> them as the only way to make a high speed rail service without the
> development of the electical infrastructure.
The world record for a turbine train is 378km/h; none is in service faster
than 200km/h. The world record for an electric train (actually, all trains)
is 515km/h, and they'll soon be raising the operating speed from 300km/h to
320km/h in France.
HSR competes with air, which moves at 800km/h but has about an hour and a
half of passenger delay, so 200km/h rail is only competitive up to about
400km (250mi). 320km/h rail would be competitive out to 800km (500mi).
That's twice the distance.
Also, the TurboLiner doesn't meet FRA regulations for new production, so
after you refurb the few that are left you'd need 5-10 years of development
to get one out the door, and if it's to be certified for 125mph operation
_now_ it'd have to be two to three times the weight per passenger of the
older trains. That means a lot more fuel consumption, even longer
acceleration, etc. These rules are the main reason Acela is such a dog
compared to TGV, even though it's built by the same people.
>>>> Weight is actually an advantage for freight; electric locos actually
>>>> require ballast weight to improve traction. Nobody but you brought
>>>> up passenger rail.
>>>
>>> Actually, you did with your referecne to high speed passenger trains
>>> in Europe using electricity.
>>
>> No, I started by talking about "Most long-distance freight in Europe
>> is electric"; you mentioned passenger rail first.
>
> Well, that is splittting hairs. The electrifictions of rails in Europe was
> primarily driven by the need for high power, low weigth for passenger
> travel
> so it immediately comes to mind when discussing electrically powered
> trains
> in Europe which YOU brought up.
The European railways were electrified long before TGV showed up in 1981.
Ian St. John
>
> Right; as I said, I missed the transition between the FC loco (which
> is still in the Subject line) and the hybrid.
You must be the most clueless poster in existence. No thread ever restricts
itself to the exact wording of the subject line. That would allow nothing
but 'yes'/'no' statements no better than an opinion poll. And you obviously
did NOT miss the introduction of the hyrid switcher since your responses
obviously related to it.
I know you are somewhat retarded but do you have to show off?
Ian St. John
>> And if you had done some reading you would know that the FC swticher
>> was using anhydrous ammonia in a tank car as the fuel source, which
>> is a fairly
>> dense storage for hydrogen and easily available since it is generally
>> moved
>> and delivered by freight trains. An interesting concept really. Not
>> much use in cars as anhydrous ammonia is not very 'user friendly'
>> but fine for trains which carry the stuff anyway.
>
> The article states the H2 for the FC would be generated from anhydrous
> ammonia, not that the reformer would be on-board the train. It
> doesn't say the generation isn't on the train either, but one would
> think that'd be an important distinction for them to point out.
Your inability to read or look up references is just beyond belief. Perhaps
the problem is that the subject line was so limited and that is all you
allowed yourself to look at.
Ian St. John
<snip>
>>>> No. You talked about banning diesels for environmental reasons.
>>>> That would mean for their pollution, especially fine particulates.
>>>> The turbines do not have this problem.
>>>
>>> So turbines have no pollution?
>>
>> Please take some remedial reading skills. I did not say that they
>> did not have pollution. I guarantee that they spew out CO2 and that
>> is becoming a pollutant these days, not to mention NOx, and any
>> sulfur in the fuel is bound to come out as SOx. The main advantage
>> is no fine particulates or organic vapors as they are very thorough
>> at burning the fuel completely.
>
> If one were to ban diesel, it would be for _all_ the various types of
> pollution it causes, not just particulate matter. And, as I noted
> elsewhere, modern freight locos don't emit much in the way of
> particulate matter anyways. The main problems are NOx and SOx.
As I mentioned the physics does not allow for the elimination of soot
generation during run up. Obviously they still generate soot, but they have
emission capture of some kind. Please do try to keep up. Rather than banning
diesel, the similar scrubbers for SOx and NOx could be employed. Therefore
the emissions are not an issue. The cost of scrubbing is.
However, the pollution of diesels was never MY issue. It seems to be one of
your bugs that you cannot seem to let go of despite your complaints that I
am not following the subject line scrupulously. For some reason I can find
nothing about NOx, SOx, or soot in the subject line to justify your
digression. I guess inconsistency is not something you worry about then.
Ian St. John
<snip>
>>>>> Diesel ICEs are the most cost-effective powerplant for locos
>>>>> today;
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. For high output, the turbine would be the choice
>>>> as it is for high speed rail. Diesels are just the traditional
>>>> choice.
>>>
>>> Turbines do not exist anywhere in the world of HSR. Every HSR line
>>> in the world, including those in the US both built and proposed, is
>>> powered by overhead electric.
>>
>> You have a fascinating level of 'blind spotting'. Did you poke out
>> an eye or
>> something?
> ...
>> Turboliners Enter Service
>>
>> Monday, April 14, 2003 marked the long-awaited start of revenue
>> service with
>> the first of the refurbished RTL-III Turboliner trainsets.
>
> Okay, I missed that press release; they weren't in service before
> last year; incidentally, they went back out of service last week and
> were replaced with GM P32 diesel engines. The Turboliners have a top
> speed of 125mph and generate a pathetic 3200hp (Acela: 12,300hp) per
> trainset, not to mention they're being used on tracks that are still
> limited to 79mph.
It was one of the complaints that their service was restricted by the damage
done by heavy frieght making it impossible to run at design speeds. This is
an issue that has nothing to do with their power output. Because passenger
frieght is lighter, the power is enough if the track were level and sound.
>
> Amtrak's MetroLiners (electric MU) are/were in daily service on the
> NEC with a top speed of 135mph, and before Acela were the
> highest-speed passenger service available in the US for decades.
>
>> High speed rail using gas turbines in the U.S. goes back to 1950
>> with the 'blue goose'. Think of that. Five years after WW2. I'm not
>> sure even aircraft has turbines as a rule back then.
>
> 125mph is not HSR, and the Metroliner was marginal at 135mph.
> Acela's top speed of 150mph appears to qualify, until you notice its
> average speed is about half that -- 82mph -- due to the poor
> condition of the tracks, sharp curves, congestion junctions, etc.
Your point is hard to follow. First, the records for high speed rail are
about 186 mph with turbine power. Only the Acela is down in the 125 mph
range adn as they accept this as 'HSR' the new york line would have also
been HSR if it had been able to run at full speed. The limitations on the
service are not due to the power plant. Has this point escaped you? Let the
rails deteriorate enough and 'high speed rail' will be a walking pace.
Ian St. John
<snip>
>>> At a price roughly double that of dino diesel. Electricity is
>>> between the two in price.
>>
>> No. At quite competitive costs.
>> http://www.esemag.com/0501/diesel.html Note that you can buy
>> commercial biodiesel in Toronto and have it delivered
>> by tanker truck. There are also two retail stations selling a 20%
>> blend of biodiesel/diesel.
>
> Current national average pump prices (minus taxes) are $2.23/gal for
> biodiesel and $1.10/gal for dino diesel. Theoretical costs of
> production aren't interesting.
It is more than theory. The pilot plant testing is finished and they are
building a full scale production plant for about 15 milllion U.S. gallons a
year in Canada. There was also a recent development in the U.S. which may
be the same thing or a variant. Of course, cellulose ethanol is also being
produced in Canada. It seems as if the U.S. just talks about it..
endlessly.. and makes it cost twice as much to discourage use...
http://www.innovationsfoundation.com/PDF/successes/BIOX_Corporation.pdf
>
> I misspoke on the relative price of electricity; it's actually more
> than biodiesel (I was thinking of ethanol, which is higher). An
> amount of electricity equivalent to a gallon of diesel is (excluding
> taxes) $2.47.
>
>>> And, while I know electricity in the US isn't pollution-free,
>>> neither is biodiesel.
>>
>> Exactly what pollution are we talking about? Pesticides?
>
> Most electricity in the US comes from burning coal or NG, which
> obviously both pollute (not to mention not being renewable). Even
> nuclear, which doesn't pollute the air, has a nasty problem with
> spent fuel rods.
I know that, dimwit. That was obvious. What is not so obvious is what
pollution you are talking about from biodiesel. The 'pesticides' should have
clued you in since it was my best guess.
Ian St. John
<snip>
>>>
>>> Europeans don't use diesel when electricity is available because
>>> diesel is more expensive there.
>>
>> Not the point. They could still have used diesel powered locomotives.
>
> Europe could use diesel today, but they don't because it costs more.
Well the electicity prices are comparible to the U.S. while the cost of
diesel and other fuels are highly taxed and cost much more ( $5/gallon or
more). You have admitted that electricity is more expensive than diesel in
the U.S. What makes you think that the costs favor electicity in Europe???
And please wipe the shit out of your ears. The main driving force behind
electificaiton of the rails in Europe was the power to weight rations for
high speed passenger traffic. Clear now or do you need it repeated a twelvth
time before you clue in?
>
>> The driving force for the change came with high speed passenger rail
>> which COULD NOT use diesels and thus paid the 'cost of conversion'
>> after which it became simple for freight to use the same
>> electification grid.
>
> Once you have the catenary up, diesel is still cheaper in the US than
> electricity.
Regardless of the cost of the catenary, the primary motivation to use
electicity for high speed rail is the power to weight ration necessary.
Turbines can be used where electification is not feasible.
> Even on Amtrak's NEC, which is completely electrified,
> most of the freight trains and even many passenger trains use diesel
> because it's cheaper. Only Acela, the Metroliners, and a few
> commuter trains use electric.
I expect that friegth uses diesel mainly because it does not want to be
resticted to a specific corridor, or have to change around when exiting the
corridor, while scheduled passenger traffic has nowhere outside the
corridor to go.
>
>>> The opposite is true here: most freights running on electrified rail
>>> lines still
>>> use diesel because it's more cost-effective.
>>
>> Rather, there is only one area which has the electicity
>> infrastructure to support the electrified rail system. I pointed
>> that out to you. Having trouble with your reading skills again?
>
> See below.
Why? Does it answer my question? Probably not, given your record so far.
>
>> I posted the link. It also notes the problems in running an overhead
>> electic
>> system and other notes point out that this si the ONLY area that can
>> currrently electify their passenger rail system. Which explains why
>> the New
>> York to Detroit run is using a turbine.
>
> No, it says that's the only area with enough catenary to power
> high-speed trains.
This is ambiguous. The 'overhead electical lines' may refer to the high
power grid lines rather than the catenary. The statement makes no sense in
their 'being enough' catenary lines, while the other interpretation makes
sense in terms of tapping the power necessary to feed the catenary. There
are a lot of problems with demand variations in most electrical trains.
Europe has a lot of experience with this and it is even a problem on the
Singapore MagLev line which is only 27 kms long and the only big periodic
demand.
> Similar catenary could be installed on any other
> rail line in the country. The real problem is that Amtrak doesn't
> own much track except for the NEC, and they have no authority to
> force a private railroad to install catenary -- and as I've noted,
> the freight RRs have no motivation to do it for their own use.
The problem with expanding overhead catenary is a lot bigger than your
simple claims. You would have to make major changes to the electrical grid
to deal with the demand spikes.
>
>>>> Hmm. It mentions the problems of carrying the 25kv catenary over
>>>> lifting bridges. The engineering challenges are not trivial and I
>>>> imagine that level crossing must be avoided and that must costs a
>>>> LOT. Only one place has the traffic to afford this in the U.S. I
>>>> guess. http://www.house.gov/mica/rlhigh.htm
>>>> "In the United States, the 400-mile route between Washington, DC
>>>> and Boston (the Northeast Corridor) is virtually the only track
>>>> with enough overhead electric lines to supply electricity to a
>>>> high-speed rail train."
>>>> which is why, I imagine, that the majority of proposals have been
>>>> for turbine powered locomotion.
>>>
>>> No, the other proposals have all included similar electrification.
>>
>> No. Proposals for Florida, California, etc tend to be 'show me' at
>> this point and include things like mag lev or overhead suspension.
>> Not to be taken as serious commitments yet. As noted, there isn't
>> the electicity infrastructure for it yet and that would be a major
>> cost.
>
> The HSR proposal in Florida (FOX) was for a TGV derivative, using
> electric power.
No. They were considering all sorts of schemes and I do not think that they
settled on any one yet. The FOX proposal was scrubbed by Jeb Bush back in
1999. http://www.trainweb.org/hsr/
> Ditto for Texas.
Texas was a candidate for maglev, but again, nothing came of it.
> No other proposals have gotten to
> the funding or planning stages (except, of course, for Acela on the
> NEC).
There is a lot more going on than that.
http://www.fra.dot.gov
>
> If you want to count projects proposed by crackpots with a vested
> interest in other technologies, like maglev, yes there have been
> proposals -- but none that have attracted the attention of anyone
> with the money to actually make it happen.
Maglev is a 'crackpot idea??? And as for financing ANY rail scheme is
financed by government in the end. There is no other way to build up the
capital and rights of way necessary. For HSR, for example, the NWC had to
eliminate all level crossing and just think how much road constructino that
takes!
The fact is that the U.S. has the technology breakthrough to make maglev
cheap and practical but has sat around with the thumb in the bum and the
mind in neutral. Passive maglev eliminates most of the complexity and costs
assoicated with active maglev. Not that I expect you to be able to read or
understand the article but for the benefit of those with functional brains I
give the refernce. http://www.llnl.gov/str/Post.html
Ian St. John
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
<snip>
>>> As does every existing HSR line in the world -- France, Germany,
>>> Spain, Japan, etc. all use overhead electric, not turbines.
>>
>> I am not pushing turbines. I have just noted that the U.S. tends to
>> propose
>> them as the only way to make a high speed rail service without the
>> development of the electical infrastructure.
>
> The world record for a turbine train is 378km/h; none is in service
> faster than 200km/h. The world record for an electric train
> (actually, all trains) is 515km/h, and they'll soon be raising the
> operating speed from 300km/h to 320km/h in France.
And when you do not have the infrastructure to support even a 125 mph
turbine because your rails are too fucked up from heavy freight, what do
these numbers relaly mean? Not that you have the OPTION of an electric train
in most of the country because you do not have the power grid for it. The
turbine electric is chose,not because it is fastest but because it is the
most practical option that does not involve rebulding the rail lines and the
power grid.
> HSR competes with air, which moves at 800km/h but has about an hour
> and a half of passenger delay, so 200km/h rail is only competitive up
> to about 400km (250mi). 320km/h rail would be competitive out to
> 800km (500mi). That's twice the distance.
Some people would take rail for comfort, convenience and to have a view.
However, you are right in that maglev is probably the most competitive high
speed link for long distances. Not that it is any likelier than your all
electric service and for the same reasons.
>
> Also, the TurboLiner doesn't meet FRA regulations for new production,
> so after you refurb the few that are left you'd need 5-10 years of
> development to get one out the door, and if it's to be certified for
> 125mph operation _now_ it'd have to be two to three times the weight
> per passenger of the older trains.
If they want it to be used, the regulations will change. You keep bringing
up silly issues. Is this connected to the blind spot or just another
idiosyncracy?
> That means a lot more fuel
> consumption, even longer acceleration, etc. These rules are the main
> reason Acela is such a dog compared to TGV, even though it's built by
> the same people.
I can agree that the safety regulations for the FRA are somewhat antiquated,
and depend on mass rather than design. However, I have no solution for this
as the regulations have been built up by heavy lobbying over decades and
there is no simple solution.
>
>>>>> Weight is actually an advantage for freight; electric locos
>>>>> actually require ballast weight to improve traction. Nobody but
>>>>> you brought up passenger rail.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, you did with your referecne to high speed passenger
>>>> trains in Europe using electricity.
>>>
>>> No, I started by talking about "Most long-distance freight in Europe
>>> is electric"; you mentioned passenger rail first.
>>
>> Well, that is splittting hairs. The electrifictions of rails in
>> Europe was primarily driven by the need for high power, low weigth
>> for passenger travel
>> so it immediately comes to mind when discussing electrically powered
>> trains
>> in Europe which YOU brought up.
>
> The European railways were electrified long before TGV showed up in
> 1981.
First off, the TGV program started in the '60s. Secondly, the TGV drove the
need for an electric train since diesel trains were limited in speed, and
thirdly, they built the first completely separate, electified line
specifically for the TGV, with special track, avoiding level crossing and
other hazards to high speed rail.
http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/background.html
>
> S
Michelle Vadeboncoeur
> advantages. Taken from discussion of car hybrids. The old prius cost $50,000
> because they went with a complex hybrid designe emphasising a complete frame
> to frame design specificially for hybrid operation including lightweigh
> body, etc. It was going nowhere so they switched from the 'peak performance'
> model to a 'give it an edge' model which resulted in a car of about the same
> costs $20,000 or so but with higher gas mileage than the equivalent ICE only
> car.
What nationality is that $, and what do you mean by "old Prius" vs new
Prius? And what is your "equivalent ICE only car" since there is no
gas-only version of the Prius?
I'm guessing that you mean Canadian $. Like in the US, the Prius was
first introduced in Canada for the 2001 model year. I don't think
I've heard of any of the original Japanese Prius (1998-2000 model
year) being imported to Canada. My recollection is that pricing in
Canada has remained similar between the "classic" Prius (2001-2003
model years) and the new 2004 Prius. (In the US, MSRP for the 2004
Prius at introduction was the same as the 2001 Prius at $19995,
although the 2004's MSRP just went up $300 in June.)
All of the Prius have been developed from the ground up (well, the
2001-2003 Prius was an improvement over the Japanese 1998-2000 Prius).
The 2004 Prius is a different body (was a compact sedan, now a
midsize hatchback), but is another hybrid drive refinement. The Prius
has always been a low-emissions vehicle, and the MPG is just a nice
side-benefit. (Each model refinement has been getting lower
emissions...)
Toyota does have a peak performance hybrid (think sports car), but so
far it's only in the concept phase.
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:<nxgSc.21048$Mq1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> advantages. Taken from discussion of car hybrids. The old prius cost
>> $50,000 because they went with a complex hybrid designe emphasising
>> a complete frame to frame design specificially for hybrid operation
>> including lightweigh body, etc. It was going nowhere so they
>> switched from the 'peak performance' model to a 'give it an edge'
>> model which resulted in a car of about the same costs $20,000 or so
>> but with higher gas mileage than the equivalent ICE only car.
>
> What nationality is that $,
I'm not sure. The advertisements are ususally ambiguous. Most annoying when
visiting websites since some of them don't even have a contact address adn
you have to guess a bit. The numbers are not particularly important. The
ratio is.
> and what do you mean by "old Prius" vs new Prius?
That should be obvious from context, since I am describing the difference in
the later model years.
> And what is your "equivalent ICE only car" since there is no gas-only
version of the Prius?
A theoretical comparison to a non hybrid equivalent based on similar body,
speed, etc.
>
> I'm guessing that you mean Canadian $. Like in the US, the Prius was
> first introduced in Canada for the 2001 model year. I don't think
> I've heard of any of the original Japanese Prius (1998-2000 model
> year) being imported to Canada. My recollection is that pricing in
> Canada has remained similar between the "classic" Prius (2001-2003
> model years) and the new 2004 Prius. (In the US, MSRP for the 2004
> Prius at introduction was the same as the 2001 Prius at $19995,
> although the 2004's MSRP just went up $300 in June.)
So probably I was quoting $US.
>
> All of the Prius have been developed from the ground up (well, the
> 2001-2003 Prius was an improvement over the Japanese 1998-2000 Prius).
> The 2004 Prius is a different body (was a compact sedan, now a
> midsize hatchback), but is another hybrid drive refinement.
Yes. In addition to lower price the light hybrid design added more spacious
body design.
> The Prius
> has always been a low-emissions vehicle, and the MPG is just a nice
> side-benefit. (Each model refinement has been getting lower
> emissions...)
The main goal of the hybrid was gas mileage in my book. Nowhere do they
advertise low emissions and consumer demand for low emissions vehicles is
small compared to low fuel consumption vehicles.
>
> Toyota does have a peak performance hybrid (think sports car), but so
> far it's only in the concept phase.
Probably trying to recoup their investment in lightweigh body panels.
Ian St. John
> Michelle Vadeboncoeur wrote:
<snip>
>> I'm guessing that you mean Canadian $. Like in the US, the Prius was
>> first introduced in Canada for the 2001 model year. I don't think
>> I've heard of any of the original Japanese Prius (1998-2000 model
>> year) being imported to Canada. My recollection is that pricing in
>> Canada has remained similar between the "classic" Prius (2001-2003
>> model years) and the new 2004 Prius. (In the US, MSRP for the 2004
>> Prius at introduction was the same as the 2001 Prius at $19995,
>> although the 2004's MSRP just went up $300 in June.)
>
> So probably I was quoting $US.
Oops. Just reviewed my post. You have jogged my memory a bit. I remember now
that the $50,000 figure was quoted to be the 'real cost' of the original
prius which they were selling at a loss at the time hoping for volume
pricing reductions. Getting to a point where they could make money at a
'regular' price was one reason for the light hybrid development.
Harry Conover
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> > news:XFfSc.21015$Mq1.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> <snip>
> >>> As does every existing HSR line in the world -- France, Germany,
> >>> Spain, Japan, etc. all use overhead electric, not turbines.
> >>
> >> I am not pushing turbines. I have just noted that the U.S. tends to
> >> propose
> >> them as the only way to make a high speed rail service without the
> >> development of the electical infrastructure.
> >
> > The world record for a turbine train is 378km/h; none is in service
> > faster than 200km/h. The world record for an electric train
> > (actually, all trains) is 515km/h, and they'll soon be raising the
> > operating speed from 300km/h to 320km/h in France.
>
> And when you do not have the infrastructure to support even a 125 mph
> turbine because your rails are too fucked up from heavy freight, what do
> these numbers relaly mean? Not that you have the OPTION of an electric train
> in most of the country because you do not have the power grid for it. The
> turbine electric is chose,not because it is fastest but because it is the
> most practical option that does not involve rebulding the rail lines and the
> power grid.
Agreed.
Having worked in both heavy rail and rapid transit for 10-years (in my
earlier career), I've observed that few people comprehend the enorous
drawbar force that a locomotive must have available to start a train
from a dead stop.
Like you, I can't see a value for a traction engine that can pull a
train safely at above 100-MPH, without a very state-of-the-art track
bed that can support operations at such speeds (at least here in the
US, including the Northeast Corrider). Due to the physics involved, I
am of the opinion that to support very high-speed rail traffic
requires a "captive rail system" similar to that used on roller
coasters. To my knowledge, no such system has been implemented
anywhere in the world.
Today, diesel electrics are the norm. This is largely because of
their great performance, low-maintenance, and high-reliability --
important considerations for rail system operators. Turbines, in spite
of their performance potential, really scare away most rail system
operators in the US because of high maintenance, and questionable
reliability.
> > HSR competes with air, which moves at 800km/h but has about an hour
> > and a half of passenger delay, so 200km/h rail is only competitive up
> > to about 400km (250mi). 320km/h rail would be competitive out to
> > 800km (500mi). That's twice the distance.
Sorry, but I'd consider that a pipe dream!
>
> Some people would take rail for comfort, convenience and to have a view.
> However, you are right in that maglev is probably the most competitive high
> speed link for long distances. Not that it is any likelier than your all
> electric service and for the same reasons.
>
> >
> > Also, the TurboLiner doesn't meet FRA regulations for new production,
> > so after you refurb the few that are left you'd need 5-10 years of
> > development to get one out the door, and if it's to be certified for
> > 125mph operation _now_ it'd have to be two to three times the weight
> > per passenger of the older trains.
>
> If they want it to be used, the regulations will change. You keep bringing
> up silly issues. Is this connected to the blind spot or just another
> idiosyncracy?
>
> > That means a lot more fuel
> > consumption, even longer acceleration, etc. These rules are the main
> > reason Acela is such a dog compared to TGV, even though it's built by
> > the same people.
>
> I can agree that the safety regulations for the FRA are somewhat antiquated,
> and depend on mass rather than design. However, I have no solution for this
> as the regulations have been built up by heavy lobbying over decades and
> there is no simple solution.
Same here. I wouldn't obsolete FRA regs, but I'd definitely augment
them.
Harry C.
Ian St. John
<snip>
>
>>> HSR competes with air, which moves at 800km/h but has about an hour
>>> and a half of passenger delay, so 200km/h rail is only competitive
>>> up to about 400km (250mi). 320km/h rail would be competitive out to
>>> 800km (500mi). That's twice the distance.
>
> Sorry, but I'd consider that a pipe dream!
That was Stephen. I would only consider it a possible option for a east
coast to west coast passive maglev for people commuting between New York and
LA.
Ian St. John
Even a single car ( 24 passenger weighing 7 tons ) can have a variation
from +400 kw draw to -380 kw ( if regenerative braking is used to save 40%
of power demands) See Figure 3.2 at
http://www.monorails.org/pdfs/Magnemotion.pdf While passenger trains have
lighter weight, the higher speed and acceleration compared to freight more
than compensates. Just think what the draw would be for a simple 7 car
passenger train ( Acela is 3 to 10 cars) with weights of about 65 tons per
car
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=1_0&lang=en&file=/en/1_0/1_10/1_10_2_2.jsp%3Fmenu%3D1_1
It would probably have a erratic draw of about +/- 6 megawatts and if you
have more than one active on a track....
>
> Like you, I can't see a value for a traction engine that can pull a
> train safely at above 100-MPH, without a very state-of-the-art track
> bed that can support operations at such speeds (at least here in the
> US, including the Northeast Corrider). Due to the physics involved, I
> am of the opinion that to support very high-speed rail traffic
> requires a "captive rail system" similar to that used on roller
> coasters. To my knowledge, no such system has been implemented
> anywhere in the world.
Not sure if I agree there. That might be going a bit far. But you definitely
need a high stability roadbed, with wide curves, no level crossing, and
continuous rail, separate from the freight lines. At least, that is what it
took in Europe.
>
> Today, diesel electrics are the norm. This is largely because of
> their great performance, low-maintenance, and high-reliability --
> important considerations for rail system operators. Turbines, in spite
> of their performance potential, really scare away most rail system
> operators in the US because of high maintenance, and questionable
> reliability.
Yes. They are, however, the highest power in the smallest spaces so they get
chosen in the HSR category as the only alternative to electric overhead.
Breakdowns generally tend to be higher due to turbines liking to work at a
steady pace, which might be overcome with some storage capability. Noise is
another problem. Bombardier is bidding on the florida HSR route using a
turbine electric.
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=1_0&lang=en&file=/en/1_0/1_10/1_10_1.jsp%3Fmenu%3D0
Stephen Sprunk
news:7ce4e226.04081...@posting.google.com...
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> > HSR competes with air, which moves at 800km/h but has about an hour
>> > and a half of passenger delay, so 200km/h rail is only competitive up
>> > to about 400km (250mi). 320km/h rail would be competitive out to
>> > 800km (500mi). That's twice the distance.
>
> Sorry, but I'd consider that a pipe dream!
A pipe dream? Millions of passengers would disagree with you.
300km/h rail already exists in daily service in half a dozen countries, and
France will be upping their speeds to 320km/h in the next year or so. HSR
has effectively killed short-haul air service within Europe and Japan.
Stephen Sprunk
> Even a single car ( 24 passenger weighing 7 tons ) can have a variation
> from +400 kw draw to -380 kw ( if regenerative braking is used to save 40%
> of power demands) See Figure 3.2 at
> http://www.monorails.org/pdfs/Magnemotion.pdf While passenger trains have
> lighter weight, the higher speed and acceleration compared to freight more
> than compensates. Just think what the draw would be for a simple 7 car
> passenger train ( Acela is 3 to 10 cars) with weights of about 65 tons per
> car
> http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=1_0&lang=en&file=/en/1_0/1_10/1_10_2_2.jsp%3Fmenu%3D1_1
>
> It would probably have a erratic draw of about +/- 6 megawatts and if you
> have more than one active on a track....
Acela draws a peak of 9.2MW during accelerationm but during deceleration it
feeds a similar amount of power back into the grid; average consumption is
probably under 3MW. With states like California having a total power output
in the tens of GW, this is a rounding error even with dozens of trains
running.
A single modern powerplant has an output in the 500-1500MW range; that's
more than enough to feed all the HSR in a state with enough left over to
power a decent-sized city.
>> Like you, I can't see a value for a traction engine that can pull a
>> train safely at above 100-MPH, without a very state-of-the-art track
>> bed that can support operations at such speeds (at least here in the
>> US, including the Northeast Corrider). Due to the physics involved, I
>> am of the opinion that to support very high-speed rail traffic
>> requires a "captive rail system" similar to that used on roller
>> coasters. To my knowledge, no such system has been implemented
>> anywhere in the world.
>
> Not sure if I agree there. That might be going a bit far. But you
> definitely
> need a high stability roadbed, with wide curves, no level crossing, and
> continuous rail, separate from the freight lines. At least, that is what
> it
> took in Europe.
The NEC has no grade crossings and a solid roadbed; it just has too many
curves (hence tilting trains) and the junctions need upgrading so that
through trains don't have to slow down.
Europe built brand-new tracks for most of their HSR routes, and if we want
the same speeds we'll end up doing the same. But that takes a lot more
money than Amtrak has available -- they can't even cover the operating costs
of most of their routes, much less pay for captial improvements.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Europe could use diesel today, but they don't because it costs more.
>
> Well the electicity prices are comparible to the U.S. while the cost of
> diesel and other fuels are highly taxed and cost much more ( $5/gallon or
> more). You have admitted that electricity is more expensive than diesel in
> the U.S. What makes you think that the costs favor electicity in Europe???
European railroads pay taxes on diesel just like consumers do, so that is
part of the cost of the fuel. Over there, electricity costs less to use per
unit energy than diesel, no matter what speed. This is very simple math.
> The main driving force behind electificaiton of the rails in Europe was
> the
> power to weight rations for high speed passenger traffic.
The freight lines in Europe were electrified long before TGVs arrived in
1981; it was motivated out of the economics of fuels, not out of the
power/weight ratio. Also, since TGVs _don't use freight tracks_, why would
they be electrified if it were only for TGV's benefit?
> And please wipe the shit out of your ears. ... Clear now or do you need
> it repeated a twelvth time before you clue in?
Ad hominem attacks don't add anything to the debate.
>> Once you have the catenary up, diesel is still cheaper in the US than
>> electricity.
>
> Regardless of the cost of the catenary, the primary motivation to use
> electicity for high speed rail is the power to weight ration necessary.
> Turbines can be used where electification is not feasible.
It's feasible anywhere. The question is whether it's cost-effective.
>> Even on Amtrak's NEC, which is completely electrified,
>> most of the freight trains and even many passenger trains use diesel
>> because it's cheaper. Only Acela, the Metroliners, and a few
>> commuter trains use electric.
>
> I expect that friegth uses diesel mainly because it does not want to be
> resticted to a specific corridor, or have to change around when exiting
> the
> corridor, while scheduled passenger traffic has nowhere outside the
> corridor to go.
If electricity were cheaper for the US freight RRs, they'd put up catenary
in a heartbeat and it'd be universal just like in Europe. Even most
low-speed passenger trains entirely within the NEC use diesel because it's
cheaper; the only ones that don't are Acela and trains going into tunnels or
other areas (like mid/lower Manhattan) where diesel is banned.
>> No, it says that's the only area with enough catenary to power
>> high-speed trains.
>
> This is ambiguous. The 'overhead electical lines' may refer to the high
> power grid lines rather than the catenary. The statement makes no sense in
> their 'being enough' catenary lines, while the other interpretation makes
> sense in terms of tapping the power necessary to feed the catenary.
So you're saying California, with an excess of 5GW even during peak
consumption, doesn't have enough power in the grid to handle a few 9MW
trains? Other states tend to have even more (percentage wise) excess power.
There are distribution capacity shortages on the lines into many major
cities, however that's not where trains will be consuming the most power.
TGVs don't exceed 140km/h within Paris or its suburbs, and that corresponds
to a power draw of less than 2MW (and only for short periods). You might
need a few new distribution lines, but that's a minor cost compared to
building the tracks, and the new power consumption (at retail prices) would
pay the utilities back in short order. Electric railroads even provide
their own power stations; they can take 25kV and higher feeds directly from
the power grid and distribute the power up and down the tracks themselves.
> There are a lot of problems with demand variations in most electrical
> trains.
> Europe has a lot of experience with this
Sure, with hundreds of trains operating at any given time and up to
8.8MW/train, that will tax the power grid a bit. One or two new power
plants would cover all of France's trains, however, so it's not any sort of
crisis.
> and it is even a problem on the Singapore MagLev line which is only
> 27 kms long and the only big periodic demand.
Singapore doesn't have anywhere near the electric capacity available in the
US or Europe.
>> Similar catenary could be installed on any other
>> rail line in the country. The real problem is that Amtrak doesn't
>> own much track except for the NEC, and they have no authority to
>> force a private railroad to install catenary -- and as I've noted,
>> the freight RRs have no motivation to do it for their own use.
>
> The problem with expanding overhead catenary is a lot bigger than your
> simple claims. You would have to make major changes to the electrical grid
> to deal with the demand spikes.
New distribution lines might be needed, but that's a trivial problem
compared to getting private RRs with no vested interest in passenger rail
from electrifying their tracks.
>> The HSR proposal in Florida (FOX) was for a TGV derivative, using
>> electric power.
>
> No. They were considering all sorts of schemes and I do not think that
> they
> settled on any one yet. The FOX proposal was scrubbed by Jeb Bush back in
> 1999. http://www.trainweb.org/hsr/
>
>> Ditto for Texas.
>
> Texas was a candidate for maglev, but again, nothing came of it.
It was a candidate for TGV as well. Maglev was proposed at one time, but
unlike TGV it had no state support or investment at all.
> Maglev is a 'crackpot idea???
The only operational high-speed maglev in the world is a small test track in
Japan; they're decades ahead of the US in HSR work, and if they can't get it
into production service yet there's no way we (with almost zero HSR
experience) can get it to work.
> And as for financing ANY rail scheme is
> financed by government in the end. There is no other way to build up the
> capital and rights of way necessary. For HSR, for example, the NWC had to
> eliminate all level crossing and just think how much road constructino
> that
> takes!
The NEC was grade-separated decades ago for safety and efficiency reasons;
the fact Amtrak _wouldn't_ have to pay for doing the work is one of the main
reasons Acela was even possible on Amtrak's shoestring budget.
Don Kelly
"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:UEiSc.54203$V96....@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
Electrification was considered by Canadian Pacific, many years ago. Except
in relatively small regions, the costs and other problems were simply too
great and benefits were marginal. The European situation is quite different
due to the generally high population density and the greater dependence on
public transport. In North America, there are vast regions of low density
and the need for a costly infrastructure to supply power. The northeast US
corridor is an example of one of the few areas where a situation similar to
Europe exists.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:y7nSc.21123$Mq1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> Europe could use diesel today, but they don't because it costs more.
>>
>> Well the electicity prices are comparible to the U.S. while the cost
>> of diesel and other fuels are highly taxed and cost much more (
>> $5/gallon or more). You have admitted that electricity is more
>> expensive than diesel in the U.S. What makes you think that the
>> costs favor electicity in Europe???
>
> European railroads pay taxes on diesel just like consumers do, so
> that is part of the cost of the fuel. Over there, electricity costs
> less to use per unit energy than diesel, no matter what speed. This
> is very simple math.
Oops. You got me there. Must have been asleep. Yes. Diesel and liquid fuels
are MORE expensive so electricity would be favored. A second drviign force
for electrification that is not in the U.S.
>
>> The main driving force behind electificaiton of the rails in Europe
>> was the power to weight rations for high speed passenger traffic.
>
> The freight lines in Europe were electrified long before TGVs arrived
> in 1981; it was motivated out of the economics of fuels, not out of
> the power/weight ratio.
Possibly, but I can find no evidence that freight lines were electrified
prior to the TGV program in the 1960s.
> Also, since TGVs _don't use freight tracks_,
> why would they be electrified if it were only for TGV's benefit?
Now YOU must have dropped asleep. Go over that sentence. The TGV lines would
be electified because it was the only way to get the power to weigth ratio
necessary for high speed.
>
>> And please wipe the shit out of your ears. ... Clear now or do you
>> need it repeated a twelvth time before you clue in?
>
> Ad hominem attacks don't add anything to the debate.
Neither does your annoying habit of repeating your claims over and over
without a shred of logic or evidence. I've argued with smarter brick walls.
>
>>> Once you have the catenary up, diesel is still cheaper in the US
>>> than electricity.
>>
>> Regardless of the cost of the catenary, the primary motivation to use
>> electicity for high speed rail is the power to weight ration
>> necessary. Turbines can be used where electification is not feasible.
>
> It's feasible anywhere. The question is whether it's cost-effective.
If it is the only feasible system then that is the primary motivation to
design it that way. Cost effective just determines if it succeeeds and is
more to do with populations density and infrastructure. Ergo, HSR is
designed for turbines where electricity is not feasible and the only place
that electricity is feasbile is the NEC.
>
>>> Even on Amtrak's NEC, which is completely electrified,
>>> most of the freight trains and even many passenger trains use diesel
>>> because it's cheaper. Only Acela, the Metroliners, and a few
>>> commuter trains use electric.
>>
>> I expect that friegth uses diesel mainly because it does not want to
>> be resticted to a specific corridor, or have to change around when
>> exiting the
>> corridor, while scheduled passenger traffic has nowhere outside the
>> corridor to go.
>
> If electricity were cheaper for the US freight RRs, they'd put up
> catenary in a heartbeat and it'd be universal just like in Europe.
NOW you are agreeing that electrification is not the better way??? Well,
consistency is not your forte. You seem to change with the wind.
> Even most low-speed passenger trains entirely within the NEC use
> diesel because it's cheaper; the only ones that don't are Acela and
> trains going into tunnels or other areas (like mid/lower Manhattan)
> where diesel is banned.
The price difference only becomes meaningful when the system is feasible. Is
this not simple enough for you? For HSR the only feasible system is
electricity where it is available and turbine when it is not. Since you
cannot run HSR on diesel there is no 'advantage' to diesel for HSR. As to
frieght, I have explained why they do not electrify. The fact that HSR has
electrified but frieght has not SHOULD be enough of a clue even for you. It
is not economics. It is the restrictive nature of the NEC for frieght that
moves over the entire continent.
>
>>> No, it says that's the only area with enough catenary to power
>>> high-speed trains.
>>
>> This is ambiguous. The 'overhead electical lines' may refer to the
>> high power grid lines rather than the catenary. The statement makes
>> no sense in their 'being enough' catenary lines, while the other
>> interpretation makes sense in terms of tapping the power necessary
>> to feed the catenary.
>
> So you're saying California, with an excess of 5GW even during peak
> consumption, doesn't have enough power in the grid to handle a few 9MW
> trains? Other states tend to have even more (percentage wise) excess
> power.
Having enough power is not the issue and yes, it can be very disruptive. The
excess power is generally required to be about 15% of the total to prevent
problems in the 'last watt'. You may remember a bit of a problem not that
long ago?
But the problem is not the total power load but hte CHANGE in load.
Switching 9 MW on and off at short intervals is NOT what the system is
designed for. Please use your mind for something other than a hatrack. I
would not have mentioned the problem if there were no evidence of a problem.
It is a fairly well established issue.
>
> There are distribution capacity shortages on the lines into many major
> cities, however that's not where trains will be consuming the most
> power.
Where the power is used is not as much of an issue as the short term
variations in demand. The grid is used to send power where it is used in
very short time scales. Just look at the NW blackout and how fast it
progressed. Why do you keep introducing red herrings?
> TGVs don't exceed 140km/h within Paris or its suburbs, and
> that corresponds to a power draw of less than 2MW (and only for short
> periods).
The power needed to accelerate is high no matter if you are going from 20 to
40 or from 70 to 90.
> You might need a few new distribution lines, but that's a
> minor cost compared to building the tracks, and the new power
> consumption (at retail prices) would pay the utilities back in short
> order. Electric railroads even provide their own power stations;
> they can take 25kV and higher feeds directly from the power grid and
> distribute the power up and down the tracks themselves.
My my. You make my point and don't know it. Why do you think the railroads
PROVIDE their own power substations and controls! To minimise the impact on
the main grid and to provide the grid stabilisation for the cycling peak
loads. In other words the investment in grid upgrading is obvious from your
OWN statement. You cannot just 'tap' the power grid. You MUST upgrade it and
that is an expensive operation. One of the disadvantages of catenary
electric power is the high cost of fixing up the power grid to provide
stabiltiy against load variattions.
>
>> There are a lot of problems with demand variations in most electrical
>> trains.
>> Europe has a lot of experience with this
>
> Sure, with hundreds of trains operating at any given time and up to
> 8.8MW/train, that will tax the power grid a bit. One or two new power
> plants would cover all of France's trains, however, so it's not any
> sort of crisis.
I cannot determine if you are ignorant or just catatonic. The total power is
not the point. The varying loads ARE.
>
>> and it is even a problem on the Singapore MagLev line which is only
>> 27 kms long and the only big periodic demand.
>
> Singapore doesn't have anywhere near the electric capacity available
> in the US or Europe.
I'm starting to favor the catatonic theory. The brain is no longer
functional for some reason. But don't worry. THe world goes on because
people in Singapore DO know the problem and developed the grid upgrades to
deal with it. It is one big cost of both HSR and MagLev.
>
>>> Similar catenary could be installed on any other
>>> rail line in the country. The real problem is that Amtrak doesn't
>>> own much track except for the NEC, and they have no authority to
>>> force a private railroad to install catenary -- and as I've noted,
>>> the freight RRs have no motivation to do it for their own use.
>>
>> The problem with expanding overhead catenary is a lot bigger than
>> your simple claims. You would have to make major changes to the
>> electrical grid to deal with the demand spikes.
>
> New distribution lines might be needed, but that's a trivial problem
> compared to getting private RRs with no vested interest in passenger
> rail from electrifying their tracks.
Maybe it is just a lack of sleep or poor judgement in estimating the costs
of the 'trivial' problem but you really need a few smart pills. Your
'trivial problem' has kept electric HSR from the rest of the country and
promoted turbine HSR everywhere but the NEC and you STILL have not clued in
that it is NOT trivial.
>
>>> The HSR proposal in Florida (FOX) was for a TGV derivative, using
>>> electric power.
>>
>> No. They were considering all sorts of schemes and I do not think
>> that they
>> settled on any one yet. The FOX proposal was scrubbed by Jeb Bush
>> back in 1999. http://www.trainweb.org/hsr/
>>
>>> Ditto for Texas.
>>
>> Texas was a candidate for maglev, but again, nothing came of it.
>
> It was a candidate for TGV as well. Maglev was proposed at one time,
> but unlike TGV it had no state support or investment at all.
Regardless. No electric HSR proposals. Duuuuhhhhh. At what point does your
brain start up?
>
>> Maglev is a 'crackpot idea???
>
> The only operational high-speed maglev in the world is a small test
> track in Japan;
My my, you have blinders. How COULD you have missed the start of the line? I
find it hard to believe that even a monomaniac with serious blind spots
would have had a hard time missing it. OOps. It was Shanghai, not Singapore.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/bown/2003/article/0,18881,536727,00.html
> they're decades ahead of the US in HSR work,
No. The japanese are concentrating on superconducting maglev and are
learning that it is too complicated. The Germans are using narrow gap maglev
and sold the only working maglev system to Shanghai. The system uses a VERY
small gap and high speed controls to allow use of permanent magnets but the
price is that the track has to be almost perfectly flat and straight. It
costs a FORTUNE to build the track.
The Shanghai system currently has 77 passengers per train ( 440 capacity )
so it is a bit weak economically. More of a brag like having the highest
skyscraper rather than economically justified.
> and if
> they can't get it into production service yet there's no way we (with
> almost zero HSR experience) can get it to work.
I have heard of people with inferiority complexes but you take the cake. No
wonder the Japanese specialise is developing technologies first invented in
the U.S. but ignored because nobody had the courage to believe they could do
it. The reference to the *passive* maglev system should have been enough of
a clue but apparently you are still asleep. The main advantage of the
passive maglev is that it has high ground clearance ( so tracks do not have
to be perfect ) or does it need complex controls or superconducting magnets.
What part of this did you miss? P.S. NASA is the only current developer of
the technology. They want a HSR system travelling an incline as the 'first
stage' of a shuttle upgrade or replacement.
>> And as for financing ANY rail scheme is
>> financed by government in the end. There is no other way to build up
>> the capital and rights of way necessary. For HSR, for example, the
>> NWC had to eliminate all level crossing and just think how much road
>> constructino that takes!
>
> The NEC was grade-separated decades ago for safety and efficiency
> reasons; the fact Amtrak _wouldn't_ have to pay for doing the work is
> one of the main reasons Acela was even possible on Amtrak's
> shoestring budget.
The fact that the grades were separated was critical to HSR. You keep
imagining that people do these things out of whim or maybe random chance,
like your imaginary electrification of European rail and your removal of
grade crossing that have been traditional to the RR in the U.S. Does the
fact that grade crossing are NOT being removed everywhere else not give you
a simple clue? The removal of grade crossings was driven by the demand for
SOME sort of HSR in the NEC. It was not a 'freeby' but cost JUST as much
regardless of whether it was the state or Amtrak that drove the program to
remove this barrier to HSR.
>
> S
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:TevSc.14860$a65.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Even a single car ( 24 passenger weighing 7 tons ) can have a
>> variation from +400 kw draw to -380 kw ( if regenerative braking is
>> used to save 40% of power demands) See Figure 3.2 at
>> http://www.monorails.org/pdfs/Magnemotion.pdf While passenger trains
>> have lighter weight, the higher speed and acceleration compared to
>> freight more than compensates. Just think what the draw would be for
>> a simple 7 car passenger train ( Acela is 3 to 10 cars) with weights
>> of about 65 tons per car
>>
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=1_0&lang=en&file=/en/1_0/1_10/1_10_2_2.jsp%3Fmenu%3D1_1
>>
>> It would probably have a erratic draw of about +/- 6 megawatts and
>> if you have more than one active on a track....
>
> Acela draws a peak of 9.2MW during accelerationm but during
> deceleration it feeds a similar amount of power back into the grid;
> average consumption is probably under 3MW. With states like
> California having a total power output in the tens of GW, this is a
> rounding error even with dozens of trains running.
I was being conservative. You are just illustrating the large demand loads
and surges that are produced by electic trains. And the 'average' is like
saying that my feet are in the freezer while my head is in the oven but 'on
average' I'm comfortable.
The large VARIATIONS in load are the problem for the grid, you dimshit. You
cannot suddenly 'switch on' 9 MW without having it noticed and the power
grid is NOT designed for such rapid changes in demand and surge. It requires
a lot more 'spinning reserve' that adds costs wiithout producing revenues as
well major control systems to keep the grid stable.
>
> A single modern powerplant has an output in the 500-1500MW range;
> that's more than enough to feed all the HSR in a state with enough
> left over to power a decent-sized city.
Are you congenitally stupid or did you study?
>
>>> Like you, I can't see a value for a traction engine that can pull a
>>> train safely at above 100-MPH, without a very state-of-the-art track
>>> bed that can support operations at such speeds (at least here in the
>>> US, including the Northeast Corrider). Due to the physics involved,
>>> I am of the opinion that to support very high-speed rail traffic
>>> requires a "captive rail system" similar to that used on roller
>>> coasters. To my knowledge, no such system has been implemented
>>> anywhere in the world.
>>
>> Not sure if I agree there. That might be going a bit far. But you
>> definitely
>> need a high stability roadbed, with wide curves, no level crossing,
>> and continuous rail, separate from the freight lines. At least, that
>> is what it
>> took in Europe.
>
> The NEC has no grade crossings and a solid roadbed; it just has too
> many curves (hence tilting trains) and the junctions need upgrading
> so that through trains don't have to slow down.
So? The fact that you need a complicated system to deal with the rapid
curves just illustrates one of my points and you have confirmed the others
from the fact that the NEC developed them.
>
> Europe built brand-new tracks for most of their HSR routes, and if we
> want the same speeds we'll end up doing the same.
NOW you support my point. However, you seem to miss the fact that the NEC,
despite having the only HSR system in use, make adapted the train to the
existing tracks rather than createing a new corridor. It is just one
indication that the U.S. is not moving towards HSR systems.
> But that takes a
> lot more money than Amtrak has available -- they can't even cover the
> operating costs of most of their routes, much less pay for captial
> improvements.
Poor Americans. No stain on HSR but the U.S. will alwasy be defeated on this
issue. It takes too many parties cooperating instead of being at each others
throats. Ergo the Europeans and Japanese have HSR but the U.S. is stalled in
a 'competitive war' with the many parties either competing with rail or who
would be affected by the HSR routes.
>
> S
Michelle Vadeboncoeur
Toyota stated that on the pre-2004 Prius that they were making a
profit, as of 2002. How can a company make a profit on a $50,000 car
if they're only charging $20,000? (US$).
Toyota did sink more R&D money into the new 2004 Prius, but they
expect to break even on it rather soon (since the Prius is currently
the 3rd best selling Toyota passenger car in the US for 2004 as of the
end of July).
some articles:
April 8, 2004
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/toyota-prius/message/72009
Jan. 5, 2004
http://autoshow.edmunds.nytimes.com/news/autoshow/articles/100916/page063.html
Dec. 8, 2003
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17333
Oct. 28, 2003:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/-FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565437828
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/2004-prius/message/11370
Sept. 29, 2002 article:
http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news290902-0-4
Sept. 24, 2002 article:
http://www.catiaworld.com/lang1/mem/news/arc/_disc2n/00000061.htm
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/toyota-prius/message/40854
May 30, 2002 article:
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16184/newsDate-/30-May-2002/story.htm
March 30, 2002 :
http://www.acpropulsion.com/CARB/A_Brooks_Testimony/sld007.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toyota-prius/message/30046
Dec. 30, 2001 article:
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/4th/hycarpit.htm
Dec. 21, 2001 article:
http://www.ctnpublishing.com/pubs/ETIC/ETIC_2001/ShowTimesDay1.pdf
most recently:
Jun. 22, 2004:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display_release.html?id=20040623
<quote>
Is Toyota making money on the Prius?
At Toyota, we believe environmental issues are the most important
challenges for auto manufacturers. It is our mission to undertake all
efforts to develop and expand the use of environmentally friendly cars
and hybrid technology is the key to this effort.
The Prius is profitable and Toyota is further trying to reduce costs
while continuously improving the quality. We expect this generation
Prius to be profitable more quickly than the first generation Prius,
thanks to volume and improving economies of scale.
</quote>
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:<vnuSc.14785$a65.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> Ian St. John wrote:
>>> Michelle Vadeboncoeur wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> I'm guessing that you mean Canadian $. Like in the US, the Prius
>>>> was first introduced in Canada for the 2001 model year. I don't
>>>> think I've heard of any of the original Japanese Prius (1998-2000
>>>> model year) being imported to Canada. My recollection is that
>>>> pricing in Canada has remained similar between the "classic" Prius
>>>> (2001-2003 model years) and the new 2004 Prius. (In the US, MSRP
>>>> for the 2004 Prius at introduction was the same as the 2001 Prius
>>>> at $19995, although the 2004's MSRP just went up $300 in June.)
>>>
>>> So probably I was quoting $US.
>>
>> Oops. Just reviewed my post. You have jogged my memory a bit. I
>> remember now that the $50,000 figure was quoted to be the 'real
>> cost' of the original prius which they were selling at a loss at the
>> time hoping for volume pricing reductions. Getting to a point where
>> they could make money at a 'regular' price was one reason for the
>> light hybrid development.
>
> Toyota stated that on the pre-2004 Prius that they were making a
> profit, as of 2002.
And you believed them?As of 2004, sure. As of 2002, no way.
> How can a company make a profit on a $50,000 car
> if they're only charging $20,000? (US$).
Who said they made a profit on the original design and why would you believe
it. The original design was like building a ferrari. Not enough volume for
assembly line and volume discounts. And the high tech materials and tooling
was just not in the same class as the normal run of cars. They were hoping
to EVENTUALLY break even. They did it by both build up customers, the rise
in oil prices, and converting to a 'light hybrid' design with much more
borrowing from the normal car lines.
>
> Toyota did sink more R&D money into the new 2004 Prius, but they
> expect to break even on it rather soon (since the Prius is currently
> the 3rd best selling Toyota passenger car in the US for 2004 as of the
> end of July).
Must really burn the ass of those Ford Explorer drivers..
And after that exercise in the PR mans art I have no idea if they are making
a profit or just expect to make a profit.
daestrom
9 MW is *not* that huge a problem for a grid load here in US. Many large
industrial centers have single motors running in this range. An aluminum
can manufacturing plant I know of has over a half-dozen 2500 hp motors (1.86
MW). When starting, they draw about 5 times that for each one when
starting.
Yes, it requires special service from the utility and the demand charges can
be pretty bad, but the 'grid' doesn't mind very much at all when they start
up.
> > But that takes a
> > lot more money than Amtrak has available -- they can't even cover the
> > operating costs of most of their routes, much less pay for captial
> > improvements.
>
> Poor Americans. No stain on HSR but the U.S. will alwasy be defeated on
this
> issue. It takes too many parties cooperating instead of being at each
others
> throats. Ergo the Europeans and Japanese have HSR but the U.S. is stalled
in
> a 'competitive war' with the many parties either competing with rail or
who
> would be affected by the HSR routes.
>
That's one interpretation. There are others. The difference in very dense
population areas with concentrated service needs of EU and JP versus the
spread out and diffuse transportation needs of the US is another. The
socialized transportation systems of EU versus free market scheme is another
factor.
daestrom
Ian St. John
Sure. And you flip the switch on and off all day? Now try flipping the
switch on a hundred such plants at odd and random intervals, some of which
will coincide... Are you getting a clue yet? You have to keep a large amount
of extra power ready on line that does NOT get paid for. No power suppliers
are happy with that if nothing else. Ninety megawatts on average of
'spinning reserve' burning fuel and not producing revenue except for a few
demand peaks, will get you a problem because the power producers will tell
you to fuck yourself sideways.
>
> Yes, it requires special service from the utility and the demand
> charges can be pretty bad, but the 'grid' doesn't mind very much at
> all when they start up.
Maybe you are a bit unclear on the concept of railroads. There is more than
one train in service. And they start and stop all day long. There is
already one area converted to use the grid, so it is possible. What I was
saying is that the ordinary grid, expecting fairly slow and level load
surges is not ready for iit and thus any expansion of the electric train
service outside of the NEC would take a lot of money to adapt the power
grid.
>
>>> But that takes a
>>> lot more money than Amtrak has available -- they can't even cover
>>> the operating costs of most of their routes, much less pay for
>>> captial improvements.
>>
>> Poor Americans. No stain on HSR but the U.S. will alwasy be defeated
>> on this issue. It takes too many parties cooperating instead of
>> being at each others throats. Ergo the Europeans and Japanese have
>> HSR but the U.S. is stalled in a 'competitive war' with the many
>> parties either competing with rail or who would be affected by the
>> HSR routes.
>>
>
> That's one interpretation. There are others.
Oh, right. The reason that America hasn't progressed is that everyone hates
the U.S and they are SOOOO hard done by and nobody love them and ....
Sorry. I tell it like it is. America the incompetent, and anti-social. The
only thing they are good at these days is warfare and even there only when
they can run it by pushbutton. Major inventions sit on the shelf because
nobody can figure out how to convert them to dollar without taking a risk of
some kind or investing real money.
> The difference in very
> dense population areas with concentrated service needs of EU and JP
> versus the spread out and diffuse transportation needs of the US is
> another.
Always one excuse or another. Everyone else had it easy. Only in America is
it just TOOO hard. Want some cheese with that whine?
> The socialized transportation systems of EU versus free
> market scheme is another factor.
You mean the cooperation vs capitalism I mentioned..... thanks for
supporting my point. Someday they will understand that market system do not
work well enough to be the only option.
One excellent example of the failure of market systems is the Canadian West
where they used to supply the U.S. ONE cow ( one report placed it as
originating in the U.S. but it was caught in Canada) with BSE and the entire
border is closed crippling a multibillion dollar business. That is one
market failure caused by local cattle interests in the U.S. jacking up their
own prices by closing down the borders under cover of an 'overreaction'.
Now they have so many excess cattle that they are talking about culling the
herds ( throwing them away to support prices ). During all this, the price
of beef at the supermarket ( which should drastically drop according to
market theory ) has stay the same or even gone up, and the meat packers are
making a fortune buying meat for nothing and selling it at the normal price.
That is the second failure of the marketplace. The markets do not 'adjust'
to supply/demand when the capitalists don't want them to and can make more
money keeping the prices high. After all, it forms a sort of monopoly or
semi-monopoly with very few people controlling the whole industry.
Then there is the softwood lumber issue. No matter that Canada wins every
battle, the U.S. harrasses trade and that gets it freedom from compettiiton
even when they inevitalbly lose in the trade panel and at the WHO. What a
bunch of sucks. Some day they will be brave enough to compete on a level
playing field, but for now they will just hide behind their borders and
complain about everyone else having it too easy.
Christ on a crutch. The U.S. was blessed with more natural resources, two
ocean fronts, access from hundreds of warm water ports to both the Atlantic
and Pacific trade, internal waterways that provide cheap bulk shipping to
half the country, one of the largest proportions of arable land in the world
and massive amounts of old growth forest and fishing grounds. Yet all they
can do is complain about how hard done by they are. Europe modernised
despite having it's entire industry smashed flat only fifty years ago. Japan
did the same. The U.S. never even suffered an interuption in postal service.
And don't claim that the U.S. loans did anything but provide a grub stake
that they have paid pack many times. The 'socialist' Europe is showing the
U.S up and the U.S. doesn't like it. Too bad. Get used to it. It isn't
likely to change. The traditions of corporate welfare and rustbelt America
are just too entrenched.
>
> daestrom
Harry Conover
Indeed, the most advantageous part is that the immediate demands is
distributed over various parts of the grid, for both mainline rail and
rapid transit -- bacause trains move.
Take, for example, a regional transit system like the Washington
METRO. There are a number of 10-Mw traction power d.c. substations
located about (IIRC) one mile apart along each line. Each of these
draws power from either the PEPCO or surrounding power grids. When I
left work on the project, there were nominally 60-trains running
around the system, from little 2-car consists to the maxiumum 8-car
consist, each independently breaking/accelerating at up to 3-MPH/Sec
using self-powered 75,000-lb (empty) cars.
Again IIRC, the starting power demand by a WMATA 8-car train was in
the 6-7 Mw region, but due to the distribution of the load and the
spacing of the trains, the PEPCO grid had no problem keeping up with
this level of demand distributed throughout their distribution system.
I'm not sure of what the peak overall demand what, or power
consumption, but I was informed that it is higher than the total for
the entire city of Washington, DC. Needless to say, PEPCO made
additions to their system when WMATA was being constructed.
Harry C.
daestrom
Guess again. Such industrial installations pay the utility for each demand
peak *and* for the privilage of being able to 'flip the switch'. Even if
they don't 'flip the switch', the power supplier collects a hefty fee for
making it available.
Some types of generation *loves* this arrangement. They get paid for being
available, yet burn little fuel. Equipment wear is also lower. Some NG
plants in NY are doing EXACTLY this since the price of NG has been climbing.
They are seeking out such 'standby service' arrangements because they gain
significant revenue and are not as exposed to the volitility of NG prices.
Guess you don't know jack about the power market in the US.
>
> >
> > Yes, it requires special service from the utility and the demand
> > charges can be pretty bad, but the 'grid' doesn't mind very much at
> > all when they start up.
>
> Maybe you are a bit unclear on the concept of railroads. There is more
than
> one train in service. And they start and stop all day long. There is
> already one area converted to use the grid, so it is possible. What I was
> saying is that the ordinary grid, expecting fairly slow and level load
> surges is not ready for iit and thus any expansion of the electric train
> service outside of the NEC would take a lot of money to adapt the power
> grid.
>
Guess you are the one that is unclear about railroads in the US. Cross
continent frieght does *not* 'start and stop all day long'. Hundreds of
miles of open plain one day, barely 200 miles of mountain division the next.
Stop just long enough to add helpers and switch crews (once in the morning,
and once in the evening). Starting is also 'softer' than many industrial
settings. Engineer can 'notch up' a multi-unit consist over several
minutes. Once at full power, will run that way until reach the speed limit
for the division (can be 15 minutes, or even 30 minutes to get up to speed).
Then run 'at speed' for almost the entire day.
The 'ordinary grid' in the US handles load shifts in the 10's of thousands
of MW every day. NY alone swings about 10,000 MW:
http://currentenergy.lbl.gov/ny/
Yes, it would require some lines from primary transmission to dedicated
sub-stations along the railroad. But it isn't some giant leap of technology
or capacity. Maybe your European grid can't handle this??
> > That's one interpretation. There are others.
>
> Oh, right. The reason that America hasn't progressed is that everyone
hates
> the U.S and they are SOOOO hard done by and nobody love them and ....
No, you didn't read any of that in *my* post. You're just jumping to
conclusions and putting out your silly misconceptions of what American's
think or say.
>
> Sorry. I tell it like it is. America the incompetent, and anti-social.
Anti-social, perhaps. Incompetent, that's a bit of an exageration since we
'incompetent' Americans have accomplished quite a few things in every decade
since the 1800's. Just as European's have (when they weren't fighting and
killing each other).
The
> only thing they are good at these days is warfare and even there only when
> they can run it by pushbutton.
Hmmm.. Europe didn't seem to mind it when we fought it the 'old-fashioned'
way in helping liberate a few countries over there.
Does your country use some of the modern drugs developed to fight cancer,
heart-desease, or other ailments? Who invests more in funding medical drug
research than any other country? Wonder how this 'internet' thing got
started? You're just being ridiculous in your belief that the US is only
good for warfare. It's just the only thing you care to acknowledge. To
acknowledge any of the peaceful accomplishments would tear at the fabric of
your beliefs about us.
> Major inventions sit on the shelf because
> nobody can figure out how to convert them to dollar without taking a risk
of
> some kind or investing real money.
>
> > The difference in very
> > dense population areas with concentrated service needs of EU and JP
> > versus the spread out and diffuse transportation needs of the US is
> > another.
>
> Always one excuse or another. Everyone else had it easy. Only in America
is
> it just TOOO hard. Want some cheese with that whine?
>
Didn't say it was *hard*. Just that your "one answer fits everywhere"
attitude is stupid. "Gee, xx works for us, you yanks are idiots for not
doing the same thing." What a crock. Did you ever think that maybe there
are some valid differences in the geography? Or don't you understand the
relationship between population density and economics of passenger rail?
Maybe if you expand your knowledge about different parts of the world you
could learn some things. You're guilty of the narrow-minded anti-social
nationalistic behavior that the US is often accused of.
>
> > The socialized transportation systems of EU versus free
> > market scheme is another factor.
>
> You mean the cooperation vs capitalism I mentioned..... thanks for
> supporting my point. Someday they will understand that market system do
not
> work well enough to be the only option.
>
> One excellent example of the failure of market systems is the Canadian
West
> where they used to supply the U.S. ONE cow ( one report placed it as
> originating in the U.S. but it was caught in Canada) with BSE and the
entire
> border is closed crippling a multibillion dollar business. That is one
> market failure caused by local cattle interests in the U.S. jacking up
their
> own prices by closing down the borders under cover of an 'overreaction'.
Hmmm, close off a major part of the supply and the price goes up. Yeah, I
can see how a socialist would think that's a 'market failure'.
Yes, I can see how closing the border to a source of a deadly disease is
'overreaction'. I'm sure you actually believe the beef industry actually
conspired to 'plant' a diseased cow in Canada, just for an excuse to rob the
US consumer. Incredible.
>
> Now they have so many excess cattle that they are talking about culling
the
> herds ( throwing them away to support prices ). During all this, the price
> of beef at the supermarket ( which should drastically drop according to
> market theory ) has stay the same or even gone up, and the meat packers
are
> making a fortune buying meat for nothing and selling it at the normal
price.
Let's look a little closer at your 'market failure'. You seem to have
omitted the part where the cost of processing beef has risen. The meat
packers also *lost* a lot of money when the BSE was first discovered. Or
that other countries put up similar import bans on Canadian beef.
> That is the second failure of the marketplace. The markets do not 'adjust'
> to supply/demand when the capitalists don't want them to and can make more
> money keeping the prices high. After all, it forms a sort of monopoly or
> semi-monopoly with very few people controlling the whole industry.
Oh, right. It is easy to blame big, faceless, 'monopolies' with no facts.
Just wave you're hands and scream how 'big business' controls everything and
how it ought to be brought under government control to 'fix' things.
Funny thing is, the market that you say doesn't 'adjust' has seen a lowering
of gasoline price that I pay at the pump now that summer travel demands have
fallen off. That 'non-adjusting' market has driven *down* the price
computers despite the rise in the number of homes that have computers.
>
> Then there is the softwood lumber issue. No matter that Canada wins every
> battle, the U.S. harrasses trade and that gets it freedom from
compettiiton
> even when they inevitalbly lose in the trade panel and at the WHO.
What on Earth does the World Health Organization have to do with lumber?
> What a
> bunch of sucks. Some day they will be brave enough to compete on a level
> playing field, but for now they will just hide behind their borders and
> complain about everyone else having it too easy.
>
> Christ on a crutch. The U.S. was blessed with more natural resources, two
> ocean fronts, access from hundreds of warm water ports to both the
Atlantic
> and Pacific trade, internal waterways that provide cheap bulk shipping to
> half the country, one of the largest proportions of arable land in the
world
> and massive amounts of old growth forest and fishing grounds. Yet all they
> can do is complain about how hard done by they are.
I wrote simply that what works in Europe doesn't necessarily work as well in
the US. All your brain registered was a vague 'whining' noise. Perhaps
your education system doesn't teach critical thinking skills?
You think your European ideas are "God's gift to humanity" or some such
crock. And when it's pointed out that those ideas aren't as useful in the
US, all you hear is 'whining' instead of listening to reasoned debate.
Perhaps your medical system could treat you for your hearing impairment.
But I suppose such non-emergency treatment would put you on a waiting list
for a couple of years.
So, why don't the Europeans run two or three 100-car long coal 'drags' every
day from mines to power plants? One of the advantages of hauling by rail is
the economies of scale. Think about why something that is very effective in
the US wouldn't work as well in Europe, then try putting the 'shoe on the
other foot' for a minute.
daestrom
Ian St. John
>>> 9 MW is *not* that huge a problem for a grid load here in US. Many
>>> large industrial centers have single motors running in this range.
>>> An aluminum can manufacturing plant I know of has over a half-dozen
>>> 2500 hp motors (1.86 MW). When starting, they draw about 5 times
>>> that for each one when starting.
>>
>> Sure. And you flip the switch on and off all day? Now try flipping
>> the switch on a hundred such plants at odd and random intervals,
>> some of which will coincide... Are you getting a clue yet? You have
>> to keep a large amount of extra power ready on line that does NOT
>> get paid for. No power suppliers are happy with that if nothing
>> else. Ninety megawatts on average of 'spinning reserve' burning fuel
>> and not producing revenue except for a few demand peaks, will get
>> you a problem because the power producers will tell you to fuck
>> yourself sideways.
>
> Guess again. Such industrial installations pay the utility for each
> demand peak *and* for the privilage of being able to 'flip the
> switch'. Even if they don't 'flip the switch', the power supplier
> collects a hefty fee for making it available.
Not a guess. In fact, rather than being able to flip the switch all they
like, industries generally have 'interruptable power' that can be turned off
by the power company when demand elsewhere overloads. Normally the flow is
pretty solid because the demand curve is pretty smooth, but introduce a
bunch of erratic power demands and you either have to make a lot of unpaid
power or you have to have some sort of short term storage.
>
> Some types of generation *loves* this arrangement. They get paid for
> being available, yet burn little fuel.
Exactly. It is called 'spinning reserves' and it produces very little
revenues while, as you say, they get paid a lot just to have it on hand.
Fine if you have public power that can write off the investment and costs,
but the capitalists in the private power grid are going to tell you to screw
a post.
> Equipment wear is also lower.
> Some NG plants in NY are doing EXACTLY this since the price of NG has
> been climbing. They are seeking out such 'standby service'
> arrangements because they gain significant revenue and are not as
> exposed to the volitility of NG prices.
You are looking at it, only from the point of view of the generator owner.
Of COURSE he is happy. The person that is unhappy is the poor guy that has
to pay THAT guy big bucks for power that is 'available' but isn't being paid
for by the consumer.
>
> Guess you don't know jack about the power market in the US.
Guess you have demonstrated your ignorance once more.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it requires special service from the utility and the demand
>>> charges can be pretty bad, but the 'grid' doesn't mind very much at
>>> all when they start up.
>>
>> Maybe you are a bit unclear on the concept of railroads. There is
>> more than one train in service. And they start and stop all day
>> long. There is already one area converted to use the grid, so it is
>> possible. What I was saying is that the ordinary grid, expecting
>> fairly slow and level load surges is not ready for iit and thus any
>> expansion of the electric train service outside of the NEC would
>> take a lot of money to adapt the power grid.
>>
>
> Guess you are the one that is unclear about railroads in the US.
Oh, do tell.
> Cross continent frieght does *not* 'start and stop all day long'.
And your point? The issue here is not cross continental frieght, since there
is no economic incentive to electrify frieght trains.
<snip of inane and irrelevant..>
>
> The 'ordinary grid' in the US handles load shifts in the 10's of
> thousands of MW every day. NY alone swings about 10,000 MW:
> http://currentenergy.lbl.gov/ny/
Over long periods, not erratic loads. Erratic loads are the bane of power
stability. Just look what happens when one line fails in Ohio... The surge
of rerouted power was what tripped everyone else out, not the total loading.
Got a hint yet?
It *can* be done, as I've said. Hell, it *is* done, in Europe. What I have
said and you have not managed to challenge is that it is NOT a simple issue
of plugging into the grid. It requires a major upgrading and overhaul of the
grid and that is one of the factors that keeps the electrification of rail
for HSR a 'hotly debated' topic instead of a history lesson.
>
> Yes, it would require some lines from primary transmission to
> dedicated sub-stations along the railroad. But it isn't some giant
> leap of technology or capacity. Maybe your European grid can't
> handle this??
Finally. You almost seem to get a clue but are talking about a few dedicated
substations and 'plugging it in'. The modifications are MUCH more expensive
and extensvie than that. For one thing, you need 25kv lines power to the
train so you may have a lot of step up and step down substations. Try
powering it from your local country utility pole and you are going to blow
the fuse VERY fast. Generally they tend to have a dedicates high (50 kv+ )
voltage line that then is tapped to 'feeder stations' along the track.
>
>>> That's one interpretation. There are others.
>>
>> Oh, right. The reason that America hasn't progressed is that
>> everyone hates the U.S and they are SOOOO hard done by and nobody
>> love them and ....
>
> No, you didn't read any of that in *my* post. You're just jumping to
> conclusions and putting out your silly misconceptions of what
> American's think or say.
Misconception? There seem to be two types of American here. The whiners who
blame it on everyone else and the clueless who cannot understand that it is
not a question of snapping the fingers. I will leave you to decide which
category I put you in.
Ian St. John
>
>>
>> Sorry. I tell it like it is. America the incompetent, and
>> anti-social.
>
> Anti-social, perhaps. Incompetent, that's a bit of an exageration
> since we 'incompetent' Americans have accomplished quite a few things
> in every decade since the 1800's. Just as European's have (when they
> weren't fighting and killing each other).
Did I mention arrogant and blowhard? Sorry. Slipped my mind.
>
> The
>> only thing they are good at these days is warfare and even there
>> only when they can run it by pushbutton.
>
> Hmmm.. Europe didn't seem to mind it when we fought it the
> 'old-fashioned' way in helping liberate a few countries over there.
Very late and with your industries outside of the battlefield the untouched
production capacity of the U.S. helped turn the tide by bombing from high
altitude ( there is that fear of actual warfare again) after the British had
pretty much decimated the German air supremacy. The invasion, of course, was
the real effort which took the 'fresh troops' of the U.S. finally allowed to
do some real work, (war is won by the troops 'on the ground' a truism).
But the war had already been effectively won by England and the Commonwealth
countries, by keeping the victory from Hitler during 1939 to 1942. If they
hadn't, the U.S. would probably be talking German now because they would
have been fighting the whole of the Eurasian continent without a foothold to
launch a retaliation from. In other words, the water barrier that kept them
from being involved in 'europes war' would then have been a barrier to
defense when Germany or Japan got the nuclear bomb working. Remember that
the Manhattan project did not start until Ameirca had joined the war and
they would have been just one more victim if Europe had not held Hitler off
long enough for Japan to kick your butts into some sort of belated action.
Got to admit that after a long time sitting on the sidelines, the fresh
troops looked good in relation to the battle weary Europeans. And that is
NOT a compliment.
The other scenario that I can think of is a victorious German Eurasia
attacking from the East while the victorious Japanese attack from the West
to 'split the loot'.
But keep bragging. It makes it easy to show you up.
The problem is really not yours. The problem is the separate public/private
school systesm that teach the peasants to be manipulatable 'useful idiot'
filled with slogans and empty of thought, while the private schools teach
their members to be 'natural supermen' ala racial or individual superiority.
A training that the sons and daughters of the elite need to keep them from
remembering just how incompetent they really are.
And the issue was not the America of 1942 but of the America of 2003. They
are VERY different animals. Much more in common with Hitlers fascism than
Europe and the Allies.
Ian St. John
>
> Does your country use some of the modern drugs developed to fight
> cancer, heart-desease, or other ailments?
Yup. A lot of which were invneted and developed in Canada, Europe, etc. The
delusion that America is the center of all progress is just that. Delusion.
But it is true that America is the center of the vanity crowd, with a lot of
it's pharmaceutical effort going into variations on penis enhancers, valium,
and viagra clones. It is almost impossible to make money on a real drug in
America. If it cures the patient, the phamaceutical company can't make money
on it.. Only where there is socially assisted medicine can such market
failures be overcome.
> Who invests more in
> funding medical drug research than any other country? Wonder how
> this 'internet' thing got started?
Al Gore? ;-). But seriously, the whole of the internet was almost a wipeout
due to the American mindset. Good thing that Xerox didn't bury that ethernet
idea too deeply when they decided that all the 'progressive ideas' that the
PARC produced were useless nonsense. And that is not even mentioning the
"NIH" phenomenon that keeps U.S. companies from using new developments
invented by other companies.
> You're just being ridiculous in
> your belief that the US is only good for warfare.
Not always, but it seems to be the main 'export' of the NeoCons Fourth
Reich.
> It's just the only
> thing you care to acknowledge. To acknowledge any of the peaceful
> accomplishments would tear at the fabric of your beliefs about us.
What 'beliefs'. I have worked with and like Americans on an individual
basis. It is the culture and the executive that are losers. I have hopes
that America will pay the price of freedom some day and live with 'risk'
without using it as a justification for a police state. I even hope that
they will discover the advantages of technological advancement, rather than
'why change' lethargy. Using up the accumulated 'capital' of the past to pay
for the NeoCon party is really really stupid. Much more would be done by
developing alternative and sustainable power than trying to control the
middle east by military might.
And it has a *chance* of succeeding which I cannot say for the NeoCon
strategy.
>
>> Major inventions sit on the shelf because
>> nobody can figure out how to convert them to dollar without taking a
>> risk of some kind or investing real money.
>>
>>> The difference in very
>>> dense population areas with concentrated service needs of EU and JP
>>> versus the spread out and diffuse transportation needs of the US is
>>> another.
>>
>> Always one excuse or another. Everyone else had it easy. Only in
>> America is it just TOOO hard. Want some cheese with that whine?
>>
>
> Didn't say it was *hard*. Just that your "one answer fits everywhere"
> attitude is stupid.
I said nothing about one answer fitting all. The economic advantages of
electric HSR are obvious. I just pointed out that you essentially have to
build a separate dedicated 50 kv grid to service it. And you can get the
same speeds without that massive investment with the turbo train ( a turbine
equivalent of the Acela with all the same features and from the same
company ).
> "Gee, xx works for us, you yanks are idiots for
> not doing the same thing." What a crock. Did you ever think that
> maybe there are some valid differences in the geography? Or don't
> you understand the relationship between population density and
> economics of passenger rail?
I guess do want just to whine. No cheese?
>
> Maybe if you expand your knowledge about different parts of the world
> you could learn some things. You're guilty of the narrow-minded
> anti-social nationalistic behavior that the US is often accused of.
And is obviously guilty of. I am much more aquainted with the realities of
Europe and the east. As has been noted, the backwardness of American stems,
not from 'it's too hard, sniff whimper' but the inabilty of America to work
for common goals which is necessary where it is more than a one man job.
Ian St. John
>>
>>> The socialized transportation systems of EU versus free
>>> market scheme is another factor.
>>
>> You mean the cooperation vs capitalism I mentioned..... thanks for
>> supporting my point. Someday they will understand that market system
>> do not work well enough to be the only option.
>>
>> One excellent example of the failure of market systems is the
>> Canadian West where they used to supply the U.S. ONE cow ( one
>> report placed it as originating in the U.S. but it was caught in
>> Canada) with BSE and the entire border is closed crippling a
>> multibillion dollar business. That is one market failure caused by
>> local cattle interests in the U.S. jacking up their own prices by
>> closing down the borders under cover of an 'overreaction'.
>
> Hmmm, close off a major part of the supply and the price goes up.
That was not the point. You have a reading deficiency? The point was two
market failures. The one of protectionism in the U.S. which closed the
border long after the problem was dealth with, and the fact that despite a
huge oversupply, the price in *Canada* has not gone down. Two market failure
for the price of one.
> Yeah, I can see how a socialist would think that's a 'market failure'.
The first a result of the fact that the U.S. government cannot make
international trade deals and keep them with each of it's separate
squabbling children choosing to join or fight through the courts as they see
fit and without regard to meriit. They win by the DELAY. And someone said,
justice delayed is justice denied. Hmm. Where did that come from. Oh, yes.
The U.S. in it's pre-dumbing down days.
The second market failures shows that capitalist middlement are NOT
interested in the supply/demand equation but in their own profits i.e. buy
low, sell high, with consequent damage to both the farmers and the
consumers.
>
> Yes, I can see how closing the border to a source of a deadly disease
> is 'overreaction'.
What is overreaciton is the closing of the border for such a long time. The
standards in the U.S. are the same as in Canada, and the fact that the
problem was *caught* in Canada does not mean that it *originated* in Canada.
The farm where the case was discovered had imported U.S. cattle for
breeding.
> I'm sure you actually believe the beef industry
> actually conspired to 'plant' a diseased cow in Canada, just for an
> excuse to rob the US consumer. Incredible.
Gee. Another bonus. A Non-Sequitor and a Red Herring. Nothing was said about
'planting' the cow. It was born from U.S. stock imported by the farmer.
>
>>
>> Now they have so many excess cattle that they are talking about
>> culling the herds ( throwing them away to support prices ). During
>> all this, the price of beef at the supermarket ( which should
>> drastically drop according to market theory ) has stay the same or
>> even gone up, and the meat packers are making a fortune buying meat
>> for nothing and selling it at the normal price.
>
> Let's look a little closer at your 'market failure'. You seem to have
> omitted the part where the cost of processing beef has risen.
Nope. The knives are just as sharp. I just knew you would jump in with a
whitewash of the obvious facts. The 'invisible hand' of the market is not
supposed to bring price down with oversupply only if there are no excuses.
It is supposed to bring prices down PERIOD.
> The
> meat packers also *lost* a lot of money when the BSE was first
> discovered.
Sure sure. You must have had your head up your ass when I mentioned the
record profits.
> Or that other countries put up similar import bans on
> Canadian beef.
Meaningless. It is a market *developed* and prirmarily dedidcated to
providing young beef cattle for fattening by U.S. farmers.
>
>> That is the second failure of the marketplace. The markets do not
>> 'adjust' to supply/demand when the capitalists don't want them to
>> and can make more money keeping the prices high. After all, it forms
>> a sort of monopoly or semi-monopoly with very few people controlling
>> the whole industry.
>
> Oh, right. It is easy to blame big, faceless, 'monopolies' with no
> facts.
I said *semi-monopoly* dipshit. What is it with you "english as a third
languages' morons?
> Just wave you're hands and scream how 'big business' controls
> everything and how it ought to be brought under government control to
> 'fix' things.
Non-sequitor. Thanks. Your feeble and irrational responses are making my
case for me.
>
> Funny thing is, the market that you say doesn't 'adjust' has seen a
> lowering of gasoline price that I pay at the pump now that summer
> travel demands have fallen off.
Coorelation is not causation. This can be seen by the sudden rise in prices
when oil goes up and the slow drop in price when oil goes down. Fact is that
such semi-monopoly control by corporations that have grown big enough to
'wag the dog' are becoming the norm. And clear examples of market failures.
But I can't give you a lecture in economics until you clue in to the basics.
>That 'non-adjusting' market has
> driven *down* the price computers despite the rise in the number of
> homes that have computers.
Actually, what has driven the price of computers down is the efficiency of
Japanese/Taiwanese/Korean electronics industry where almost all of the
manufacture takes place. These counties have a more socialised corporate
policy, low interestf or 'targetted development' and about three times the
GDP per unit of energy of the U.S.
This is usually countered somewhat by the U.S. wholesalers who pass on the
drop in prices only when they need a boost in sales to an oversupplied
market.
Ian St. John
<snip>
>> Then there is the softwood lumber issue. No matter that Canada wins
>> every battle, the U.S. harrasses trade and that gets it freedom from
>> compettiiton even when they inevitalbly lose in the trade panel and
>> at the WHO.
>
> What on Earth does the World Health Organization have to do with
> lumber?
Geeze. Can't you clue in to a typo. I was intending to type the WTO.
>
>> What a
>> bunch of sucks. Some day they will be brave enough to compete on a
>> level playing field, but for now they will just hide behind their
>> borders and complain about everyone else having it too easy.
>>
>> Christ on a crutch. The U.S. was blessed with more natural
>> resources, two ocean fronts, access from hundreds of warm water
>> ports to both the Atlantic and Pacific trade, internal waterways
>> that provide cheap bulk shipping to half the country, one of the
>> largest proportions of arable land in the world and massive amounts
>> of old growth forest and fishing grounds. Yet all they can do is
>> complain about how hard done by they are.
>
> I wrote simply that what works in Europe doesn't necessarily work as
> well in the US. All your brain registered was a vague 'whining'
> noise. Perhaps your education system doesn't teach critical thinking
> skills?
More cheese with that whine?
>
> You think your European ideas are "God's gift to humanity" or some
> such crock.
Non Sequitor. Europe was introduced ( and not by me ) for comparison
purposes. Your critical thinking need tuning up a notch.
> And when it's pointed out that those ideas aren't as
> useful in the US, all you hear is 'whining' instead of listening to
> reasoned debate.
Well the statement that the U.S. *cannot* do it is a whine and no question
about it. I was arguing on the basis that the electrification of the NEC was
anomolous and that most regions of the U.S propose turbine powered HSR
because of the cost of electrification. But then you cannot seem to read the
thread and extract the facts out of it. Critical thinking skills failure or
just failure to read back into the thread?
> Perhaps your medical system could treat you for your
> hearing impairment. But I suppose such non-emergency treatment would
> put you on a waiting list for a couple of years.
Hearing problems are not included in socialised medicine. Your ignorance of
any country but the U.S. is prominently displayed. Fact is that most of what
the 'useful idiot' like you knows about the U.S. is flawed too, as
demonstrated here. Sorry if I burst your bubble.
>
> So, why don't the Europeans run two or three 100-car long coal
> 'drags' every day from mines to power plants? One of the advantages
> of hauling by rail is the economies of scale.
Beat the shit out of me. Maybe they use a coal slurry over a pipeline? Or
maybe they DO run coal by freight. It was pointed out before that the
European HSR runs on dedicated tracks separate from frieght.
> Think about why
> something that is very effective in the US wouldn't work as well in
> Europe, then try putting the 'shoe on the other foot' for a minute.
Well, I agree that most of the 'solutions' that have actually gotten funding
in the U.S. were mostly failures ( wiuth the exception of the NEC which
copied Europe except for the lack of straight track and the need for tilting
car mechanisms.). No need to export your incompetence, no matter how high
the supply there just isn't a demand.
>
> daestrom
daestrom
True, England and the Channel held Hitler at bay in the battle of Britain.
But 'effectively won' is baloney. If the invasion in Europe was delayed by
6 - 9 months, the German jet fighter, V2 rocket and their own atomic bomb
research would have been the outcome. Holding the third Reich at bay did
not 'effectively' win anything but some time.
> If they
> hadn't, the U.S. would probably be talking German now because they would
> have been fighting the whole of the Eurasian continent without a foothold
to
> launch a retaliation from. In other words, the water barrier that kept
them
> from being involved in 'europes war' would then have been a barrier to
> defense when Germany or Japan got the nuclear bomb working. Remember that
> the Manhattan project did not start until Ameirca had joined the war and
> they would have been just one more victim if Europe had not held Hitler
off
> long enough for Japan to kick your butts into some sort of belated action.
> Got to admit that after a long time sitting on the sidelines, the fresh
> troops looked good in relation to the battle weary Europeans. And that is
> NOT a compliment.
>
Actually, the first US engagements in north africa were abysmal. But if the
US hadn't entered the war when it did, how much longer do you think Great
Britain would have been able to hold out? Even before officially entering
the war, UK was receiving massive shipments of food and supplies from US (US
merchant marine lost more lives than the US navy to Hitler's wolf-packs).
As for the 'water barrier', Hitler recognized one of Europe's weaknesses is
Africa to the south. Any number of points on the southern shore of the
Mediteranian could serve as a staging area for an invasion. Unfortunately,
he could not hold the north African shores.
Ian St. John
That is the point, dimwit. Winning a war is basically a series of stalling
tactics until you get ahead of the game. In this case by Japan kicking the
U.S. in the head and getting them involved. However, the outcome of the war
without the U.S. was probably a 'pyrhic victory' with both Germany and
Britain exhausted by the time they finish. On the other hand, they would
then have decades to work on developing the war materials to finish off the
U..S. the 'war' would be finished when Hitler ruled the world. And without
Britain stopping him for the required period of time, that would probably
have happened.
>
>> If they
>> hadn't, the U.S. would probably be talking German now because they
>> would have been fighting the whole of the Eurasian continent without
>> a foothold to launch a retaliation from. In other words, the water
>> barrier that kept them from being involved in 'europes war' would
>> then have been a barrier to defense when Germany or Japan got the
>> nuclear bomb working. Remember that the Manhattan project did not
>> start until Ameirca had joined the war and they would have been just
>> one more victim if Europe had not held Hitler off long enough for
>> Japan to kick your butts into some sort of belated action. Got to
>> admit that after a long time sitting on the sidelines, the fresh
>> troops looked good in relation to the battle weary Europeans. And
>> that is NOT a compliment.
>>
>
> Actually, the first US engagements in north africa were abysmal. But
> if the US hadn't entered the war when it did, how much longer do you
> think Great Britain would have been able to hold out?
Indefinitely, being resupplied by the Commonwealth. Germany had shown that
they could not deliver a crippling blow. The actual deaths and damages from
the 'blanket bombing' was less than you might think. More 'sound and fury'
than effective. And England had won the 'Battle of Britain' so Hitler would
have had to give up the idea of a blitzkrieg from the skies to cover a
foothold. So the question is really how long it would take England to build
up an invasion force and whether German scientists got the A-bomb working
before then.
> Even before
> officially entering the war, UK was receiving massive shipments of
> food and supplies from US (US merchant marine lost more lives than
> the US navy to Hitler's wolf-packs).
The U.S. shipped nothing to the U.K during the Battle of Brittain. In fact,
what supplies they did contribute (mostly driven by the executive against
the power of the congress) prior to Pearl Harbor had to be dragged over the
Canadian Border with ropes to get around the restrictions.
>
> As for the 'water barrier', Hitler recognized one of Europe's
> weaknesses is Africa to the south. Any number of points on the
> southern shore of the Mediteranian could serve as a staging area for
> an invasion. Unfortunately, he could not hold the north African
> shores.
Mainly because of the stiff resistance from England. Once that was done, he
would have rolled over Africa.
>
>> The other scenario that I can think of is a victorious German Eurasia
>> attacking from the East while the victorious Japanese attack from
>> the West to 'split the loot'.
>>
>> But keep bragging. It makes it easy to show you up.
>>
>> The problem is really not yours. The problem is the separate
>> public/private school systesm that teach the peasants to be
>> manipulatable 'useful idiot' filled with slogans and empty of
>> thought, while the private schools teach their members to be
>> 'natural supermen' ala racial or individual superiority. A training
>> that the sons and daughters of the elite need to keep them from
>> remembering just how incompetent they really are.
>>
>> And the issue was not the America of 1942 but of the America of
>> 2003. They are VERY different animals. Much more in common with
>> Hitlers fascism than Europe and the Allies.
http://www.threeworldwars.com/overview.htm
daestrom
> daestrom wrote:
> > "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> > news:bofTc.27270$a65.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > Does your country use some of the modern drugs developed to fight
> > cancer, heart-desease, or other ailments?
>
> Yup. A lot of which were invneted and developed in Canada, Europe, etc.
The
> delusion that America is the center of all progress is just that.
Delusion.
> But it is true that America is the center of the vanity crowd, with a lot
of
> it's pharmaceutical effort going into variations on penis enhancers,
valium,
> and viagra clones. It is almost impossible to make money on a real drug in
> America. If it cures the patient, the phamaceutical company can't make
money
> on it.. Only where there is socially assisted medicine can such market
> failures be overcome.
More delusions. You think the only drugs invented in the US are Valium and
Viagra. How about cholesterol reducing drugs like Lipitor, Zietia?
Fundemental research into heart disease? Breakthroughs in transplant
surgery? Sure, these are available world-wide, but why do many come to the
US to learn these things?
>
>
> > Who invests more in
> > funding medical drug research than any other country? Wonder how
> > this 'internet' thing got started?
>
> Al Gore? ;-). But seriously, the whole of the internet was almost a
wipeout
> due to the American mindset. Good thing that Xerox didn't bury that
ethernet
> idea too deeply when they decided that all the 'progressive ideas' that
the
> PARC produced were useless nonsense. And that is not even mentioning the
> "NIH" phenomenon that keeps U.S. companies from using new developments
> invented by other companies.
Like any community, there are some that practive "NIH". But not as many in
the US as you seem to think. You paint such a broad brush with such limited
knowledge.
And Ethernet is not the sole end of TCP/IP. One is a media layer, the other
is up from that (TCP is actually a separate layer 'on top' of the IP layer).
TCP/IP can be (and often is) run over other media layers besides Ethernet
(e.g. TokenRing, Apple-Talk, even simple UUCP).
No, they are not. Not when the population density is much lower and more
spread out. Not if you can't fill a train with enough paying passengers
because there isn't enough of them wanting to go to the same terminal from
the same terminal.
You're being closed minded in thinking electric HSR is 'obvious'. Sure, it
is 'obvious' if all the circumstances that make it the best choice are
duplicated. But you aren't thinking about what sort of circumstances go
into it. But what if passenger rail service itself is the *real* problem?
HSR just expands the radius of service territory somewhat by putting more
territory within an 'acceptable' travel time. But even then, it cannot
provide 'acceptable' travel time cross-continent, or even half-way across
the continent. So a second infrastructure (wide spread air travel) is
needed for cross-continental travel. And with that second infrastructure in
place, HSR becomes redundant and falls into obscurity.
If you study what happened to passenger rail service in the US in the '50's
and '60's, you will understand more about service in the US. Look past some
of the minor issues of union feather-bedding and antiquainted operating
rules and examine *why* passengers started flying and driving instead of
taking the train. What does HSR do to aliviate any of those issues?
Nothing.
Rail right-of-ways were well established before air travel. But with lots
of cheap land for airports, the US airline infrastructure has been able to
saturate the same geography. As an example, I can drive about the same
distance to get to either a passenger rail station, or a major US airport.
From the airport, my choices of destination are many more than from the rail
station. So even if the rail were HSR (with electric equipment), it would
not be the preferred transportation.
> I just pointed out that you essentially have to
> build a separate dedicated 50 kv grid to service it. And you can get the
> same speeds without that massive investment with the turbo train ( a
turbine
> equivalent of the Acela with all the same features and from the same
> company ).
>
If the electric service were the only hold up for HSR, then you would have a
point. But passenger rail service in general in the US is not suffering
because of some 'massive investment' with the turbo train. Rather,
passenger service as a whole suffers from several problems that
electrification will not solve.
> > "Gee, xx works for us, you yanks are idiots for
> > not doing the same thing." What a crock. Did you ever think that
> > maybe there are some valid differences in the geography? Or don't
> > you understand the relationship between population density and
> > economics of passenger rail?
>
> I guess do want just to whine. No cheese?
>
> >
> > Maybe if you expand your knowledge about different parts of the world
> > you could learn some things. You're guilty of the narrow-minded
> > anti-social nationalistic behavior that the US is often accused of.
>
> And is obviously guilty of. I am much more aquainted with the realities of
> Europe and the east. As has been noted, the backwardness of American
stems,
> not from 'it's too hard, sniff whimper' but the inabilty of America to
work
> for common goals which is necessary where it is more than a one man job.
>
So, before when you 'whined' about how Americans always say "its too
hard...", you now recant and say America's 'backwardness' stems from its
'inability of America to work for common goals...'. Well, which is it?
Right, we should have some puppet get up and set some 'common goal' for us
and we should all follow like sheep. Do what they say because 'its for the
common good'. After all, some puppet said so. And if that puppet starts to
say that all our problems would be solved if we would only xx, we should
just follow that doctrine?
Our diversity and devisiveness *is* one of our shortcomings, that is true.
It stalls us often when action is needed. But it is also one of our biggest
strengths. To question our leaders and question such 'common goals' is a
fundamental part of us. How do you patently decide that the land for some
public project is best used in that manner? How do you decide things like
how many hip-replacements should be done each year and what other 'common
goal' is delayed because of your decision? No doubt some 'expert' says it's
the right thing to do. And you all just assume they are correct?
daestrom
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:1PdUc.7972$ZI1.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> daestrom wrote:
>>> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:bofTc.27270$a65.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>
>>> Does your country use some of the modern drugs developed to fight
>>> cancer, heart-desease, or other ailments?
>>
>> Yup. A lot of which were invneted and developed in Canada, Europe,
>> etc. The delusion that America is the center of all progress is just
>> that. Delusion. But it is true that America is the center of the
>> vanity crowd, with a lot of it's pharmaceutical effort going into
>> variations on penis enhancers, valium, and viagra clones. It is
>> almost impossible to make money on a real drug in America. If it
>> cures the patient, the phamaceutical company can't make money on
>> it.. Only where there is socially assisted medicine can such market
>> failures be overcome.
>
> More delusions.
Thanks for admitting it. That is the first step.
> You think the only drugs invented in the US are
> Valium and Viagra.
No. Just the bulk of the profit makers by major pharacetical companies.
> How about cholesterol reducing drugs like
> Lipitor, Zietia?
Sure. Add chronic conditions to vanity. Both mean a steady supply of
'customers' but don't count on the chronic drugs fixing anything. They make
their money on keeping you sick.
> Fundemental research into heart disease?
Paid for by charity.
> Breakthroughs in transplant surgery?
You mean like the first heart transplant in South Africa? It had to be there
because it couldn't be done in America.
> Sure, these are available
> world-wide, but why do many come to the US to learn these things?
About as many as travel to Europe to learn medine, but with more emphasis on
real progress against disease.
>
>>
>>
>>> Who invests more in
>>> funding medical drug research than any other country? Wonder how
>>> this 'internet' thing got started?
>>
>> Al Gore? ;-). But seriously, the whole of the internet was almost a
>> wipeout due to the American mindset. Good thing that Xerox didn't
>> bury that ethernet idea too deeply when they decided that all the
>> 'progressive ideas' that the PARC produced were useless nonsense.
>> And that is not even mentioning the "NIH" phenomenon that keeps U.S.
>> companies from using new developments invented by other companies.
>
> Like any community, there are some that practive "NIH". But not as
> many in the US as you seem to think. You paint such a broad brush
> with such limited knowledge.
"Oooh. You don't know us vewy well." What a stunning inditement of your lack
of rebuttal...
>
> And Ethernet is not the sole end of TCP/IP. One is a media layer,
> the other is up from that (TCP is actually a separate layer 'on top'
> of the IP layer). TCP/IP can be (and often is) run over other media
> layers besides Ethernet (e.g. TokenRing, Apple-Talk, even simple
> UUCP).
Point is that internet is layered on Ethernet. No foundation, no layer.
Ian St. John
<snip>
>>>> Always one excuse or another. Everyone else had it easy. Only in
>>>> America is it just TOOO hard. Want some cheese with that whine?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't say it was *hard*. Just that your "one answer fits
>>> everywhere" attitude is stupid.
>>
>> I said nothing about one answer fitting all. The economic advantages
>> of electric HSR are obvious.
>
> No, they are not. Not when the population density is much lower and
> more spread out. Not if you can't fill a train with enough paying
> passengers because there isn't enough of them wanting to go to the
> same terminal from the same terminal.
"if you build it, they will come". Fact is that the barrier to HSR is the
fact that there is no HSR and therefore no incentive to denser communities.
>
> You're being closed minded in thinking electric HSR is 'obvious'.
> Sure, it is 'obvious' if all the circumstances that make it the best
> choice are duplicated. But you aren't thinking about what sort of
> circumstances go into it. But what if passenger rail service itself
> is the *real* problem?
What if your anus is just trying to eat your head? How can we tell from the
fact that your head is up your ass?
>
> HSR just expands the radius of service territory somewhat by putting
> more territory within an 'acceptable' travel time. But even then, it
> cannot provide 'acceptable' travel time cross-continent, or even
> half-way across the continent.
Acutally that is theoretically possible with an evacutated or
hydrogen/helium filled underground tunnels running trains at mach 9.
> So a second infrastructure (wide
> spread air travel) is needed for cross-continental travel.
So your delusion is that air travel can make a cross country commute
possible? Not even with the SST..
> And with
> that second infrastructure in place, HSR becomes redundant and falls
> into obscurity.
The obscurity is your mental disease which seems to prevent any ideas taking
root. Very common in 'Rust Belt' America.
>
> If you study what happened to passenger rail service in the US in the
> '50's and '60's, you will understand more about service in the US.
> Look past some of the minor issues of union feather-bedding and
> antiquainted operating rules and examine *why* passengers started
> flying and driving instead of taking the train. What does HSR do to
> aliviate any of those issues? Nothing.
Sure. I wasn't limiting my critique of the U.S. to mere ignorance and
arrogance. There is certainly a lot of curruption and political sandbagging.
>
> Rail right-of-ways were well established before air travel. But with
> lots of cheap land for airports, the US airline infrastructure has
> been able to saturate the same geography.
Mainly because U.S. trains had establihsed themselves as slow, noisy and
with no fixed schedule. Given the lack of progress in train technology,
being 'leapfrogged' by air is logical.
> As an example, I can drive
> about the same distance to get to either a passenger rail station, or
> a major US airport. From the airport, my choices of destination are
> many more than from the rail station. So even if the rail were HSR
> (with electric equipment), it would not be the preferred
> transportation.
non-sequitor. The same access pertains to the both. There is no need for
'exclusivity' which is just your red herring. And comparing travel, the taxi
times are much shorter for trains( stations within the city vs airport way
outside) and more comfortable. A comparison of a New York( Empire State
Building) to Washington DC ( White House) came down to 10 minutes difference
in over three hours of travel using the current slow speed Acela trains.
With real HSR the train would have won.
>
>> I just pointed out that you essentially have to
>> build a separate dedicated 50 kv grid to service it. And you can get
>> the same speeds without that massive investment with the turbo train
>> ( a turbine equivalent of the Acela with all the same features and
>> from the same company ).
>>
>
> If the electric service were the only hold up for HSR, then you would
> have a point. But passenger rail service in general in the US is not
> suffering because of some 'massive investment' with the turbo train.
> Rather, passenger service as a whole suffers from several problems
> that electrification will not solve.
Still whining. Want some more cheese? Is that it?
<snip>
>> And is obviously guilty of. I am much more aquainted with the
>> realities of Europe and the east. As has been noted, the
>> backwardness of American stems, not from 'it's too hard, sniff
>> whimper' but the inabilty of America to work for common goals which
>> is necessary where it is more than a one man job.
>>
>
> So, before when you 'whined' about how Americans always say "its too
> hard...", you now recant and say America's 'backwardness' stems from
> its 'inability of America to work for common goals...'. Well, which
> is it?
There is no conflict here. Part of the backwardness comes from the whining,
some from the arrogance,..
<snip>
But do go on about your brags. It serves to illustrate my point.
Dan Bloomquist
Ian St. John wrote:
>
> What if your anus is just trying to eat your head? How can we tell from the
> fact that your head is up your ass?
>
> So your delusion...
> The obscurity is your mental disease which seems to...
>
> Sure. I wasn't limiting my critique of the U.S. to mere ignorance and
> arrogance.
>
> Still whining. Want some more cheese? Is that it?
>
> There is no conflict here. Part of the backwardness comes from the whining,
> some from the arrogance,..
>
> But do go on about your brags. It serves to illustrate my point.
I don't know why you bother daestrom.
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
Scott A Crosby
> > And Ethernet is not the sole end of TCP/IP. One is a media layer,
> > the other is up from that (TCP is actually a separate layer 'on top'
> > of the IP layer). TCP/IP can be (and often is) run over other media
> > layers besides Ethernet (e.g. TokenRing, Apple-Talk, even simple
> > UUCP).
>
> Point is that internet is layered on Ethernet. No foundation, no layer.
End-host connectivity to the internet has usually been Ethernet,
though with Wavelan, that may change. This was done because ethernet
was cheap and 'good enough' for local area networking. But once data
leaves the LAN, its going over ADSL, SDSL, T1, T3, WDM, DWDM, OC-3,
OC-48, OC-192, PPP links or any of another dozen L2 link-layer
protocols. Although Gigabit Ethernet has 'Ethernet' in its name, I
don't believe it uses a shared medium for communication, making
calling it with the term 'Ethernet' a misnomer. As it is, with modern
switched full-duplexed networks, 100baseT Ethernet is effectively a
point-to-point protocol with no collision or physical-layer link
contention.
FYI, the Kahn and Cerf paper outlining TCP is two years older than the
first drawing by Metcalf describing ethernet.
Scott
Scott A Crosby
> > No, they are not. Not when the population density is much lower and
> > more spread out. Not if you can't fill a train with enough paying
> > passengers because there isn't enough of them wanting to go to the
> > same terminal from the same terminal.
>
> "if you build it, they will come". Fact is that the barrier to HSR is the
> fact that there is no HSR and therefore no incentive to denser communities.
>
An interesting conjecture. Maybe when/if the US grows to a population
of a billion or so, we'll see more HSR.
> > If you study what happened to passenger rail service in the US in the
> > '50's and '60's, you will understand more about service in the US.
> > Look past some of the minor issues of union feather-bedding and
> > antiquainted operating rules and examine *why* passengers started
> > flying and driving instead of taking the train. What does HSR do to
> > aliviate any of those issues? Nothing.
>
> Mainly because U.S. trains had establihsed themselves as slow, noisy and
> with no fixed schedule. Given the lack of progress in train technology,
> being 'leapfrogged' by air is logical.
>
Could you explain why you think US passenger rail declined in the
50's?
> > As an example, I can drive about the same distance to get to
> > either a passenger rail station, or a major US airport. From the
> > airport, my choices of destination are many more than from the
> > rail station. So even if the rail were HSR (with electric
> > equipment), it would not be the preferred transportation.
>
> non-sequitor. The same access pertains to the both. There is no need for
> 'exclusivity' which is just your red herring. And comparing travel, the taxi
> times are much shorter for trains( stations within the city vs airport way
> outside) and more comfortable. A comparison of a New York( Empire State
> Building) to Washington DC ( White House) came down to 10 minutes difference
> in over three hours of travel using the current slow speed Acela trains.
> With real HSR the train would have won.
>
The northeast corridor is the rare place where trains in the US can
compete with air or automobile. How about in the other 90% of the
country?
Scott
Ian St. John
Sure. You can use anything from the orignal thick ethernet to Janet (
parallel port network ) to .. I started my career on those technologies.
But the point remains that America is slow to adopt change except in areas
that are 'empty' and even then they tend to have instances of brain fatigue.
An awful lot of research comes from the EU and they tend to adopt useful
technology faster, despite the example of www which wasn't really 'planned'
so much as 'happened'.
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John wrote:
>>
>> What if your anus is just trying to eat your head? How can we tell
>> from the fact that your head is up your ass?
>>
>> So your delusion...
>
>> The obscurity is your mental disease which seems to...
>>
>> Sure. I wasn't limiting my critique of the U.S. to mere ignorance and
>> arrogance.
>>
>> Still whining. Want some more cheese? Is that it?
>>
>> There is no conflict here. Part of the backwardness comes from the
>> whining, some from the arrogance,..
>>
>> But do go on about your brags. It serves to illustrate my point.
>
> I don't know why you bother daestrom.
Because he's there... and posting shit...
GOOD GOD! I need a bigger shovel!
>
> Best, Dan.
Ian St. John
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:13:22 -0400, "Ian St. John"
> <ist...@noemail.ca> writes:
>
>>> No, they are not. Not when the population density is much lower and
>>> more spread out. Not if you can't fill a train with enough paying
>>> passengers because there isn't enough of them wanting to go to the
>>> same terminal from the same terminal.
>>
>> "if you build it, they will come". Fact is that the barrier to HSR
>> is the fact that there is no HSR and therefore no incentive to
>> denser communities.
>>
>
> An interesting conjecture. Maybe when/if the US grows to a population
> of a billion or so, we'll see more HSR.
More than a conjecture. The whole of cultural assumptions is an interlinking
web of 'because you do this, you get that'. Change your thinking and you
change the solutions.
>
>>> If you study what happened to passenger rail service in the US in
>>> the '50's and '60's, you will understand more about service in the
>>> US. Look past some of the minor issues of union feather-bedding and
>>> antiquainted operating rules and examine *why* passengers started
>>> flying and driving instead of taking the train. What does HSR do to
>>> aliviate any of those issues? Nothing.
>>
>> Mainly because U.S. trains had establihsed themselves as slow, noisy
>> and with no fixed schedule. Given the lack of progress in train
>> technology, being 'leapfrogged' by air is logical.
>>
>
> Could you explain why you think US passenger rail declined in the
> 50's?
That would be because air travel took over? All the returning airmen
starting up airlines for passengers? Was I not clear?
>
>>> As an example, I can drive about the same distance to get to
>>> either a passenger rail station, or a major US airport. From the
>>> airport, my choices of destination are many more than from the
>>> rail station. So even if the rail were HSR (with electric
>>> equipment), it would not be the preferred transportation.
>>
>> non-sequitor. The same access pertains to the both. There is no need
>> for 'exclusivity' which is just your red herring. And comparing
>> travel, the taxi times are much shorter for trains( stations within
>> the city vs airport way outside) and more comfortable. A comparison
>> of a New York( Empire State Building) to Washington DC ( White
>> House) came down to 10 minutes difference in over three hours of
>> travel using the current slow speed Acela trains. With real HSR the
>> train would have won.
>>
>
> The northeast corridor is the rare place where trains in the US can
> compete with air or automobile.
And still only a half assed implementation compared to Europe. If they can
nearly win under such burdens, they can win if you want them to.
> How about in the other 90% of the
> country?
Generally the costs of setting up an independent grid for powering the rail
lines is prohibitive so usually HSR proposals use turbines. The Acela has a
'brother' at bombardier. The same look and feel, but a turbine power
system. The biggest barrier still tends to be poor rail conditions from
freight traffic, and too many level crossings.
>
> Scott
daestrom
> daestrom wrote:
> > "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> > news:1PdUc.7972$ZI1.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> <snip>
> >
> > more territory within an 'acceptable' travel time. But even then, it
> > cannot provide 'acceptable' travel time cross-continent, or even
> > half-way across the continent.
>
> Acutally that is theoretically possible with an evacutated or
> hydrogen/helium filled underground tunnels running trains at mach 9.
>
> > So a second infrastructure (wide
> > spread air travel) is needed for cross-continental travel.
>
> So your delusion is that air travel can make a cross country commute
> possible? Not even with the SST..
Jumping to all sorts of conclusions aren't you? I didn't say anything about
daily *commuting* cross-continent. And what fool runs a HSR train for a
commute of 30 miles? HSR merely expands the radius of service territory for
passenger rail service. But not enough to be a viable transportation scheme
on a continental scale.
It might have been interesting, if Europe wasn't divided after WWII would it
still have chosen to develop its transportation structure the way it did.
If Europe was unified such that national borders with customs and travel
restrictions hadn't been there, would rail service still have been the
choice?
>
> > And with
> > that second infrastructure in place, HSR becomes redundant and falls
> > into obscurity.
>
> The obscurity is your mental disease which seems to prevent any ideas
taking
> root. Very common in 'Rust Belt' America.
Just like your arrogance prevents any new ideas from entering your mind.
Like some details about how different conditions lead to different
transportation infrastructures. But you'd rather just assume you're right
and 'know it all' about a continent half a world away.
>
> >
> > If you study what happened to passenger rail service in the US in the
> > '50's and '60's, you will understand more about service in the US.
> > Look past some of the minor issues of union feather-bedding and
> > antiquainted operating rules and examine *why* passengers started
> > flying and driving instead of taking the train. What does HSR do to
> > aliviate any of those issues? Nothing.
>
> Sure. I wasn't limiting my critique of the U.S. to mere ignorance and
> arrogance. There is certainly a lot of curruption and political
sandbagging.
>
Corruption and political sandbagging were not the major downfall of
passenger service. That is why I told you to "Look *past*" those issues.
But your closed up mind has already got an idea as to what caused passenger
rail failure in the US and you can't possibly be wrong. So you can't even
comprehend what I wrote.
> >
> > Rail right-of-ways were well established before air travel. But with
> > lots of cheap land for airports, the US airline infrastructure has
> > been able to saturate the same geography.
>
> Mainly because U.S. trains had establihsed themselves as slow, noisy and
> with no fixed schedule. Given the lack of progress in train technology,
> being 'leapfrogged' by air is logical.
>
Nope. You are so mis-informed it's incredible. You're putting the 'cart
before the horse'. The passenger service of the 40's and 50's was clean,
reliable, on-time and comfortable. It only fell into disrepair and poor
scheduling when passenger sales had *already* dropped off to air. Only
*after* passenger-miles and revenue sharply declined did the passenger rail
service become the shoddy system you describe.
Early airlines had to compete against quality rail service. They had speed
on their side already. They added stewardesses to serve complimentary meals
and refreshments as an inducement. By adding 'creature comforts', they
instilled the image that air travel was almost as comfortable as rail, only
faster. The public preferred the speed over the more comfortable rail. Of
course, if some government puppet had decided to go ahead with rail anyway,
how would that serve the public better?
> > As an example, I can drive
> > about the same distance to get to either a passenger rail station, or
> > a major US airport. From the airport, my choices of destination are
> > many more than from the rail station. So even if the rail were HSR
> > (with electric equipment), it would not be the preferred
> > transportation.
>
> non-sequitor. The same access pertains to the both. There is no need for
> 'exclusivity' which is just your red herring. And comparing travel, the
taxi
> times are much shorter for trains( stations within the city vs airport way
> outside) and more comfortable.
Perhaps in Europe. Perhaps if you live in the downtown area of the city.
Again, your local experience is misleading you. Most US travelers do *not*
live in the heart of the city. They are out in the suburbs. 'Taxi times'
to rail station vs. airport is *not* 'much shorter' in the US.
If air can supply short and long distance transportation needs (where
'short' is 300 miles and 'long' is 2000 miles), while HSR can only supply
about 800 miles (assume four hour travel at 200 mph), why maintain a vast
network of railroad?
A comparison of a New York( Empire State
> Building) to Washington DC ( White House) came down to 10 minutes
difference
> in over three hours of travel using the current slow speed Acela trains.
> With real HSR the train would have won.
Fine, now you have *one* corridor that is competitive with air. Problem is,
we would need thousands of such corridors. With air travel, the cost goes
up with each airport. But with rail, the cost goes up with each mile
serviced.
Maintain a hundred expensive airports, -or- maintain a hundred
less-expensive stations *plus* thousands of miles of track *plus* thousands
of interchanges to allow trains to route through intermediate tracks. I
suppose some country that pays for all that through the general tax fund
would think the rail system is somehow 'better' while hiding the costs.
daestrom
Hatunen
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>It might have been interesting, if Europe wasn't divided after WWII would it
>still have chosen to develop its transportation structure the way it did.
>If Europe was unified such that national borders with customs and travel
>restrictions hadn't been there, would rail service still have been the
>choice?
If....
If I won the lottery I'd me a millionaire.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
daestrom
But if Britain had fallen and the US still entered the war (because of
Japan), it might have still been a victory for the allies. As I said
before, Britain was not the sole jumping off point for an European invasion.
But such conjecture is just that, pure conjecture. Would Germany have
developed their submarine technology and tactics if they didn't have to try
and block US convoys? Would they have been effective in the Mediteranian as
they were in the Atlantic? Would we have carried out *daylight* bombing
campaigns against Germany's V1/V2 production if London had already fallen?
Too many things to consider. Making any statement about how the outcome
would have been different because of one event is ludicrous.
>
> >
> >> If they
> >> hadn't, the U.S. would probably be talking German now because they
> >> would have been fighting the whole of the Eurasian continent without
> >> a foothold to launch a retaliation from. In other words, the water
> >> barrier that kept them from being involved in 'europes war' would
> >> then have been a barrier to defense when Germany or Japan got the
> >> nuclear bomb working. Remember that the Manhattan project did not
> >> start until Ameirca had joined the war and they would have been just
> >> one more victim if Europe had not held Hitler off long enough for
> >> Japan to kick your butts into some sort of belated action. Got to
> >> admit that after a long time sitting on the sidelines, the fresh
> >> troops looked good in relation to the battle weary Europeans. And
> >> that is NOT a compliment.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, the first US engagements in north africa were abysmal. But
> > if the US hadn't entered the war when it did, how much longer do you
> > think Great Britain would have been able to hold out?
>
> Indefinitely, being resupplied by the Commonwealth. Germany had shown that
> they could not deliver a crippling blow. The actual deaths and damages
from
> the 'blanket bombing' was less than you might think. More 'sound and fury'
> than effective.
"Resupplied by the Commonwealth"?? With German U-boats sinking supply
convoys faster than new ships could be built? The only thing that kept
Britain from starving to death was the US production of 'Liberty' ships.
> And England had won the 'Battle of Britain' so Hitler would
> have had to give up the idea of a blitzkrieg from the skies to cover a
> foothold. So the question is really how long it would take England to
build
> up an invasion force and whether German scientists got the A-bomb working
> before then.
>
Hmmm... Didn't Britain *try* an invasion after the Battle of Britain?
IIRC, it was an utter failure.
> > Even before
> > officially entering the war, UK was receiving massive shipments of
> > food and supplies from US (US merchant marine lost more lives than
> > the US navy to Hitler's wolf-packs).
>
> The U.S. shipped nothing to the U.K during the Battle of Brittain. In
fact,
> what supplies they did contribute (mostly driven by the executive against
> the power of the congress) prior to Pearl Harbor had to be dragged over
the
> Canadian Border with ropes to get around the restrictions.
>
> >
> > As for the 'water barrier', Hitler recognized one of Europe's
> > weaknesses is Africa to the south. Any number of points on the
> > southern shore of the Mediteranian could serve as a staging area for
> > an invasion. Unfortunately, he could not hold the north African
> > shores.
>
> Mainly because of the stiff resistance from England. Once that was done,
he
> would have rolled over Africa.
Sure he would have, uh-huh, right. Because you say so? Just how thin do
you think he would have spread his army? Even when Germany controlled most
of a continent, they did not have an army big enough to control two
continents and still fight on the eastern front. More and more military
would be needed to control the indiginous populations. Just because Germany
may have controlled a country, doesn't mean its people would fight
effectively along side the Germans. France is a perfect example where
Germany had to use Germans to control/fight the resistance, thus taking
German troops away from other duties. Although I'm sure conscripts could be
used to enlarge their forces, such an empire would collapse under its own
weight of policing itself. Perhaps even before threatening the western
hemisphere.
But again, all this is pure conjecture. It is useless to debate such
things.
daestrom
Scott A Crosby
> >> Mainly because U.S. trains had establihsed themselves as slow, noisy
> >> and with no fixed schedule. Given the lack of progress in train
> >> technology, being 'leapfrogged' by air is logical.
> >
> > Could you explain why you think US passenger rail declined in the
> > 50's?
>
> That would be because air travel took over? All the returning airmen
> starting up airlines for passengers? Was I not clear?
>
And why would things be any different now with HSR, except that now
the passenger rail network is in more disrepair, hundreds of miles of
high speed track is needed, and airplanes are the entrenched
technology? IE: Tell me why history wouldn't repeat itself exactly the
same way this time.
It seems to me that you've already admitted that air is superior, yet
still push HSR. If I was really cynical, I'd accuse you of trying to
astroturf for the construction industry.....
But I think I know you better than that. My guess is that you want all
of society to be rearranged in the way that you claim is correct?
Scott
Hatunen
The US entered the war in Europe because Gemany gratuitously
declared war on the USA.
>it might have still been a victory for the allies. As I said
>before, Britain was not the sole jumping off point for an European invasion.
There was a lot of sentiment in the US to let Europe to hang
itself. As to jumping off points besides the island of Great
Britain, where? North Africa was controlled by Gemany. The
Iberian Peninsula wasn't going to be available. Scandinavia was
out.
The real question is, what would have been the situation of the
Soviet Union had Hitler not had to maintain troops on the
Atlantic Coast and in Italy?
>But such conjecture is just that, pure conjecture. Would Germany have
>developed their submarine technology and tactics if they didn't have to try
>and block US convoys?
Most of it had already been developed in WW1. And the convoys
were in use well before the US entered the war in Europe. Had
Britain fallen the convoys would have simply stopped.
>Would they have been effective in the Mediteranian as
>they were in the Atlantic? Would we have carried out *daylight* bombing
>campaigns against Germany's V1/V2 production if London had already fallen?
Obviously not. Until the B-29 went into service we had no bombers
of sufficient range.
>Too many things to consider. Making any statement about how the outcome
>would have been different because of one event is ludicrous.
Of course. Just wanted to roil things up a bit more for those
playing the If-game. That German jet, stealth, transatlantic
bomber is pretty scarey.
Scott A Crosby
> I don't know why you bother daestrom.
I appreciate daestrom's words whether he(she)'s responding to trolls
or not. I enjoy reading them. They're instructive and interesting and
you can learn a lot from them.
As one of the hoards of silent readers, I sit back and appreciate the
words of many authors including you, daestrom, and a dozen others. It
doesn't matter much whether you're responding to each other or to a
troll. I also appreciate that someone is around to dispute falsehoods
and conjecture.
Scott
Hatunen
<scr...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:25:31 -0400, "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> writes:
>
>> >> Mainly because U.S. trains had establihsed themselves as slow, noisy
>> >> and with no fixed schedule. Given the lack of progress in train
>> >> technology, being 'leapfrogged' by air is logical.
>> >
>> > Could you explain why you think US passenger rail declined in the
>> > 50's?
>>
>> That would be because air travel took over? All the returning airmen
>> starting up airlines for passengers? Was I not clear?
>>
>
>And why would things be any different now with HSR, except that now
>the passenger rail network is in more disrepair, hundreds of miles of
>high speed track is needed, and airplanes are the entrenched
>technology? IE: Tell me why history wouldn't repeat itself exactly the
>same way this time.
Going to Europe can be illuminating. High speed trains are
effective because they are used for medium distances where six
hours is about the longest trip that gives a train an attraction
over air travel (which is growing rapidly inside Europe since
low-cost airlines have been allowed).
The other critical factor is the convenient and effective trains
system in European cities. When you get off the train in Europe
you will find a Metro or tram waiting. Even airports have high
speed rail service; you can board a high speed train easily at,
say, Koeln or DeGaulle.
Another factor is that European governments consider trains and
local transit a social good and necessity and they are willing to
subsidize them heavily. One of the reasons for the decline of
rail in the 1950s (besides the interstate highways and toll roads
making driving attractive) was the rail service was provided by
private rail companies that had to make a profit; you can't make
a profit on passenger service and the rail companies found ways
to kill off passenger service.
>It seems to me that you've already admitted that air is superior, yet
>still push HSR. If I was really cynical, I'd accuse you of trying to
>astroturf for the construction industry.....
>
>But I think I know you better than that. My guess is that you want all
>of society to be rearranged in the way that you claim is correct?
As Europe demonstrates, such a society wouldn't be particulary
bad.
Scott A Crosby
> >And why would things be any different now with HSR, except that now
> >the passenger rail network is in more disrepair, hundreds of miles of
> >high speed track is needed, and airplanes are the entrenched
> >technology? IE: Tell me why history wouldn't repeat itself exactly the
> >same way this time.
>
> Going to Europe can be illuminating. High speed trains are effective
> because they are used for medium distances where six hours is about
> the longest trip that gives a train an attraction over air travel
> (which is growing rapidly inside Europe since low-cost airlines have
> been allowed).
In Europe, the countries are small. Germany is only 360k km^2. France,
540k km^2. With 200km/h trains virtually anyplace you might want to
reach within the country is under 5 hours away. That isn't true about
the US.
Europe also has a much higher population density. Germany and France
combined have half of the population of the US, but only 8% of the
land area, implying any nationwide HSR network is going to require
several times the track milage --- and expense.
The distance between San Diego, CA and San Francisco, CA is
800km. Houston, TX to El Paso, TX is 1300km, and there's not much in
between. How far apart is Nice, France and Brest, France? Or Kiel,
Germany and the Austrian border? Europe and the US have very different
population distributions, both at the large scale --- across the
continent --- and at the small scale --- within a city.
> Another factor is that European governments consider trains and
> local transit a social good and necessity and they are willing to
> subsidize them heavily. One of the reasons for the decline of
> rail in the 1950s (besides the interstate highways and toll roads
> making driving attractive) was the rail service was provided by
> private rail companies that had to make a profit; you can't make
> a profit on passenger service and the rail companies found ways
> to kill off passenger service.
Wasn't passenger rail in the US a private and profitable and a
desireable way to travel before it was outcompeted by airlines? Why
would the outcome be any different today? With enough subsidies, you
could bring back horse&buggy carriages for their lack of pollution and
the valuable horse manure they'd leave on our streets.
Scott
Hatunen
<scr...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:31:05 -0600, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> writes:
>
>> >And why would things be any different now with HSR, except that now
>> >the passenger rail network is in more disrepair, hundreds of miles of
>> >high speed track is needed, and airplanes are the entrenched
>> >technology? IE: Tell me why history wouldn't repeat itself exactly the
>> >same way this time.
>>
>> Going to Europe can be illuminating. High speed trains are effective
>> because they are used for medium distances where six hours is about
>> the longest trip that gives a train an attraction over air travel
>> (which is growing rapidly inside Europe since low-cost airlines have
>> been allowed).
>
>In Europe, the countries are small. Germany is only 360k km^2. France,
>540k km^2. With 200km/h trains virtually anyplace you might want to
>reach within the country is under 5 hours away. That isn't true about
>the US.
>
>Europe also has a much higher population density. Germany and France
>combined have half of the population of the US, but only 8% of the
>land area, implying any nationwide HSR network is going to require
>several times the track milage --- and expense.
Germany and France are not Europe. Considering even just the EU
Europe is a very large place; Europe as a whole, extending
through Belarus and Ukraine into western Russia is a very large
place, indeed, and without a terribly high overall population
density.
I do think the proper comparison is Europe as a whole and states
individually. using France and Germany as examples there should
be no reason that a populated area of the USA like the northeast
corridor shouldn't be able to benefit by HSR (which Acela
certainly is not) But it would require a political unlikelhood:
voters would have to agree to be taxed for such a system, since
it cannot make money without subsidy.
HSR between NY and Chicago would be a more or less valid
comparison.
California is actually in the process of trying to establish HSR
between Sacramento/San Franciso and LA/San Diego. The commission
wants a chunk of sales tax state wide. I predict the voters will
turn it down.
>The distance between San Diego, CA and San Francisco, CA is
>800km. Houston, TX to El Paso, TX is 1300km, and there's not much in
>between. How far apart is Nice, France and Brest, France? Or Kiel,
>Germany and the Austrian border? Europe and the US have very different
>population distributions, both at the large scale --- across the
>continent --- and at the small scale --- within a city.
Taken as a whole the population distributions aren't all that
different. Think of the Boston-NYC-Phil-Washington Corridor as
comparable to Paris-Lille-Koeln-Frankfort-Berlin. Kiel to Munich
is 882 km. Brussels to Vienna is 918 km.
>> Another factor is that European governments consider trains and
>> local transit a social good and necessity and they are willing to
>> subsidize them heavily. One of the reasons for the decline of
>> rail in the 1950s (besides the interstate highways and toll roads
>> making driving attractive) was the rail service was provided by
>> private rail companies that had to make a profit; you can't make
>> a profit on passenger service and the rail companies found ways
>> to kill off passenger service.
>
>Wasn't passenger rail in the US a private and profitable and a
>desireable way to travel before it was outcompeted by airlines? Why
>would the outcome be any different today? With enough subsidies, you
>could bring back horse&buggy carriages for their lack of pollution and
>the valuable horse manure they'd leave on our streets.
Documentaries I've seen indicate that the only thing that saved
rail service in the 1930s and 1940s was the Depression, when many
could not afford to own a car, and WW2 when most were not allowed
to drive one. The rail companies thought passenger service got in
the way of profitable freight operations (which would eventually
be in trouble, too). Of course the airlines hurt: it was far
bettter for businessmen not to spend three days on a train when
half a day on a plane would get them acros the country.
In late 1960 I traveled from my home town in northeast Ohio to
Cleveland by train to be inducted into the Army. That night they
put me in a sleeper compartment to go to Cincinnati, followed by
a rickety train to Louisville and a bus to Fort Knox. The hayday
of the train was just about over. The interstates from Cleveland
to Louisville were more or less daone a few years later. It could
be driven in six or seven hours and no one used the trains, which
died out.
And once the jet entered general airline service, common people
could fly, but the trains were already in their death throes due
to the automobile and the railroads were happy for an excuse to
kill them. America now has its first truly transcontinental
train, the Sunset between Florida and Los Angeles. It takes three
days and although well attended the passengers tend to be
nostalgia buffs. No one takes it as a means of transportation.
Not when a plane takes only six hours. And, unlike typical long
routes in Europe, the Sunset only runs one train three days a
week. HSR, say a TGV, would take 17 hours to do it, plus time for
stops, which means an overnight trip. It would also cost more
than the plane.
As to horses, they were a terrible source of pollution. See if
you can find out how much horse piss flooded the streets of New
York every day. And manure disposal wasn't simple then. Valuable
horse manure? Value depends on demand and supply; manure would be
cheap as shit if horses were used widely. Horses are dangerous,
too; a lot of people were injured or killed by horses.
quasarstrider
> research than any other country? Wonder how this 'internet' thing got
> good for warfare. It's just the only thing you care to acknowledge. To
> acknowledge any of the peaceful accomplishments would tear at the fabric of
> your beliefs about us.
One minor nit. The "Internet" thing may have originated from the US
ARPAnet, but it was a wash until someone called Tim Berners-Lee invented the
web browser at CERN. CERN is at Switzerland and Tim is British. So there. :-)
quasarstrider
> The US entered the war in Europe because Gemany gratuitously
> declared war on the USA.
Not gratuitously. The Axis pact provided mutual protection for Germany,
Japan and Italy. So after Japan declared war on the US and the US declared
war back at Japan, they had by treaty to declare war on the US. You could
say Hitler should have simply ignored the treaty, after all they are just
pieces of paper, as he was so fond of saying. But he still wanted their help
to defeat the Soviets in a 2-front war. However they chickened out anyway.
The bastards. :-)
> The real question is, what would have been the situation of the
> Soviet Union had Hitler not had to maintain troops on the
> Atlantic Coast and in Italy?
A mere skeleton crew was left. The gross was sent to the Eastern front.
Besides, what do you think would have happened to the occupied zones if
the Wehrmacht had simply gone away? I think they could have won it if Japan
opened the second front in force, but that didn't happen. Thank God.
Scott A Crosby
> I do think the proper comparison is Europe as a whole and states
> individually. using France and Germany as examples there should
> be no reason that a populated area of the USA like the northeast
> corridor shouldn't be able to benefit by HSR (which Acela
Ah, my apologies for the strawman. You're suggesting HSR in a few
limited places, not as an overall national transportation
infrastructure.
> certainly is not) But it would require a political unlikelhood:
> voters would have to agree to be taxed for such a system, since
> it cannot make money without subsidy.
> >The distance between San Diego, CA and San Francisco, CA is
> >800km. Houston, TX to El Paso, TX is 1300km, and there's not much in
> >between. How far apart is Nice, France and Brest, France? Or Kiel,
> >Germany and the Austrian border? Europe and the US have very different
> >population distributions, both at the large scale --- across the
> >continent --- and at the small scale --- within a city.
>
> Taken as a whole the population distributions aren't all that
> different. Think of the Boston-NYC-Phil-Washington Corridor as
> comparable to Paris-Lille-Koeln-Frankfort-Berlin. Kiel to Munich
> is 882 km. Brussels to Vienna is 918 km.
>
Yup. There are a several isolated spots where HSR and rail can
function well. Northeast corridor and a few spots around California.
I think that the problem is that in most places in the US, trips are
either very short --- where the automobile would be king, or very
long, where again jets are king. I don't think Europe has that to the
same extent. I would expect that most trips would originate and
terminate in the same country, making a lot of medium-length trips
ripe for HSR.
> As to horses, they were a terrible source of pollution. See if
> you can find out how much horse piss flooded the streets of New
> York every day. And manure disposal wasn't simple then. Valuable
> horse manure? Value depends on demand and supply; manure would be
> cheap as shit if horses were used widely. Horses are dangerous,
> too; a lot of people were injured or killed by horses.
:)
Scott
Hatunen
(quasarstrider) wrote:
>Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<2gn9i01052bvmljg6...@4ax.com>...
>> The US entered the war in Europe because Gemany gratuitously
>> declared war on the USA.
>
>Not gratuitously. The Axis pact provided mutual protection for Germany,
>Japan and Italy. So after Japan declared war on the US and the US declared
>war back at Japan, they had by treaty to declare war on the US.
Quite wrong. The treaty required a signator to come to aid of
another IF the other was attacked. Japan was not attacked.
Hatunen
(quasarstrider) wrote:
Those of us who were active on the Internet before Berners-Lee
invented he World Wide Web (really just protocols to be used over
the Internet) tend not to agree with you; wew were quite happy
with the Internet before web browsers, which led inevitably to
dreary things like AOL and rafts of users who don't understand a
thing about what they are doing.
BTW, Berners-Lee didn't really invent the web browser, Andreeson
did, sort of; several people put out programs for doing graphics
about the same time. In fact, the original Web program, called
www, was really sucky and text based.
daestrom
"quasarstrider" <quasar...@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:14a48ff9.04081...@posting.google.com...
Fair enough. Point I was trying to make was to simply refute 'Ian's
assertions that the US hasn't contributed to anything but 'push button'
warfare in the recent past. I'm sure that such 'one-upmanship' could go on
forever. I would agree that each country/community has contributed to
society in many positive ways. But someone like "Ian" that makes such
blatently ridiculous, one-sided statements can hardly go unchallenged.
daestrom
daestrom
> On 19 Aug 2004 18:50:13 -0700, quasar...@yahoo.com.br
> (quasarstrider) wrote:
>
> >"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<RibUc.151513$bp1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> >> research than any other country? Wonder how this 'internet' thing got
> >> started? You're just being ridiculous in your belief that the US is
only
> >> good for warfare. It's just the only thing you care to acknowledge.
To
> >> acknowledge any of the peaceful accomplishments would tear at the
fabric of
> >> your beliefs about us.
> >
> >One minor nit. The "Internet" thing may have originated from the US
> >ARPAnet, but it was a wash until someone called Tim Berners-Lee invented
the
> >web browser at CERN. CERN is at Switzerland and Tim is British. So there.
:-)
>
> Those of us who were active on the Internet before Berners-Lee
> invented he World Wide Web (really just protocols to be used over
> the Internet) tend not to agree with you; wew were quite happy
> with the Internet before web browsers, which led inevitably to
> dreary things like AOL and rafts of users who don't understand a
> thing about what they are doing.
>
Ah... for the days of UUCP and Bell 103 modems.... ;-)
daestrom
Ian St. John
> "quasarstrider" <quasar...@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
> news:14a48ff9.04081...@posting.google.com...
>> "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<RibUc.151513$bp1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>> research than any other country? Wonder how this 'internet' thing
>>> got started? You're just being ridiculous in your belief that the
>>> US is only good for warfare. It's just the only thing you care to
>>> acknowledge. To acknowledge any of the peaceful accomplishments
>>> would tear at the fabric of your beliefs about us.
>>
>> One minor nit. The "Internet" thing may have originated from the US
>> ARPAnet, but it was a wash until someone called Tim Berners-Lee
>> invented the web browser at CERN. CERN is at Switzerland and Tim is
>> British. So there. :-)
>
> Fair enough. Point I was trying to make was to simply refute 'Ian's
> assertions that the US hasn't contributed to anything but 'push
> button' warfare in the recent past.
Berners Lee should have included a mechanism for highlighting sarcasm. The
'truth' in my claim is still there and still makes it sting doesn't it...
> I'm sure that such
> 'one-upmanship' could go on forever. I would agree that each
> country/community has contributed to society in many positive ways.
What an anti-American attitude! You should be kicked out of the country for
lack of sufficient arrogance.
> But someone like "Ian" that makes such blatently ridiculous,
> one-sided statements can hardly go unchallenged.
And yet you let your fearless leader( mostly because he is protected by a
wall of security guards and has NO clue what war is really like, not having
served under fire or even completed his limited flight training) kill off
10,000 innocent Iraqis and nearly 1,000 honest Americans to sooth his hurt
feelings. I wonder if Iraqis like Saddam 'respect' the U.S. and Shrub more
now... (ROTFLOL) Now how sensible is that? Not that he is 'policeman to the
world' but *if he were* he should be fired and jailed for being worse than
the criminals. Even the *moderate* Iraqis are saying that now.
Fact is that to solve the worlds problems takes a consensus of the world
leaders, not the arrogance of an overweaned military state with mentally
defective leadership..
>
> daestrom
Ian St. John
> daestrom wrote:
>> "quasarstrider" <quasar...@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
>> news:14a48ff9.04081...@posting.google.com...
>>> "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:<RibUc.151513$bp1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>>> research than any other country? Wonder how this 'internet' thing
>>>> got started? You're just being ridiculous in your belief that the
>>>> US is only good for warfare. It's just the only thing you care to
>>>> acknowledge. To acknowledge any of the peaceful accomplishments
>>>> would tear at the fabric of your beliefs about us.
>>>
>>> One minor nit. The "Internet" thing may have originated from the US
>>> ARPAnet, but it was a wash until someone called Tim Berners-Lee
>>> invented the web browser at CERN. CERN is at Switzerland and Tim is
>>> British. So there. :-)
>>
>> Fair enough. Point I was trying to make was to simply refute 'Ian's
>> assertions that the US hasn't contributed to anything but 'push
>> button' warfare in the recent past.
>
> Berners Lee should have included a mechanism for highlighting
> sarcasm. The 'truth' in my claim is still there and still makes it
> sting doesn't it...
My main point, by the way, was that there is nothing heroic about modern
pushbutton warfare. Bush should be ashamed to resort to bullying using
overwhelming firepower and the Iraqis should be noted for their heroic
resistance in the face of such technological superiority. The 'War
President' should be roundly condemned for his failure to lead and reliance
on brutality.
quasarstrider
> On 19 Aug 2004 19:11:57 -0700, quasar...@yahoo.com.br
> (quasarstrider) wrote:
>
> >Not gratuitously. The Axis pact provided mutual protection for Germany,
> >Japan and Italy. So after Japan declared war on the US and the US declared
> >war back at Japan, they had by treaty to declare war on the US.
>
> Quite wrong. The treaty required a signator to come to aid of
> another IF the other was attacked. Japan was not attacked.
I read a bit about the Tripartite Pact and it seems you are correct. Hitler
still wanted Japan's help against the Soviet Union however, and not going on
their side against the US would have been a bit odd. Besides, if they just
let the US win against Japan, they would never open a second front in the
Soviet Union and hence lose. Not that it made a difference in the end.
The Enlightenment
> Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<2gn9i01052bvmljg6...@4ax.com>...
> > The US entered the war in Europe because Gemany gratuitously
> > declared war on the USA.
>
> Not gratuitously. The Axis pact provided mutual protection for Germany,
> Japan and Italy. So after Japan declared war on the US and the US declared
> war back at Japan, they had by treaty to declare war on the US. You could
> say Hitler should have simply ignored the treaty, after all they are just
> pieces of paper, as he was so fond of saying. But he still wanted their help
> to defeat the Soviets in a 2-front war. However they chickened out anyway.
> The bastards. :-)
Though it is no secret it is not realised by most is that Germany was
grieviously provoked into declaring war on the US.
Under the Roosvelt the US shiped not only vast quantities of armaments
to the UK but actualy used the US navy to escort British ships and
attacked u-boats and other German forces continiously and with
determination for nearly 1 year. The u-boat commanders had been
ordered not to fire back at great danger to themselves as Germany did
not want to provoke war with the US and neither did surveys show that
the US public wanted war with Germany.
Roosvelt however DID want war with Germany.
Given the enormous support in arm manufacture, technological
development (eg Radar the P51), raw material and naval escorts that
were attacking German u-boats the US was definetly NOT acting in a
neutral manner.
Indeed there is a strong case for arguing that the US was provoking
war with Japan as a canard for war with Germany. If you look at the
kind of people, such as Harry Morgentau, who were in the Roosvelt
administration you will see the admin was full of people keen for war
while at the same time many compaigned for leaving the US out of it.
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no2/ss-pearlharbor.html
The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism
Stephen J. Sniegoski
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The prevalent view of World War II is that of the "good war"--a
Manichaean
conflict between good and evil. And a fundamental part of the "good
war"
thesis has to do with the entrance of the U.S. into the war as a
result of
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. According to this view, the
cause of
the war stemmed from the malign effort by Japan, run by aggressive
militarists, to conquer the Far East and the Western Pacific, which
was part
of the overall Axis goal of global conquest. Japan's imperialistic
quest
was clearly immoral and severely threatened vital American interests,
requiring American opposition. Since American territory stood in the
way of
Japanese territorial designs, the Japanese launched their sneak attack
on
Pearl Harbor. Although the Roosevelt administration had been aware of
Japanese aggressive goals, the attack on Pearl Harbor caught it
completely
by surprise. To the extent that any Americans were responsible for the
debacle at Pearl Harbor, establishment historians, echoing the
Roosevelt
administration, blamed the military commanders in Hawaii for being
unprepared. A basic assumption of the mainstream position is that
given the
Japanese bent to conquest, war with the U.S. was inevitable. As
mainstream
historians Gordon W. Prange, Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V.
Dillon put
it: "nothing in the available evidence . . . indicates that they [the
Japanese] ever planned to move one inch out of their appointed path,
whatever the U. S. did about it."1 There was nothing the U. S. could
do to
avert war short of sacrificing vital security interests and the
essence of
international morality.
A small group of revisionist investigators have disputed this orthodox
interpretation at almost every turn. Revisionists argue that, instead
of
following an aggressive plan of conquest, Japanese moves were
fundamentally
defensive efforts to protect vital Japanese interests. And instead of
seeing the U. S. simply reacting to Japanese aggression, as the
orthodox
version would have it, the revisionists see the U. S. goading the
Japanese--by aiding China (with whom Japan was at war), military
expansion,
quasi-secret alliances, and economic warfare--to take belligerent
actions.
Finally, some revisionists go so far as to claim that Roosevelt had
foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor but refused to alert the
military commanders in order to have a casus belli to galvanize the
American
people for war. These revisionists see the effort as part of
Roosevelt's
effort to bring the U. S. into war with Germany--the so-called
"back-door-to-war" thesis.
Revisionism began before the end of World War II and reflected the
views of
the non-interventionists who had opposed American entry into the war.
Prominent figures in the revisionist camp include Charles Beard, Harry
Elmer
Barnes, George Morgenstern and Charles C. Tansill in the 1940s and
1950s;
James J. Martin and Percy Greaves in the 1960s and 1970s; and more
recently
John Toland and Robert B. Stinnett. And some writers have accepted
parts of
the revisionist position but rejected others. The idea that American
foreign policy provoked the Japanese into more belligerent actions,
for
example, has gained more adherents than the view that President
Roosevelt
intentionally allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. This essay,
however, will not present a historiographical discussion of the
revisionist
literature bringing out the similarities and differences of the
various
revisionist authors' writings. This has been done elsewhere, most
notably
by Frank Paul Mintz in his Revisionism and the Origins of Pearl
Harbor.2
This essay will try to elucidate the major revisionist themes and to
show
their validity. In short, this essay hopes to provide what its title
proclaims: "The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism."
The Causes of Japanese Expansionism
Revisionists have focused on the underlying causes of Japanese
expansionism
in an effort to counter the mainstream view of the nefarious nature of
Japanese policy. As Frank Paul Mintz writes:
The revisionists demonstrated--and quite compellingly in some
cases--that it
makes for a poor historical interpretation to condemn Japan without
coming
to grips with the strategic, demographic, and economic problems which
were
at the root of Japan's--not to mention any nation's--imperialism.3
Revisionists emphasize that the Japanese had vital economic and
security
interests in China. Lacking in natural resources, Japan had especially
depended upon foreign markets. Thus, access to China became absolutely
essential to Japan's economic well-being when, with the onset of the
Great
Depression, most industrialized countries established nearly
insurmountable
trade barriers.4 Instead of being an aggressor, Japan had been
essentially
satisfied with the status quo in China at the start of the 1930s, but
as the
decade progressed, the forces of Chinese communism and nationalisn
threatened Japenese interests in China. "It seemed to Tokyo," Charles
C.
Tansill wrote, "that Japanese interests in North China were about to
be
crushed between the millstones of Chinese nationalism and Russian
Bolshevism."5
The revisionists portray the Japanese interests in China as similar to
American interests in Latin America. As Anthony Kubek writes:
The U.S. had its danger zone in the Caribbean and since the era of
Thomas
Jefferson, every effort had been to strengthen the American position
and to
keep foreign nations from establishing naval and military bases which
would
threaten American security. So Japan regarded Manchuria. Japan
followed
this natural policy and attempted to practice it with reference to the
lands
that bordered upon the China Sea. Korea, Manchuria, and Inner
Mongolia were
essential pillars of her defense structure.6
While the establishment interpretation emphasizes that the Japanese
incursion into China was a violation of Chinese territorial integrity,
the
revisionists point out that the U. S. was highly selective in applying
this
standard. During the inter-war period, the Soviet Union had converted
Outer
Mongolia into a satellite and secured de facto control over Sinkiang,
yet
the State Department never protested Moscow's violations of Chinese
sovereignty. And Japanese actions in China were, in part, taken as
defensive measures against the growing threat of Soviet Communism.
Looking
beyond the moral and legal aspects, revisionists maintain that
Japanese
interests in China did not portend further aggression into Southeast
Asia or
threaten vital American interests. Rather, American actions-- aid to
China,
military expansion, and economic sanctions--purportedly intended to
deter
Japanese aggression actually served to induce such aggression into
Southeast
Asia and ultimately led to the Japanese attack on American territory.
This
is not to say that there were not extremist, militarist elements in
Japan
who sought military conquest. But in the immediate pre-Pearl Harbor
period,
the Japanese government was run by more moderate elements who sought
to
maintain peace with the U. S. and who were undermined by American
intransigence. As Bruce Russett writes:
This analysis is meant to establish an important proposition: that the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and for that matter on Southeast
Asia, is
not evidence of any unlimited expansionist policy or capability by the
Japanese government. It was the consequence only of a much less
ambitious
goal, centering on an unwillingness to surrender the position that the
Japanese had fought for years to establish in China. When that
refusal met
an equal American determination that Japan should give up many of her
gains
in China, the result was war. Japanese expansion into Southeast Asia
originated less in strength than in weakness; it was predominantly
instrumental to the China campaign, not a reach for another slice of
global
salami. Of course, there were Japanese political and military leaders
with
wider ambitions, but they were not predominant in policy-making.7
Anti-Japanese Provocations
In the two years prior to Pearl Harbor, the U.S. took a number of
hostile
actions against the Japanese. While the orthodox version portrays
this as
an effort to deter Japanese aggression, revisionists see this as a
deliberate means of provoking war. Robert B. Stinnett, a recent
revisionist,
goes so far as to claim that the ways to goad the Japanese into war
were
explicitly spelled out in an "eight action memo" by Lt. Commander
Arthur H.
McCollum, head of the Far East Section at the Office of Naval
Intelligence,
which was dated October 7, 1940. President Roosevelt adopted
McCollum's
proposals. "Throughout 1941 . . .," Stinnett writes, "provoking Japan
into
an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided FDR's actions
toward Japan."8 These anti-Japanese provocative actions would fall
into
three categories: aid to China; military aggressiveness that included
military agreements with the British and Dutch; and economic sanctions
against the Japan.
Aid to China
It should be pointed out that the U.S. had, since the turn of the
century,
provided vocal support for the territorial integrity of China, with
emphasis
on the "Open Door" that rejected economic spheres of interest by
foreign
countries. And American military strategists had long envisioned a
future
war with Japan. However, it was not until the Roosevelt
administration that
vocal support turned into action. By 1940, the U.S. was providing
substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since
1937.
During that year, the U. S. loaned China $125 million.9 In 1941, the
U.S.
extended Lend-Lease to China, which enabled China to receive American
war
materials without involving payment. The U.S. government covertly
sponsored
an American-manned air force for China--General Claire Chennault's
American
Volunteer Group or the "Flying Tigers." Although officially
"volunteers,"
they were actually closely connected to the American military.10
Under the
law of neutrality as traditionally understood, a neutral state is
obliged to
treat the belligerents with strict impartiality, which means
abstaining from
providing any of them military support. Obviously, the U.S. was not
acting
as a "neutral" in the Japanese-Chinese conflict and, by the current
"harboring terrorists"standard invoked by the U.S. in Afghanistan,
provided
justification for the Japanese to make war on it.
The effect of American aid to China was to stiffen Chinese resistance,
thus
precluding any type of peaceful settlement favorable to the Japanese.
The
Japanese actually looked to the U.S. to mediate the war in China and
thus
help to extricate them from an exhausting stalemate. As
non-revisionist
historian Jonathan G. Utley observes:
They [U.S. government officials] could have ended the fighting by
fashioning
a compromise settlement, but they saw no future in that. It was
better to
let the fighting continue to its inevitable conclusion, a military
debacle
that would drag down the Japanese militarists.11
It was Japan's inability to terminate the war with China successfully
that
motivated its military expansion elsewhere.
Secret Commitments
In the first part of 1941, joint military staff conferences took place
between the Americans, British, Canadians, and the Dutch to develop
plans
for global war against the Axis, although the U.S. was not yet a
belligerent. Of greatest importance for the Pacific theater was a
meeting
in Singapore in April 1941 between the Americans, British, and Dutch.
Out
of this meeting came the ADB (sometimes called ABCD because of the
Canadian
involvement in the other meetings) agreement, which committed the
conferees
to joint action to fight Japan if Japanese forces crossed a geographic
line
that approximated the northerly extremity of the Dutch East Indies.
War
would result if Japan invaded British or Dutch territories in Southern
Asia
or moved into neutral Thailand. In essence, Roosevelt had committed
the
U.S. to war even if American territory were not attacked. And he had
committed the U.S. to war even if the Japanese did not fire the first
shot.
Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon try to argue that the ADB agreement did
not
actually commit the U.S. to make war but only "outlined the military
strategy to be followed if the U.S. joined the conflict."12 This
interpretation, however, ignores the fact that central to the ADB
agreement
was the criterion for joining the conflict--the Japanese crossing of a
particular geographical line. Even one of the early defenders of the
Roosevelt administration, Herbert Feis, acknowledged this significance
in
his history: "Had not the Japanese struck at Pearl Harbor and the
Philippines, this line would have become the boundary between war and
peace."13
Though America's commitment to the ADB agreement was only verbal, the
British and Dutch took it as a solid commitment, and the U.S. armed
forces
drew up a war plan in harmony with it, which became known as WPL 46.
When
the Japanese actually crossed the critical geographic line in December
1941,
the Dutch invoked the ADB and were expecting help from the U.S. Navy
in
repelling the Japanese.. Obviously, the Dutch believed the U.S. would
back
them up, since they would hardly dare to face the mighty Japanese
military
by themselves.14
That the U.S. was preparing military opposition to an armed Japanese
advance
southward is illustrated by actions as well as words. For this was
the
whole purpose of American buildup of air power in the Philippines,
discussed
in the next section. Certainly, the message conveyed to the British
and
Dutch as well as the Japanese was that the U.S. would go to war even
if its
territory were not attacked.
According to the U.S. Constitution, of course, the U.S. could not just
make
war because of the President's military commitment. Only Congress has
the
power to declare war. Roosevelt needed an armed incident with Japan so
as to
have the public support to comply with his commitment to war.
(Roosevelt did
promise "armed support" to the British prior to a declaration of
war.15)
Without such an incident, a declaration of war to counter a Japanese
armed
advance southward would have been politically difficult, if not
impossible.
That is why Pearl Harbor was a godsend from Roosevelt's standpoint.
Historian Robert Smith Thompson shows that the military action planned
by
the Americans, British, and Dutch went beyond simply a defensive
effort to
stop a Japanese aggressive move southward. They actually planned to
go on
the offensive. Thompson writes:
First, the ABD powers intended to confine Japan 'as nearly as possible
to
the defense of her main islands.' Second, they proposed to 'cut Japan
off
from all sea communications with China and the outside world by
intensive
action in the air and waters around Japan, and to destroy by air
attack her
war industries.
Two months before the Pearl Harbor attack, that is, the U.S. of
America was
party to a secret international agreement to firebomb Japan.16
Military Build-Up and Provocations
In order to carry out its anti-Japanese policy, the United States was
building up its military strength in the Far East. In 1940, President
Roosevelt had ordered the move of the Pacific Fleet from its permanent
base
in San Diego, California to Pearl Harbor. By the fall of 1941,
however, the
development of a B-17 bomber force in the Philippines had been given
precedence over the fleet as the key means of combating Japan. Its
purpose
could be construed as offensive as well as a deterrent since the U.S.
was
planning to bomb Japanese cities. A secret memo General MacArthur
received
in September 1941 underscored the offensive purposes that American
forces
would undertake. It read
commence operation as soon as possible, concentrating on propaganda,
terrorism, and sabotage of Japanese communications and military
installations . . . Assassination of individual Japanese should also
be
considered. Prepare to defeat Japan without suffering grievous loss
ourselves. . . We must base mobile forces as near to Japan as is
practicable. . . To the west there is China where air bases are
already
being prepared and stocked. . . . to the south there is Luzon in the
Philippine Islands, within easy air range of Hainan, Formosa, and
Canton,
and extreme range of southern Japan. . . Development of further air
bases is
proceeding.17
Earlier, Roosevelt had gone so far as to deploy American warships
within or
adjacent to Japanese territorial waters. Roosevelt called these
"pop-up"
cruises, saying, "I just want them to keep popping up here and there
and
keep the Japs guessing. I don't mind losing one or two cruisers, but
do not
take a chance on losing five or six." Admiral Husband E. Kimmel,
commander o
f the Pacific Fleet, opposed this provocation, saying: "It is
ill-advised
and will result in war if we make this move." Between March and July
1941,
Roosevelt sent naval task groups into Japanese waters on three
different
occasions. Japan protested but fired no shots.18
Economic Sanctions
America took a number of measures to punish Japan economically. In
July
1939, the United States announced that it would end its trade treaty
with
Japan in January 1940. In October 1940, the U.S. banned the export
of
scrap iron thus impeding the Japanese production of weapons-grade
steel. In
July 1941, when Japanese forces moved into southern French Indo-China
(having already occupied the northern part in 1940), Roosevelt
announced his
most drastic measure: the freezing of all Japanese assets in the
U.S..
This deprived the Japanese of the means to purchase American goods,
the most
critical of which was oil.19 The British and Dutch governments
followed
suit. Japan had to import all of its oil from foreign countries--most
coming from the U.S.--because neither Japan nor Japanese-controlled
territory in China produced oil. Without oil, the life blood of the
mechanized Japanese army, Japan would be unable to continue its war in
China. The U.S. (and the British and Dutch) made it clear to the
Japanese
that the oil embargo would be relaxed only in exchange for an end to
Japanese involvement in China. The New York Times referred to
Roosevelt's
action in its July 27 issue as "the most drastic blow short of war."20
Mainstream historians have interepreted American cooperation with the
British and Dutch as well as the military build-up in the Far East as
simply
deterrents against further Japanese expansion. Nonetheless, it is easy
to
understand how the Japanese perceived these developments as a threat
to
their own security. Such a view seemed to be confirmed by the assets
freeze, which implied a move beyond a simple defensive containment of
Japan, indicating rather an effort to roll back Japan's existing gains
in
China.
All factions of the Japanese government--moderates as well as
extremists--saw the complete abandonment of China as unacceptable.
Japan
had expended too much blood and treasure simply to pull out.
Abandoning
China would destroy Japan's status as a great power and would cause
dire
economic harm. But without oil, Japan would ultimately be militarily
threatened in its own backyard by the Anglo-American alliance.
Moreover, it
was not the Japanese war machine alone that was affected. For in
addition
to freezing assets, the U.S. government had closed the Panama Canal to
Japanese shipping. As a result of these economic sanctions, along
with the
decline in trade stemming from the Russo-German war, Japanese imports
fell
by 75 percent, and the civilian economy spiraled downward, with
serious food
shortages.21 The Japanese Foreign Minister, Shigenori Togo,
vigorously
protested to American Ambassador Joseph Grew that "Economic pressure
of this
character is capable of menacing national existence to a greater
degree than
the direct use of force."22
To save the domestic economy and to be able to continue prosecuting
the war
in China, Japan required oil and other natural resources--tin, rubber,
quinine, rice-- that could only be obtained by seizing Thailand,
British
Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies. These areas would have to be
attacked
soon before the Japanese Navy's fuel supplies ran low and before the
Anglo-American alliance had developed a powerful military force in the
Far
East. Of course, Japanese armed movement into these areas would
automatically lead to conflict with the ADB powers. "In the last
estimate,"
revisionist George Morgenstern averred, "Japan was confronted with the
option of striking out for a rich new empire or abandoning its
conquests and
resigning itself to the future of a third-rate nation."23
Significantly, the U.S. government had enacted the economic sanctions
with a
clear realization that this could lead to war. Admiral Richmond Kelly
Turner, Navy chief of war plans, had prepared a report for President
Roosevelt on the probable consequences of imposing an oil embargo on
Japan,
which read:
It is generally believed that shutting off the American supply of
petroleum
will lead promptly to an invasion of the Netherlands East Indies. . .
. An
embargo on exports will have an immediate severe psychological
reaction in
Japan against the U.S.. It is almost certain to intensify the
determination
of those now in power to continue their present course. Furthermore,
it
seems certain that, if Japan should then take military measures
against the
British and Dutch, she would also include military action against the
Philippines, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific war.24
Provoking Japan into Attacking the U.S.
To think that American forces in the Far East, with their small number
of
American B-17 bombers and weak British and Dutch allies, could
actually
stand up to the powerful Japanese war machine in late 1941 was to
engage in
wishful thinking in the extreme. But when such military developments
reached
the ears of the security conscious Japanese, they could easily serve
as an
inducement to launch a preemptive strike on American forces in the
Pacific.
Japanese leaders had for some time thought that the United States
would make
war on Japan if it made an armed advance southward toward British and
Dutch
territory, even if such territories were not actually attacked. For
example,
on December 3, 1941, the Japanese embassy in Washington cabled Tokyo:
"Judging from indications, we feel that some joint military action
between
Great Britain and the U.S., with or without a declaration of war, is a
definite certainty in the event of an occupation of Thailand."25
Considerable information on the buildup of American air power in the
Far
East and its threat to Japan could be easily gleaned from the public
media.
For example, the U.S. News of October 31, 1941 carried a two-page
relief map
of the globe with Japan at the center. Arrows were drawn from American
bases
to Japan with flying times of American bombers. Time magazine of
November
21, 1941 carried a story about the builder of the new B-24 bomber,
Reuben
Harris, and said that these new bombers were already being transported
to
the Dutch East Indies. The headline of an article by noted columnist
Arthur Krock in the November 19, 1941 New York Times read: "New Air
Power
Gives [Philippine] Islands Offensive Strength Changing Strategy in
Pacific."26
On November 15, 1941, General George Marshall held a secret press
briefing
for representatives from the major media--the New York Times, New York
Herald Tribune, Time, Newsweek, the Associated Press, United Press,
and
International News Service. Pledging the group to secrecy, Marshall
asserted
that "We are preparing an offensive war against Japan." Marshall said
that
war would probably begin during the first ten days of December and
then he
went on to delineate a bombing scenario of the Japanese home islands.
If
this military information were intended to be secret, it is odd that
Marshall would mention it to the press at all. Robert Smith Thompson
infers
that this reflected President Roosevelt's aim to pass this information
on to
the Japanese indirectly. "Acting as Roosevelt's representative,"
Thompson
opines, "General Marshall spoke to the press, quite likely in the full
knowledge that somebody would leak his remarks."27 This exaggerated
depiction of American air power that could hit Japanese cities
certainly
would have the effect of inducing the Japanese to gamble on striking
the
first blow against the U.S. while there was still time.
Japan's Decision for War
The Japanese viewed the American arms to China, the military build-up,
and
the apparent military alliance between the ABD powers as constituting
the
Anglo-American "encirclement" of Japan. As Bruce Russett writes:
"The
freezing of assets on July 26, 1941, was seen as the final link in
their
bondage."28 Japan's aim was to become a powerful, industrial nation
that
would not be dominated by outside powers as the Far East had been
treated by
the European colonial powers. But the Japanese saw this goal as being
frustrated by the United States, which, in conjunction with European
colonial powers, seemed bent on making Japan a weak, third-rate
country,
like other Asian nations. To the Japanese this was unbearable. There
was
nothing abnormal about this response. It should be emphasized that
since
the time of the Monroe Doctrine the U.S. has sought to have its way in
the
Western hemisphere, unhindered by the interference of European powers.
It
would seem to be an empirical fact of world affairs that only weak
countries
allow themselves to be dictated to by outside powers within their own
geographical region.
According to Japanese calculations, the U.S. would go to war against
them if
they made a military advance toward British or Dutch territory. In
November
1941, the Japanese envoys in the U.S. were even reporting to Tokyo
that the
U.S. might soon militarily occupy the Dutch East Indies as it had
earlier
occupied Iceland and Dutch Guiana.29 All of this meant that if Japan
wanted
to acquire the necessary resources of Southeast Asia and break out of
the
ever-tightening Anglo-American "encirclement," it would have to strike
a
blow against American power quickly. As Robert Smith Thompson
asserts:
"With American economic sanctions in place and with American B-17s en
route
to the Pacific, Japan had only one choice. Japan had to strike--and
strike
first."30 The Japanese saw America's Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl
Harbor
as a significant threat to their military designs in Southeast Asia.
"The
implication was clear," Thompson concludes, "Japan's only salvation
lay in
taking out the U.S. Pacific fleet, wherever it lay."31
The Japanese military leadership recognized the much greater military
potential of the U.S. and opted for war only because there seemed to
be no
other alternative. Its aims against the U.S. were limited: to destroy
existing U.S. offensive capabilities in the Pacific by tactical
surprise.
The Japanese military leadership hoped only to give its forces time to
occupy the islands of the Southwest Pacific, to extract the raw
materials of
those islands, and to turn the region into a virtually impregnable
line of
defense, which could frustrate an American counteroffensive.32
Japan's Willingness to Negotiate
Japanese war planners emphasized that the attack would have to take
place
soon because oil supplies were running out. Although Japan was
preparing
for war, however, it still sought a last minute peace with the United
States. In short, war would be the instrument of last resort if Japan
were
unable to restore trade with the U.S. by diplomatic means. It sent
its
major diplomats to Washington in an effort to achieve peace. In
August
1941, Prime Minister Prince Konoye even offered to come to meet
President
Roosevelt in Washington for negotiations. As Morgenstern writes:
"The
American diplomatic representatives in Tokyo noted that, almost until
the
very end, Konoye and the moderate elements were willing to go to
almost any
lengths to bring off the meeting and avert war."33 Roosevelt rejected
Konoye's offer. As a result of its failure to achieve a diplomatic
solution, Konoye's moderate government fell from power in October
and was
replaced by a more militant group headed by General Hideki Tojo.
Although
this indicated a step toward war, Japan still sought to negotiate with
the
U.S.. Among its offers, Japan was willing to promise the U.S. that it
would
pull out of southern Indo-China and not join Germany in an offensive
war.
In return, Japan expected the U.S. to restore trade, to encourage the
Chinese government to negotiate with Japan, and to stop backing China
militarily once the negotiations had begun. The U.S. refused to
accept the
Japanese offer.34
Modus Vivendi
Japan was still seeking a diplomatic solution in November while it
prepared
to attack. American intelligence had broken the Japanese diplomatic
code,
and thus the American leadership was aware that if no diplomatic
solution
were reached, Japan would then go to war. However, the only
conciliatory
move the Roosevelt administration ever considered making was a "modus
vivendi," which would have been a temporary truce, sought by American
military leaders, to avoid war until America had built up its military
strength in the Far East. The modus vivendi would have entailed
mutual
American and Japanese pledges against aggressive moves in the Pacific.
Japan
would withdraw from southern Indo-China and limit its troops in the
north.
In return the United States would supply Japan with limited supplies
of oil
and other materials.
The U.S. government ultimately rejected the modus vivendi on November
26 and
instead offered Secretary of State Cordell Hull's "10 point
proposal."
This virtual ultimatum told Japan to withdraw all military and police
forces
from China and Indo-China and that it must not support any government
in
China other than the Nationalist government under Chiang. Japan
regarded
the message as an insult and completely unacceptable. Japan regarded
a
sphere of influence in China as absolutely essential to its national
security, and it had expended much blood and wealth to attain this
objective. To accede to the American proposal would be tantamount to
surrender. The American proposal essentially cemented Japan's decision
to
initiate war and strike Pearl Harbor.
A brief aside here regarding the rejection of the modus vivendi.
Revisionists, such as Anthony Kubek in How the Far East Was Lost, have
pointed out that pro-Communists in the U.S. government, most
importantly
Harry Dexter White, pushed for the elimination of the modus vivendi in
order
to enhance the security interests of the Soviet Union. The Soviet aim
was
to guarantee war between Japan and the West in order to prevent a
Japanese
attack on the Soviet Far East. This Communist role has been confirmed
by
recent revelations from the Verona files by Herb Romerstein and John
Earl
Haynes.35 Most revisionists, however, would maintain that Roosevelt
did not
require the push from Soviet spies to induce his movement toward war.
"Despite all this volume of evidence of communist pressure in the Far
East
for war between the U.S. and Japan," wrote Harry Elmer Barnes,
I remain unconvinced that it exerted any decisive influence upon
Roosevelt,
who, after all, determined American policy toward Japan. Roosevelt
had made
up his mind with regard to war with Japan on the basis of his own
attitudes
and wishes, aided and abetted by Stimson, and he did not need any
persuasion
or support from the Communists, however much he may have welcomed
their
aggressive propaganda.36
American Motives
On the surface, it would seem that the United States pursued a policy
that
led to war in order to preserve the territorial integrity of China
over
which it was unwilling to make any compromise with Japan that could
preserve
the peace. As historian Basil Rauch wrote in defense of the Roosevelt
administration's uncompromising policy:
No one but an absolute pacifist would argue that the danger of war is
a
greater evil than violation of principle. . . . The isolationist
believes
that appeasement of Japan without China's consent violated no
principle
worth a risk of war. The internationalist must believe that the
principle
did justify a risk of war.37
However, the preservation of Chinese territorial integrity, which did
not
seem to involve American security, appears an odd reason for which to
go to
war. Moreover, it should be pointed out that the professed American
concern
for Chinese territorial integrity was highly selective. After entering
the
war, the U.S. did very little to help China, focusing instead on
fighting
Germany. Also, the U.S. government had never criticized the Soviet
Union
for its violations of Chinese territorial integrity--detaching Outer
Mongolia in the 1920s (making it a satellite) and gaining control of
Sinkiang province in the 1930s. And in 1945, Roosevelt explicitly
violated
Chinese territory in the Far East protocol of the Yalta Accord by
giving the
Soviet Union rights to the ports of Darien and Port Arthur and control
of
the railways in Manchuria. As historian Anthony Kubek incisively
points
out:
The Soviet Union had no more right to hold these ports and railways in
Manchuria than did Japan. . . . Roosevelt gave to Stalin at Yalta
effective
control of the same territory over which the U.S. had gone to war with
Japan.38
It should be emphasized that in contrast to Japan, which actually
controlled
Chinese territory, the Soviet Union did not already occupy these
territories. Rather, Roosevelt seemingly held Chinese sovereignty in
such
low regard that he thought he had the right to dispose of this Chinese
territory in order to bribe Stalin into making war on Japan.39
Back Door to War
But if China was not the real issue, what was America's motive for
war?
Roosevelt, like all interventionists, believed Japan was part of an
Axis
plot to dominate the world, which would threaten American security and
values. But once the war began the Roosevelt administration put most
of its
effort into fighting Germany, which it had planned to do before Pearl
Harbor. Because of this emphasis on Germany, revisionists see
Roosevelt's
effort to provoke war with Japan as an indirect way of getting the
country
into war with Germany--the back-door-to-war thesis.
Roosevelt had to take such an indirect approach to war with Germany
because
a direct approach was not politically feasible. Throughout 1941,
Roosevelt
believed it was essential for the United States to enter the war
against
Germany, but he recognized that the majority of the American people
opposed
such a war even as late as the fall of 1941. Thus, Roosevelt had to
rely on
deceptive means to edge the country into war. To placate public
sentiment,
Roosevelt, in his 1940 reelection campaign, had pledged that he would
keep
the country out of war. Roosevelt publicly preached that his
aid-short-of-war policies--such as Lend-Lease, the
destroyers-for-bases
deal, de facto naval convoys of British ships--were intended to keep
the
U.S. out of war. However, such clearly unneutral acts would
inevitably lead
to incidents with Germany.
Despite America's unneutral provocations, Hitler sought peace with the
U.S.
because he wanted to concentrate on the war with the Soviet Union.
Thus, he
ordered German submarine commanders to avoid incidents with American
ships.
Incidents, however, were inevitable. In an apparent effort to
generate war
fever, Roosevelt deliberately distorted two naval incidents in Fall of
1941--involving the U.S.S Greer and the U.S.S Kearney--claiming that
the
Germans had fired on innocent American vessels.40 In reality, the
German
submarines were responding to American provocations. Roosevelt also
promoted other falsehoods in the hopes of stoking the fires of war,
which
included the claim that the U.S. government had come into the
possession of
a "secret Nazi map" of South and Central America showing how that
continent
would be organized under Nazi rule. Also, Roosevelt said he had a
Nazi
German document that detailed a plan to abolish all religions and
liquidate
all clergy and create an "International Nazi Church." Needless to
say, the
alleged map and document were not made public then or since.41
By the end of November 1941, an undeclared naval war existed in the
Atlantic
as American ships were following a "shoot-on-sight" policy.
Roosevelt
had the power to do almost everything to aid Great Britain and the
Soviet
Union--including transporting arms and, for the British, convoying
troops--except to send in American land and air forces to fight
Germany
directly. But despite the impact of events and the pro-war
propaganda,
fully eighty percent of the American public still opposed a
declaration of
war. And Congress was still staunchly opposed to war. And America's
belligerent actions could not provoke Germany into a serious incident
that
could generate American support for full-scale war. Thus, Roosevelt
would
have to enter war through the back door. That Roosevelt made use of
falsehoods and deception regarding the European War made it
understandable
that he would rely on the same deceptive tactics to become involved in
war
with Japan.
Revisionists contend that entrance into war with Japan would
facilitate
American war with Germany. Although many revisionist critics fail to
see
the connection because the Axis alliance did not require German
entrance
into an offensive war initiated by Japan, people at the time saw an
inextricable link between war with Japan and war with Germany. As
Secretary
of Interior Harold Ickes, one of the more strident and committed
interventionists in the Administration, confided to his diary:
For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war
would be
by way of Japan. . . . And, of course, if we go to war against Japan,
it
will inevitably lead to war against Germany.42
In his December 9, 1941 radio address, President Roosevelt accused
Germany
of being closely involved in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
According
to Roosevelt, "We know that Germany and Japan are conducting their
military
and naval operations with a joint plan." Roosevelt alleged that
"Germany has
been telling Japan that if Japan would attack the U.S. Japan would
share the
spoils when peace came."43 With the American public outraged about
the
underhanded "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor, it would not have been
difficult to direct that anger at Germany, especially with the
inevitability
of additional incidents in the Atlantic. And given the likelihood of
all-out war with the U.S., Hitler quite reasonably declared war on the
U.S.
on December 11, in order to gain the good will of the Japanese
government,
who, he hoped, might reciprocate by making war on the Soviet Union. As
Thomas Fleming writes in his The New Dealers' War, Roosevelt was
"trying to
bait Hitler into declaring war, or, failing that, persuade the
American
people to support an American declaration of war on the two European
fascist
powers."44
Move Toward War
It should be emphasized that the United States took a hard-line
approach to
Japan even though it was aware that such an approach would cause Japan
to
make war. U.S. military intelligence had broken the Japanese top
diplomatic
code and was reading Japanese diplomatic communications. Besides the
actual
code-breakers, only a few top-level people in the Roosevelt
administration
had access to this information. Through Japan's diplomatic messages,
it was
apparent that Japan would take military action to grab the necessary
resources, if a favorable diplomatic solution were not achieved. How
much
more the U.S. knew about Japanese war plans is debated among
historians.
Even among revisionists, some would hold that at least as late as the
first
days of December 1941, Roosevelt was not certain that the Japanese
would
directly attack American territory.
All of this put Roosevelt in a bind because of his secret commitment
to the
British and Dutch that the U.S. would make war against Japan if it
moved
southward. The problem was whether the American people would be
willing to
support a war against the Japanese to preserve British and Dutch
colonial
possessions or (even less likely) to help the British prevent the
Japanese
occupation of Thailand. which was part of the ADB military plan
Harry Elmer Barnes wrote that the secret military arrangements with
the
British and the Dutch "hung like a sword of Damocles over Roosevelt's
head"
as the Japanese moved toward a war.
It exposed him to the most dangerous dilemma of his political career:
to
start a war without an attack on American forces or territory, or
refusing
to follow up the implementation of ABCD and Rainbow 5 [the military
plan
based on the agreement] by Britain or the Dutch. The latter
[decision]
would lead to serious controversy and quarrels among the prospective
powers,
with the disgruntled powers leaking Roosevelt's complicity in the plan
and
exposing his mendacity.45
In the early days of December, Roosevelt assured the nervous British
that
the U.S. would honor its commitment to fight the Japanese if they
moved
southward. As the British historian John Costello writes, British
documents
can leave no doubt that Roosevelt by the eve of Japan's attack on
Pearl
Harbor had given a number of clear, carefully worded assurances of
U.S.
'armed support' of Britain in advance of delivering his intended
appeal to
Congress.46
Roosevelt's monumental problem was how to get Japan to attack the U.S.
in
some way in order to solidify the American public behind war. As
Secretary
of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary of November 25, 1941: "The
question
was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first
shot
without allowing too much danger to ourselves."47 The wording here is
critical and is usually glossed over by defenders of orthodoxy.
Stimson's
writing definitely implies that the U.S. would not simply passively
await a
possible attack by Japanese but would actively "manuever" Japanese
into
attacking U.S.. Roosevelt thus sought to create an incident in which
the
U.S. would be attacked by the Japanese. It is here that certain
apparent
differences among revisionists appear. If, as many revisionists have
claimed, Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the impending Japanese attack
on
Pearl Harbor, why would he see any reason to create an incident,
rather than
simply await the attack? It would thus seem that as of the beginning
of
December, Roosevelt either was not certain that the Japanese war plan
included an attack on American territory, or else he sought a less
destructive incident in order to save the Pacific Fleet.
Three Small Ships
Roosevelt's planned incident consisted of sending "three small
vessels" on
an alleged reconnaissance mission. He personally authorized this
mission in
a December 1 message to Admiral Thomas Hart, head of the Asiatic Fleet
at
Manila. Roosevelt specified that each ship was to be manned by
Filipino
sailors and commanded by an American naval officer. Furthermore, each
vessel was to be armed with cannon so as to give it the minimum
requirements
of an American "man of war." The three little ships were directed to
sail
into the path of a Japanese naval task force that Washington knew was
then
steaming southward for an invasion of Southeast Asia.48
It was highly unusual for a President to be giving such a detailed
order for
a lower level military function. Moreover, as Thomas Fleming writes,
"such
a voyage might have made sense in the eighteenth or nineteenth
century," but
was rather absurd in an age when airplanes had infinitely greater
reconnaissance capability.49 And the only radio available for one of
the
ships could only receive messages, not transmit them. Moreover,
Admiral
Hart was already carrying out the necessary reconnaissance by air and
was
reporting the results to Washington. From the outset Hart seemed to
recognize the real sacrificial "fishbait" purpose of the alleged
reconnaissance mission.50
Roosevelt's apparent intention of sending the little ships was to have
them
blown out of the water, thus providing an incident for war.51 Equipped
with
cannon, the ships could be presented as far more significant than they
actually were. The incident could be reported as American warships
destroyed
by the Japanese. And the killing of a Filipino crew would engender war
fever
in the Philippines, where there was strong resistance to getting
involved in
war with Japan.52
However, the attack on the little ships never took place. Only one
ship,
the Isabel could be equipped in short order. Admiral Hart, apparently
wanting to preserve the ship, gave it instructions that were far less
provocative than Roosevelt had ordered. As a result, the Isabel was
able to
avoid Japanese fire. A second ship, the Lanakai, was just about to
leave
Manila Harbor on December 7 when the attack on Pearl Harbor was
announced,
and a third ship had not yet been selected. In short, the Pearl
Harbor
attack precluded the need for Roosevelt to create an incident.
However,
had the American ships been attacked by the Japanese, Harry Elmer
Barnes
believed that Pearl Harbor could have been saved.
There can be little doubt that the Cockleship plan of December 1st was
designed to get the indispensable attack by a method which would
precede the
Pearl Harbor attack, avert the latter, and save the Pacific Fleet and
American lives.53
This, of course, reflects the revisionist belief that Roosevelt knew
in
advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor Conspiracy
That Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and had
deliberately withheld information is the most controversial, and
perhaps
best known, of the revisionist arguments. The argument runs that
Washington
intentionally kept the military commanders in Hawaii in the dark about
the
impending Japanese attack. This would ensure that no countermeasures
were
undertaken that might cause the Japanese to call it off. It would
also
preclude the possibility of the American military commanders launching
a
preemptive attack on the Japanese fleet, which could have muddied the
Japanese culpability needed to forge a united American public in favor
of
war.
"Purple" Code
There is ample evidence of warnings of an impending Japanese attack
being
sent to American government authorities. For many years, this
argument
centered around the American breaking of the top Japanese diplomatic
code.
It was discussed at the Army and Navy Pearl Harbor hearings in 1944
and the
1945-46 congressional hearings. The United States military had broken
the
top Japanese diplomatic code, which was called "Purple, " with a
specially-constructed code-breaking machine, also called "Purple."
The
deciphered texts were referred to as "Magic." Only a few top-level
people
in the Roosevelt administration had access to this information. The
military commanders at Pearl Harbor were not provided with a "Purple"
code-breaking machine. And although they were given some intelligence
information based on "Purple," they were denied the most crucial
information
that pointed to war. By late November 1941, code intercepts read in
Washington indicated that Japan was about to make war and break
relations
with the U.S.. The deciphered diplomatic messages did not specify
Pearl
Harbor as the target, but, given that top Washington officials
recognized
the imminence of war, it is odd why they did not order a full
military
alert for Hawaii in order to play it safe. The actual code-breakers
such as
Captain Laurance F. Safford, head of the Communications Security
Section of
Naval Communications, assumed that such a warning had been given.
"War Warning"
Defenders of the administration would claim that Washington had
provided
adequate warning to the Pearl Harbor commanders of a possible attack
and
that the latter had failed to take sufficient defensive preparations.
This
view was embodied in the 1942 Roberts Commission investigation on
Pearl
Harbor and, in a milder form, in the 1946 Majority Report of the Joint
Congressional Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor
Attack.
Pearl Harbor investigator Henry Clausen, who in 1944-1945 had
investigated
the background of the attack at the behest of Secretary of War
Stimson, goes
to great lengths in his Pearl Harbor: Final Judgement (published in
1992) to
try to show that even if the military leaders in Hawaii had simply
read the
newspapers they should have prepared for a possible Japanese attack.54
In
Henry Stimson's final statement to the Joint Congressional Committee
on the
Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, which was drafted by
Clausen, he
asserted that even without a warning from Washington, General Walter
C.
Short, who was responsible for the defense of Hawaii,
should have been on the alert. If he did not know that the relations
between Japan and the U.S. were strained and broken at any time, he
must
have been the only man in Hawaii who did not know it, for the radio
and
newspapers were blazoning these facts daily . . . . And if he did not
know
that the Japanese were likely to strike without warning, he could have
read
his history of Japan or known the lessons taught in the Army schools
in
respect to such matters.55
This defense of the Roosevelt administration is filled with obvious
contradictions. If the commanders in Hawaii are to be blamed for
failing to
anticipate an attack on Pearl Harbor, how can the defenders of the
Roosevelt
administration likewise claim that there was no reason for Washington
to
realize that the Japanese would target Pearl Harbor? And if the
likelihood
of a Japanese attack should have been realized by simply keeping
abreast of
public news reports, how could Roosevelt make so much of the idea of a
"surprise attack"--the major theme of his famous "Day of Infamy"
speech?
It is hard to see how the Hawaii commanders were culpable. The most
crucial
alleged warnings from Washington were those of November 27, in which
the
phrase "war warning" was actually used. However, these warnings were
totally lacking in clarity. The message to General Short was
characterized
by the Army Pearl Harbor Board (which investigated the Pearl Harbor
attack
in 1944) as a "Do-or-don't" message because of its ambiguities and
contradictions.56 The message referred to possible Japanese hostile
actions
with the breaking of diplomatic relations and authorized Short to take
any
measures he thought necessary as long as those actions did not "alarm"
the
general populace or "disclose intent." Moreover, Short was required
to
allow the Japanese to commit the first "overt act." These restrictions
essentially ruled out any effective defensive preparations. General
Short
interpreted this message as a call to counter sabotage, which required
doing
such things as bunching airplanes wing tip to wing tip, thus making
them
sitting ducks for a bombing attack. Short informed Washington of the
steps
he was taking, and no corrections were forthcoming. In fact,
subsequent
warnings from Washington regarding subversion and sabotage convinced
Short
of the appropriateness of his actions.57
Admiral Stark's message to Kimmel referred to possible Japanese
advances in
the Far East but said nothing about any possible attack on Hawaii. As
the
1944 Naval Court of Inquiry asserted, the so-called "war warning"
message
sent to Kimmel "directed attention away from Pearl Harbor rather than
toward
it."58 Furthermore, in November, Navy officials declared the north
Pacific
Ocean a "vacant sea" and ordered all United States and allied shipping
out
of this area. This, of course, was the region over which the Japanese
task
force would travel. Two weeks before the Pearl Harbor attack, Kimmel
actually dispatched a portion of the fleet to the sea north of Hawaii
for
surveillance purposes but he received an order from Washington to
bring his
ships back to Oahu. In essence, it would seem that information from
Washington served to hinder if not prevent the commanders in Hawaii
from
taking the proper steps to protect their forces.59
To reemphasize, the defenders of the Roosevelt administration want to
have
it both ways: that Washington had no reason to believe that the
Japanese
would attack Pearl Harbor and that the commanders in Hawaii were
derelict
for not realizing that Hawaii might be attacked. But having access to
the
decoded intercepts obviously meant that Washington possessed more
information on Japanese intentions than did Hawaii. And if the
preparations
by the military commanders in Hawaii were deficient, there would seem
to be
no justifiable reason why Washington did not put Hawaii on a full
alert.
Washington ordered such a full alert in June 1940 when the likelihood
of war
had been infinitely less.60
Winds Signals
Another controversial issue regarding the diplomatic code involved the
so-called "winds signals." On November 19th, the Japanese announced in
their
J-19 diplomatic code (a lower level code than "Purple," which United
States
was able to decode) the setting up of a so-called "Winds System," by
which
Japanese diplomatic officials and consulates could learn of Tokyo's
war
intentions in non-coded form (that is, after their code books had been
destroyed) in a regular weather forecast broadcast from Tokyo. The key
phrase "East Wind Rain" would mean the breaking of diplomatic
relations
(and probable war) with the U.S.. The code destruction orders went
out on
the first and second of December. On December 4, American
intelligence
picked up the "East Wind Rain" message. This was the so-called "winds
execute" message. That American monitors received this message was
accepted
in the Army and Navy hearings on Pearl Harbor in 1944. However, at
the time
of the Congressional hearings of 1945-46 a major coverup took place.
Authorities claimed that no "winds execute" message had ever been
received.
And it was true that no messages were around--they had been apparently
destroyed. And a number of witnesses who had previously claimed to
have
seen the message were pressured into recanting. Captain Laurance F.
Safford, however, despite intense pressure to change his story,
continued to
maintain that the "winds execute" message had been intercepted,
decoded,
and widely distributed.61
Crucial confirming evidence for the receipt of "Winds" message was a
1977
interview with Ralph T. Briggs, conducted by the Naval Security Group
and
declassified by the National Security Agency in March 1980. Briggs
said in
this interview that he was the one who had intercepted the crucial
message,
while on duty as chief watch supervisor at the Naval Communication
Station
at Cheltenham, Maryland. Briggs further stated that he was ordered by
his
superior officer in 1946 not to testify about the matter to the joint
Congressional Committee and to cease any contact with Captain Laurance
Safford.62 In addition, both of the Japanese assistant naval attachés
posted
at the Washington embassy in 1941 have verified that the message was
transmitted on December 4th, exactly as Safford said.63 Defenders of
the
administration claim that even if this message had been intercepted,
it did
not really tell anything not already known--that diplomatic relations
were
to be broken.64 But if the government would go to such great lengths
to
cover-up this allegedly harmless evidence, one would expect cover-ups
and
lies about much more important matters.
The Last 24 Hours
Finally, there is the question as to what leading officials in
Washington
were doing in the last 24 hours before the Pearl Harbor attack. Early
in
the morning of December 6 (Washington time), American intelligence
intercepted the so-called "pilot" message, which announced that
Japan's
response to America's November 26 ultimatum was forthcoming. It would
come
in 14 parts. The first 13 parts were intercepted and decoded by the
early
hours of the evening of December 6th, and copies were passed on to the
President and to the military and naval chiefs. The harsh language
recounting the alleged wrongs done by the United States to Japan
clearly
pointed to a break in relations. As soon as Franklin D. Roosevelt read
the
13 parts, he reportedly told Harry Hopkins that "This means war."65
On Sunday morning, the final 14th part of the message was picked up
and
decoded. It stated that diplomatic relations with the U.S. were
terminated.
Ominously, the time of 1:00 P.M. at which the Japanese ambassador was
instructed to deliver the entire message to Secretary Hull was
recognized by
the cryptographers as corresponding with a sunrise attack on Pearl
Harbor.
A number of intelligence officers urged that a warning to be sent to
Pearl
Harbor. But General George Marshall, who had to authorize the warning,
could
not be found. Allegedly he was out horseback riding. No warning was
sent to
Pearl Harbor until it was too late.66
The various investigations of the Pearl Harbor attack--by the Army,
the
Navy, and the Congress--brought out numerous discrepancies in the
testimony
regarding these last hours, which revisionists have focused upon.
Leading
figures could not recall where they were at the time. Lesser military
figures altered their testimonies to make them fit in with what their
superiors wanted. Revisionists see this as part of a conspiracy
purposively
to withhold critical information from the Pearl Harbor commanders and
later
to cover-up this operation. As John Toland writes:
What novelist could persuade a reader to accept the incredible
activity
during those two days by America's military and civilian leaders? Was
it to
be believed that the heads of the Army and Navy could not be located
on the
night before Pearl Harbor? Or that they would later testify over and
over
that they couldn't remember where they were? Was it plausible that
the
Chief of Naval Operations, after finally being reminded that he talked
to
Roosevelt on the telephone that night, could not recall if they had
discussed the thirteen-part message. Was it possible to imagine a
President
who remarked, 'This means war,' after reading the message, not
instantly
summoning to the White House his Army and Navy commanders as well as
his
Secretaries of War and Navy? One of Knox's close friends, James G.
Stahlman, wrote Admiral Kemp Tolley in 1973 that Knox told him that
he,
Stimson, Marshall, Stark and Harry Hopkins had spent most of the night
of
December 6 at the White House with the President: All were waiting
for what
they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor.67
While establishment historians admit that the Purple intercepts
provided the
evidence that Japan would make war, they make much of the fact that
nothing
in the deciphered Japanese diplomatic messages explicitly pinpointed
Pearl
Harbor as the target. But at that time lower echelon people did
perceive
that possibility. And the Naval Court of Inquiry, which investigated
Pearl
Harbor in 1944, maintained:
In the early forenoon of December 7, Washington time, the War and Navy
Departments had information which appeared to indicate that a break in
diplomatic relations was imminent and, by inference and deduction,
that an
attack in the Hawaiian area could be expected soon.68
And what was the rationale for not warning Pearl Harbor even if it
were not
assumed to be a definite target? Washington had put Hawaii on a full
alert
in June 1940 with much less justification. It would seem that if Japan
were
on the verge of war with the U.S., a clear warning to Pearl Harbor
would
have been expected. And the fact of the matter is that there was a
considerable amount of additional information beyond the diplomatic
messages
that pointed to an attack on Pearl Harbor. A convergence of evidence
should
have been noted.
Bomb Plot Message
One very important piece of intelligent information pointing to an
attack on
Pearl Harbor was the so-called "bomb plot message." This consisted of
requests from the Japanese government in Tokyo to the Japanese
consul-general in Honolulu, Nagoa Kita. One group of messages,
beginning in
September 1941, divided Pearl Harbor into a grid and directed the
Japanese
consul in Hawaii to report to Tokyo the locations and number of ships.
The
Japanese consul's reports were made throughout the fall of 1941 and
decoded
in Washington. (Washington was also keeping close surveillance on the
leading Japanese spy, cover name Tadashi Morimura, who was engaging in
this
espionage.) This information was popularly referred to as the "bomb
plot"
messages since a grid is the classic method of planning a bombing
attack.
There was no need to know exact ship positions unless the purpose was
to
attack them. None of this information was passed on to the commanders
in
Hawaii.69
Those who have sought to minimize the significance of these "bomb
plot"
messages have contended that Japanese spies made inquiries at other
leading
American naval bases; but no such detailed or comprehensive reports,
containing as they did grids and coordinates, were demanded of
Japanese
officials and spies at any other American base in the world. That
alone
indicated that Hawaii was a special target.
Military intelligence officials realized the significance of the "bomb
plot"
messages. They were specially marked so their significance could not
be
missed. The FBI also was following these espionage activities at
Pearl
Harbor and sending the information to the White House. Roosevelt
would have
been aware of these activities both through information from naval
intelligence and from the FBI.70 President Roosevelt's personal
involvement
in this issue was especially demonstrated in his October 1941 meeting
with
David Sarnoff, president of RCA. Roosevelt arranged to have Sarnoff
provide
copies of the cables between Tokyo and the Honolulu consulate, which
were
sent through RCA's Honolulu office, to the Office to Naval
Intelligence.71
The most crucial message from the Honolulu consulate was sent to Tokyo
on
December 3rd. It informed Tokyo that the Japanese spies had set up a
system
of codes confirming the movement of various American warships through
the
use of signals in windows at Lanikai Beach, which could be spotted by
off-shore Japanese "fishing" boats and submarines. This vital
information
could then be passed on to the Japanese carrier task force. The signal
system would operate through December 6th. Thus, the messages
revealed the
time of the planned attack.72
None of the information of the bomb plot messages was provided to the
Hawaii
military commanders. The Director of Naval Intelligence, Captain Alan
Kirk,
was replaced in October 1941, because he insisted on warning Hawaii.73
It
is also noteworthy that the Roosevelt administration allowed such
flagrant
spying at Pearl Harbor, going against the requests of J. Edgar Hoover
to
arrest or deport the spies.74
Naval Codes
It has been acknowledged in establishment circles that if the United
States
government had broken the Japanese naval codes, it would have been
aware of
the impending attack on Pearl Harbor.75 Claims have been made that
the
British and the Dutch had broken the Japanese naval codes. The most
prominent individual who has made such a claim is Eric Nave, an
Australian
officer attached to the Royal Navy, who was one of the actual
code-breakers.76 But mainstream historians have doubted these
allegations
and have held that American intelligence had not yet broken the
Japanese
naval codes, especially the leading Japanese naval code, generally
called
JN-25. In contrast, Robert B. Stinnett contends that American
code-breakers
were able to read the Japanese naval codes. (Stinnett uses different
terminology for the codes, claiming that the name "JN-25" was not in
use
until after the Pearl Harbor attack.)77 Stinnett writes:
Testimony given to various Pearl Harbor investigations suggests that
the
navy codes were not solved until Spring 1942. The author's research
proves
otherwise. Their solution emerged in the early fall of 1940.78
According to Stinnett, American code-breakers were reading the
Japanese
coded naval communications, called the "Kaigun Ango," the most
important of
the codes being the 5-Num (naval operations), SM (naval movement), S
(merchant marine), and Yobidashi Fugo (radio call sign) codes.. The
intercepted messages made it clear that Pearl Harbor would be attacked
on
December 7, 1941. Stinnett continues:
A sixty-year coverup has hidden American and Allied success in
obtaining the
solutions to the Kaigun Ango prior to Pearl Harbor. American naval
officers
hid key code documents from congressional investigators. Naval
intelligence
records, deceptively altered, were placed in the U.S. Navy's
cryptology
files to hide the cryptographic success.79
Stinnett points out that much of this information is still classified
or
blacked out in those documents available the public.80 However, he
was able
to locate some documents that explicitly show that the naval codes
were
broken, and he had this confirmed by interviews with surviving
code-breakers.81
Proponents of the mainstream position categorically reject Stinnett's
contention that American code-breakers were reading Japanese naval
codes. In
a recent article, Stephen Budiansky writes that the U.S. was unable to
read
JN-25 or any other high level naval code prior to Pearl Harbor, in
part
because the Japanese kept changing the code books. By the time the
American
code-breakers made some headway in breaking a code, the code would be
changed to the extent that the code-breakers would have to start over
again.
It was only after Pearl Harbor that successful decoding took place.
All of
this is brought out, Budiansky intones, in recently released documents
in
the National Archives, which provide month-by-month reports on the
code-breaking progress of the Navy cryptanalytic office in Washington
(known
as OP-20-GY) during the entire 1940-1941 period. These monthly
reports
include the progress of navy decryption units in the Pacific.
Budiansky
writes:
The monthly reports filed by OP-20-G confirm that at the time of the
Pearl
Harbor attack, not a single JN-25 message from the previous 12 months
had
been read. . . . The reports also confirm only two other Japanese
naval code
systems being examined seriously before Pearl Harbor, and neither was
yielding any results, either."82
Budiansky implies that unwary researchers sometimes do not realize
that
information intercepted in 1941 was not decoded read until 1945-1946.
Tracking the Fleet
But even if American intelligence had been unable to read the Japanese
naval
code, Stinnett provides additional information that American monitors
had
actually tracked the Japanese Pearl Harbor task force by means of
radio
direction finding techniques. American stations could intercept radio
transmissions that enabled trained operators to pinpoint the location
of the
sender even if the message were indecipherable. The mainstream
position has
long been that no radio transmissions from the Japanese task force
were
intercepted after it had begun its movement toward Hawaii. And
Japanese
naval officials have testified that the fleet was under orders to
maintain
radio silence.83 Stinnett, however, points out that the order for
radio
silence from Admiral Yamamoto allowed radio communication in an
extreme
emergency.
Radio intercepts obtained by U.S. Navy monitoring stations disclosed
that
the broadcasts continued after the order was issued. Instead of radio
silence there was substantial, continuous radio traffic from the
Japanese
naval ministry, foreign ministry, and warships.84
John Toland had earlier made the claim that the Pearl Harbor task
force had
been tracked, though with less hard evidence. He wrote that a Dutch
naval
attaché in Washington, Johan Ranneft, received information at the
Office of
Naval Intelligence indicating that the Americans knew a Japanese task
force
was heading toward Hawaii. Ranneft revealed this information in his
diary.85 Also, an American steamship, the Lurline, had picked up the
Japanese task force's radio traffic and reported it to the FBI.
Finally,
Toland cited a seaman in the intelligence office of the 12th Naval
District
headquarters in San Francisco who had intercepted the Japanese radio
traffic
and used it to plot the location of the task force as it headed
eastward
toward Hawaii. This information was supposedly sent on to the White
House.
Toland initially referred to this individual as "Seaman Z," who was
later
identified as Robert D. Ogg.86 What Stinnett provides is documentary
evidence to complement and give credence to these eyewitness accounts.
How do these findings mesh with the Japanese claims of radio silence?
In
essence, Stinnett maintains that ships in the Japanese fleet only
engaged in
limited radio communication. Radio communication was necessary in
order to
regroup the task force after a storm had scattered ships beyond visual
signaling range. The Japanese were under the impression that
low-power
frequencies would travel only a few miles and thus be secure from
enemy
interception. However, a solar storm caused the radio transmissions
to
travel vast distances, allowing for interception by American listening
posts.87 Furthermore, Stinnett maintains that American monitors were
able
to determine the location of the Japanese fleet from transmissions to
it
from shore-based stations in Japan. This involved analysis of the
changing
radio frequencies. As the distances increased between the ships and
the
shore transmitters, the radio frequencies, by necessity, changed.
Stinnett
asserts: "A first day communications intelligence student, aware that
Radio
Tokyo and Radio Ominato were transmitting to warships could
approximate--if
not pinpoint--the position of the vessels." 88
If, as Stinnett claims, the United States had actually tracked the
Japanese
task force while knowing that Japan was on the verge of war, it would
provide conclusive proof that high American officials were aware of
the
impending attack. And one might add, why would the U.S. government
make the
onerous effort to keep tabs on the movement of the Japanese fleet and
then
not make use of this crucial information? The only counter argument
is that
Stinnett is completely wrong about the documentary evidence--that no
tracking had taken place. And it would seem that Stinnett would be so
radically wrong on this issue that it could only be the result of
fraud on
his part, not simply error.
It should be added that unlike other revisionists Stinnett's argument
posits
a very large conspiracy that stretched beyond Washington. (In
contrast,
Barnes, by the 1960s, had limited to conspiracy to Roosevelt and
Marshall.)89 Stinnett goes so far as to maintain that Joseph J.
Rochefort,
the commander of the cryptographic center at Pearl Harbor, and Edwin
Layton,
the Pacific Fleet's chief security officer, were aware of the
approaching
Japanese fleet and refrained from warning Kimmel. This tends to
stretch
credulity. However, Stinnett does cite documentary evidence, which,
though
ridiculed by proponents of the mainstream position, has not been
directly
refuted.90
Revisionist Mark Willey puts forth an argument that would keep
Hawaiian
Intelligence out of the loop. Willey points out that it requires two
bearings to determine the location of radio transmissions, while
Hawaii had
only one. He claims that Hawaii was deliberately sent false
cross-bearings
that precluded accurate tracking.91
Popov's Warning
In addition to the American code-breaking, revisionists have cited a
number
of other warnings of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor that were
provided
to the United States government. One of the most intriguing came from
Dusko
Popov, a Serb who worked as a double agent for both Germany and
Britain.
Popov's true sympathies, however, were with the Allies. Popov was
also a
notorious playboy, who was code-named "Tricycle" because of his
proclivity
for bedding two women simultaneously. It is reputed that Popov was
Ian
Fleming's model for James Bond.92
In the summer of 1941, Germany sent Popov to the U.S. to establish an
espionage cadre. Popov's instructions were contained in an
questionnaire
miniaturized to microdots, which could only be read by a microscope.
The
instructions asked Popov and his subordinates to obtain information
about
American war material production and, more ominously, called for a
detailed
study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. Popov learned from a
German
spy that the Japanese needed this information for their planned attack
on
Pearl Harbor before the end of 1941. Popov made this information
known to
his British handlers, and the British had him provide this information
to
the FBI when he came to America in August 1941.93
It has been argued that the FBI did not trust Popov's information and
the
microdots, and did no0t fully transmit it to the White House. One
explanation is that the prudish J. Edgar Hoover gave little
credibility to
Popov's information because of his distaste for his playboy
lifestyle.94
However, documents the FBI released in 1983 show that it assigned
considerable importance to Popov's information and that this
information was
passed on to high ranking officers in Army and Naval intelligence. In
Frank
Paul Mintz's analysis of the FBI material on Popov, he found that much
of
the information had been blackened out, so it would be impossible to
know
that the important parts were not transmitted to the military
intelligence
and the White House.95 As Mintz concludes:
It passes credibility to assume that the microdot questionnaire
remained
effectively dead to the world in 1941. English intelligence knew
about it;
the FBI knew; and so did the intelligence services of U.S. armed
forces.
Most likely both Churchill and Roosevelt became familiar with the full
contents of Popov's microdots during the last quarter of the year.96
Other Warnings
On the January 27, 1941, Dr. Ricardo Shreiber, the Peruvian envoy in
Tokyo,
told Max Bishop, third secretary of the United States embassy, that he
had
just learned from his intelligence sources that there was a Japanese
war
plan involving a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. After being
presented to
Ambassador Joseph Grew, this information was sent to the State
Department,
where it was read by Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Naval
Intelligence.
Arthur McCollum of Naval Intelligence, Roosevelt's close confidante
according to Stinnett, sent a cable on this issue to Kimmel, with the
analysis that "The Division of Naval Intelligence places no credence
in
these rumors" and that "no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent
or
planned for the foreseeable future."97 In contrast to the reaction of
Naval
Intelligence, Ambassador Grew was much impressed by the information.
As he
wrote in his diary:
There is a lot of talk around town to the effect that the Japanese, in
case
of a break with the U.S., are planning to go all out in a surprise
mass
attack on Pearl Harbor. I rather guess that the boys in Hawaii are
not
precisely asleep.98
The American ambassador was not the only source from Japan providing
warnings of the impending attack. Early in the fall of 1941, Kilsoo
Haan, a
Korean agent-lobbyist in Washington, told Eric Severeid of CBS that
the
Korean sources in Korea and Japan had proof that the Japanese were
going to
attack Pearl Harbor before Christmas. In late October, Haan finally
convinced Senator Guy Gillette of Iowa that the Japanese were planning
to
attack Pearl Harbor. Gillette alerted the State Department, Army and
Navy
Intelligence, and President Roosevelt personally. Stanley K. Hornbeck,
then
the number three-man at the State Department and an intimate of Henry
Stimson, wrote a memorandum to Secretary of State Hull stating that
Haan's
Pearl Harbor warning should be taken seriously.99
In early December 1941, the Dutch Army in Java succeeded in decoding a
dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, referring to planned
Japanese
attacks on the Philippines and Hawaii. The Dutch passed the
information on
to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe
found
this information so disturbing that he sent Washington a total of four
warnings, the last one going to General Marshall's intelligence chief.
Thorpe's message was acknowledged and he was ordered to send no
further
messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington
military
attaché, Colonel F. G. L. Weijerman, personally warn General
Marshall.100.
Dr. Hans Thomsen, the German charge d'affaires in Washington, who was
anti-Nazi, told Colonel William J. Donovan, American intelligence
chief (and
later head of the OSS), that the Germans intended to attack Pearl
Harbor.
This information was put into a memorandum. It is hard to believe that
Donovan would not have brought this to Roosevelt's attention since he
conferred with him several times in November and early December
1941.101
According to Congressman Martin Dies, his House Un-American Activities
Committee's investigation into Japanese intelligence activities in
1941 had
uncovered a map and other documents providing "precise information of
the
proposed attack" on Pearl Harbor. When Dies informed Secretary of
State
Hull, he was told to keep quiet on the matter because of "extremely
delicate" relations between Japan and the U.S.. Dies claimed that
representatives from the State Department and the Army and Navy
inspected
the map.102
Revelations of Knowledge About the Attack
>Revisionists also cite a number of revelations that officials of the
United
States government, including Roosevelt, had prior knowledge of the
Pearl
Harbor attack. In his November 15, 1941, secret press briefing,
Marshall
told his audience that the U.S. had information derived from encrypted
Japanese messages that war between the U.S. and Japan would break out
during
the first ten days of December. Although Marshall apparently did not
specifically mention Pearl Harbor, his reference to the cracked codes
implied that American intelligence would have been aware of the
location of
the impending attack.103
Colonel Carleton Ketchum substantiates J. Edgar Hoover's claim that
Roosevelt knew of the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor. According
to
Ketchum, at the behest of Congressmen George Bender of Ohio, he
attended a
private meeting of a select group of congressmen and government
officials in
Washington in early 1942 at which J. Edgar Hoover referred to various
warnings of the attack on Pearl Harbor that he had passed on to FDR.
Hoover also said that Roosevelt had received information on the
impending
attack from other sources. Hoover was allegedly told by Roosevelt to
keep
quiet on that matter. Ketchum said that before Hoover spoke, the
group was
reminded of their usual pledge of secrecy (confidential matters were
supposedly often discussed before the group), but that Ketchum
believed that
since the release of Toland's Infamy in 1982, which discussed similar
matters, he was freed of his pledge of secrecy. Ketchum had referred
to this
meeting and the talk on Pearl Harbor in general terms in his 1976
autobiography, in which he stated that he still observed his pledge of
silence on the specifics of what was discussed. It was this earlier
reference that helps to give Ketchum's later statement regarding
Hoover's
actual message some credibility.104
In an oral history, John A. Burns, a governor of Hawaii, said that
while he
was a police officer on the Honolulu force, an FBI agent informed him
in
early December 1941 of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Other
witnesses
identified the agent as Robert Shivers.105
Joseph Leib's Account
One of the most fascinating revelations comes from Joe Leib, a
newspaper
reporter who had formerly held posts in the Roosevelt administration.
Leib
claimed that his friend, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, confided to
him on
November 29, 1941 that President Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were
going
to attack Pearl Harbor within a few days, and that the President was
going
to let this happen as a way to get the country into war. Hull was
strongly
opposed to this scheme. He turned over to Leib a document containing
a
transcript of Japanese radio intercepts which allegedly concerned the
Pearl
Harbor plan. While making Leib promise never to reveal his source,
Hull
urged him to take the story to the press. Leib took the story to the
United
Press bureau, which it refused to run it. Although Leib did manage to
get a
version of it placed onto United Press's foreign cable, only one
newspaper
took it, the Honolulu Advertiser, which created a front-page banner
headline
in its Sunday, November 30 issue: "Japanese May Strike Over
Weekend."106
Roosevelt and the Red Cross
A recent Pearl Harbor investigator, Daryl S. Borgquist, contends that
Don C.
Smith, who directed War Services for the Red Cross before WWII, was
told by
Roosevelt in November 1941 to prepare secretly for an impending
Japanese
attack on Hawaii. This story came to light in a 1995 letter from
Smith's
daughter, Helen C. Hamman, to President Clinton dealing with the issue
of
the culpability of Admiral Kimmel and General Short, which was then
being
reconsidered by the U.S. government. Roosevelt, Ms. Hamman wrote,
told her
father that he was to keep this effort secret from the military
personnel on
Hawaii. Roosevelt said that "the American people would never agree to
enter
the war in Europe unless they were attack [sic] within their own
borders."
Borquist was able to confirm the basics of Hamman's story--the Red
Cross did
quietly send large quantities of medical supplies and experienced
medical
personnel to Hawaii shortly before Dec. 7, 1941.107
Conclusion
How is one to evaluate the various parts of the revisionist position?
The
evidence would seem to be clear that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese
to
attack the United States. It is apparent that the U.S. could have
taken
alternative policies aimed at the preservation of peace. And given
the
threat the U.S. posed to Japan in its very own geographical region, it
was
quite understandable that Japan would strike at the U.S.. Moreover,
American government officials clearly recognized that the American
policies
would push Japan into belligerency. Furthermore, it seems clear that
Roosevelt desired a Japanese attack on an American territory or ship
in
order to galvanize public support behind a declaration of war that
would
enable him to honor his commitments in the ADB agreement.
Nevertheless, some qualifications are necessary. It is not as
apparent, or
necessary for the revisionist thesis, that Roosevelt was following
some
rigid plan to achieve war with Japan going back to the first part of
1940,
as some hard revisionists such as Stinnett maintain. It is quite
conceivable that at times Roosevelt considered maintaining peace with
the
Japanese so as to focus on the European war. Moreover, it does not
seem to
have been in Roosevelt's character to have a perfectly consistent
policy--certainly this was the case in his domestic policy. As
revisionist
Frederic Sanborn opines:
Therefore it may be true that there was a complex ambivalence, not
thoroughly thought out, in Mr. Roosevelt's attitude toward the
expedience of
peace or war with Japan. It is quite possible that he did not fully
commit
himself to the latter choice until late in November 1941. By his own
express
declarations we know that he deliberately temporized. Temporizing is
sometimes merely a way to postpone making a decision, but it may also
be a
method of awaiting a favorable opportunity to put into effect a
decision
already made.108
That Roosevelt had foreknowledge of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
requires some qualifications. It is likely that not all failures to
see the
impending attack on Pearl Harbor were the result of conspiracy. As
Harry
Elmer Barnes realized, part of the reason for the failure of official
Washington to alert Hawaii was its fixation on Japanese troop
movements in
the Southeast East Asia because of the implications this had on the
ADB
agreement.109
Also as late as the first days of December, there seems to have been
extreme
nervousness among Roosevelt and his inner circle that the Japanese
might
avoid attacking American territory. Certainly, the British government
seemed to be of this opinion in its effort to get assurances from the
U.S.
that it would honor its commitment to fight the Japanese when they
moved
southward.110 And, of course, why would Roosevelt try to arrange an
incident with the three little ships if he knew the Japanese would
attack
Pearl Harbor? Perhaps, Roosevelt was aware of the possibility of the
attack
on Pearl Harbor but lacked certitude. Then again, as Harry Elmer
Barnes
implied, perhaps Roosevelt sought to save the fleet by getting the
U.S. into
the war earlier through an incident involving the little ships.
But while Roosevelt might not have been certain of the Pearl Harbor
attack,
it would seem that he was at least aware of its likelihood. There is
just
too much converging evidence to conclude otherwise--that the attack on
Pearl
Harbor took Roosevelt completely by surprise. Perhaps, some of this
evidence
can be questioned, but it is hard to question all of it. Even before
the
new information provided by Stinnett became known, Frank Paul Mintz
concluded that "the 'argument from saturation' is the most persuasive
one in
behalf of the contention that Washington was forewarned."111 If the
information provided by Stinnett is accurate--that the U.S. actually
was
reading the Japanese naval codes and was tracking the task force as it
moved
toward Hawaii--it would by itself be sufficient to prove the
revisionist
case.
Of course, a number of arguments (some mutually exclusive) have been
used to
criticize the overall revisionist position. (Earlier in this essay,
criticisms of specific revisionist points have been noted and
countered.)
One of the mildest deals with the idea that while the agencies of the
U.S.
collected information that would show that Pearl Harbor was a target,
such
information was not in Roosevelt's hands. However, Roosevelt was
actively
involved in American foreign policy decision-making, so it would seem
hard
to believe that he would be uninformed regarding intelligence issues.
And
as discussed earlier in this essay, Stinnett points out that Roosevelt
was
given access to, and was interested in, specific intelligence
information
regarding Pearl Harbor.
A more fundamental criticism of the revisionist position relies on an
argument made by Roberta Wohlstetter in Pearl Harbor: Warning and
Decisions112 that claims that American intelligence was so overwhelmed
with
information, which she refers to as "noise," that it could not make an
accurate evaluation. Wohlstetter acknowledges that in hindsight one
could
see that information pointed to a Japanese attack, but that before the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor it was impossible to select out the
valid
information, which was "imbedded in an atmosphere of 'noise.'"113
However,
it is hard to see how this could be an insurmountable problem for
intelligence gatherers. Being able to select the wheat from the chaff
is
their fundamental function. "Noise" would exist in any intelligence
situation. It is not apparent that the situation American
intelligence
faced in 1941 was vastly more complicated than what is normally the
case.
Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon write that in a "thorough search of more
than
thirty years, including all publications released up to May 1, 1981 we
have
not discovered one document or one word of sworn testimony that
substantiates the revisionist position on Roosevelt and Pearl
Harbor."114
One wonders what the authors mean here. Certainly, there is evidence
for
the revisionist case.. If Goldstein and Dillon115 use the term
"substantiate" to mean something like absolute proof, it must be
admitted
that no one document, to date, absolutely proves the revisionist case.
But
then again a single document rarely "proves" any historical argument.
It is
numerous pieces of evidence that point to one conclusion. Michael
Shermer
makes use of this "convergence of evidence" argument to prove that the
Holocaust happened and for historical proof in general.116 It would
certainly seem to be applicable to Pearl Harbor. And this argument
meshes
with Mintz's "argument from saturation."
Another criticism of the revisionist position is the rejection of the
possibility of a successful conspiracy. Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon
assume
that such a conspiracy would have had to have encompassed a large
number of
individuals.
To accept the revisionist position, one must assume that almost every
one of
those individuals, from the President on down, was a traitor.
Somewhere
along the line someone would have recalled his solemn oath to defend
the
U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and have blown the
whistle.117
But there is no need to assume a massive conspiracy because its
actions were
extremely limited--the conspirators simply refrained from sending
necessary
information to Hawaii. And there is no reason to assume that the
members of
Roosevelt's inner circle would ever publicly confess to this operation
because instead of regarding their action as traitorous, they
undoubtedly
believed that they were acting for the good of the country.
Other arguments against the revisionist thesis make assumptions about
Roosevelt's character--that he was too humanitarian to sacrifice
American
lives. Dillon and Goldstein, for example, write that "nothing in his
history suggests that this man could plot to sink American ships and
kill
thousands of American soldiers and sailors."118
But, as demonstrated by his efforts to get into the war, Roosevelt,
like
many other leaders considered great, was not squeamish about the loss
of
lives to achieve a higher good. And contrary to the Goldstein and
Dillon
scenario, revisionists do not accuse Roosevelt of actively plotting to
kill
Americans. He simply allowed the attack to take place. Moreover, as
pointed
out earlier, Roosevelt could have reasonably expected the damage to
have
been much less than it was. According to the conventional wisdom of
the
day, the battleships in Pearl Harbor were virtually invulnerable to
air
attack and the harbor was too shallow for torpedoes to be
effective.119
A related argument assumes that allowing the fleet to be destroyed was
just
too much of a risk for Roosevelt to have taken. But leaders considered
"great" have been known for taking risks--think of Napoleon, or
Alexander
the Great. And the American risk was actually not that great
considering
what Roosevelt thought to be the alternative if the U.S. did not enter
the
war--Axis domination of the world that would imperil the U.S..
Moreover,
because of the anti-war stance of the American public, Roosevelt
realistically believed that only an overt attack on the U.S. could
generate
the necessary public support for war. Thus, from Roosevelt's point of
view,
only an attack on the U.S. would enable to U.S. to take the necessary
step--i.e., war--for its survival. Any risk would be worth
it--somewhat
like the risk a terminal cancer patient takes in having a serious,
even
experimental operation, in order to stave off an otherwise unavoidable
death. But again there was no reason for Roosevelt to regard the risk
to be
of any great magnitude--certainly the security of continental U.S. was
not
endangered. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, Roosevelt could have
reasonably expected the damage to have been much less than it was.
And
Japan was not perceived as an all-powerful foe. Once the Allies,
which
included the Soviet Union, had taken care of the greatest
danger--Germany--it could reasonably be assumed that they could easily
defeat Japan.
Henry Stimson revealed in his diary that the White House proponents of
war
could see the positive results of the Pearl Harbor attack from the
very
outset:
When the news first came that Japan had attacked us my first feeling
was of
relief that the indecision was over and that a crisis had come in a
way
which would unite all our people. This continued to be my dominant
feeling
in spite of the news of catastrophes which quickly developed. For I
feel
that this country united has practically nothing to fear; while the
apathy
and divisions stirred up by unpatriotic men had been hitherto very
discouraging.120
Finally, many mainstream historians, instead of writing with any type
of
detachment, have closely identified with World War II as the "good
war," and
are automatically hostile to any ideas that might tarnish this image.
This
is quite apparent in Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon, who refer to the
Allies
as the "free world" even when Stalinist Russia is included.
Ultimately,
Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon view the revisionists as not simply
producing
erroneous history but as posing a deliberate threat to human freedom.
Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon write:
We would not devote so much space to it [the revisionist
interpretation]
except for two frightening aspects. First, such disregard for the
laws of
evidence undermines the structure of Occidental justice, so
laboriously
erected over the centuries. If contemporary documents and sworn
testimony
can be disregarded in favor of unsupported charges and personal venom,
no
citizen is safe. . . . It also recalls uncomfortably the notion so
widespread among the Germans after World War I, and such a favorite
thesis
with Hitler, that Germany did not really suffer military defeat, but
had
been stabbed in the back by politicians on the home front.121
Thus, Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon connect Pearl Harbor revisionism
with
Nazism. The emotionalism evident in such thinking can easily distort
their
writing. In short, they judge the revisionist account by much higher
standards of proof than are conventionally applied to historical
events.
It can be wondered what could possibly constitute proof of the
revisionist
argument that could satisfy adherents of the establishment position.
It
should be noted that in rejecting the revisionist thesis mainstream
historians are quite willing to abandon establishment arguments
fervently
held in the past. For example, John Prados, a proponent of the
mainstream
position, actually accepts Stinnett's contention that the Japanese
fleet
approaching Hawaii did not maintain radio silence and that American
intelligence monitored its radio transmissions. Now the radio silence
argument had been a bulwark of the mainstream position to explain why
the
Japanese task force could reach Pearl Harbor undetected. The fact
that the
mainstream historians might have been completely wrong on this crucial
point, however, does not cause Prados to consider the idea that the
revisionists might be right in their overall view. Rather, Prados
goes on
to chastise Stinnett for
attributing every failure to a nefarious 'plan,' giving no attention
to the
ambitions of certain Navy officers who wanted to dominate all
intelligence,
operations and communications services to the fleet . . . . and their
plan
was not a conspiracy to get the U.S. into World War II.122
But what evidence would be necessary to prove the revisionist thesis?
It
appears that for some establishment thinkers no type of evidence would
provide sufficient proof. Certainly, Prados' argument allows for a
pre-emptive rejection of revisionism even if the revisionist
contention that
American intelligence could read the Japanese naval codes would be
accepted
as true.
As revisionist James J. Martin aptly points out:
There are never enough data to enable one to prove an unpopular
historical
thesis. An establishment, having anchored its lines, predictably
vilifies a
rival and subjects those involved to ridicule and ultimately to
personal
detraction and traducement which goes far beyond that. This ad
hominem
denigration is expected to transfer to their intellectual product.
And no
matter what the latter put on the record, the former insist that it is
not
enough 'proof,' regardless of how flimsy or unconvincing was the
'proof'
used to create the establishment position.123
Pre-conceived ideas generally control historical observations.
Historians,
especially those who make their living in academic circles, must
necessarily
work within the paradigmatic confines of the prevailing orthodoxy,
especially where taboo topics are involved. The heretic must labor on
the
scholarly fringes, with little or no financial backing and no major
avenues
for dissemination. Perhaps this would be considered a tautology, but
it is
likely that the revisionist account of Pearl Harbor and the origins of
the
war with Japan can never receive a fair hearing in mainstream circles
until
the presentation of World War II as the "good war" is no longer of
great
instrumental value to the reigning establishment.124 Obviously, the
"good
war" scenario still serves a vital purpose as America, victorious over
the
mighty Taliban, marches forward to make the world safe from
"terrorism."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J. Sniegoski holds a Ph.D. in American diplomatic history and
is the
author of several historical articles.
Hatunen
Enlightenment) wrote:
>quasar...@yahoo.com.br (quasarstrider) wrote in message news:<14a48ff9.04081...@posting.google.com>...
>> Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<2gn9i01052bvmljg6...@4ax.com>...
>> > The US entered the war in Europe because Gemany gratuitously
>> > declared war on the USA.
>>
>> Not gratuitously. The Axis pact provided mutual protection for Germany,
>> Japan and Italy. So after Japan declared war on the US and the US declared
>> war back at Japan, they had by treaty to declare war on the US. You could
>> say Hitler should have simply ignored the treaty, after all they are just
>> pieces of paper, as he was so fond of saying. But he still wanted their help
>> to defeat the Soviets in a 2-front war. However they chickened out anyway.
>> The bastards. :-)
>
>Though it is no secret it is not realised by most is that Germany was
>grieviously provoked into declaring war on the US.
>
>Under the Roosvelt the US shiped not only vast quantities of armaments
>to the UK but actualy used the US navy to escort British ships and
>attacked u-boats and other German forces continiously and with
>determination for nearly 1 year. The u-boat commanders had been
>ordered not to fire back at great danger to themselves as Germany did
>not want to provoke war with the US and neither did surveys show that
>the US public wanted war with Germany.
>
>Roosvelt however DID want war with Germany.
All quite true.
>Given the enormous support in arm manufacture, technological
>development (eg Radar the P51), raw material and naval escorts that
>were attacking German u-boats the US was definetly NOT acting in a
>neutral manner.
>
>Indeed there is a strong case for arguing that the US was provoking
>war with Japan as a canard for war with Germany. If you look at the
>kind of people, such as Harry Morgentau, who were in the Roosvelt
>administration you will see the admin was full of people keen for war
>while at the same time many compaigned for leaving the US out of it.
>
>http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no2/ss-pearlharbor.html
>The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism
>Stephen J. Sniegoski
Put five "experts" in a room and they will come up with ten
conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor.
[....]
>Pearl Harbor. Although the Roosevelt administration had been aware of
>Japanese aggressive goals, the attack on Pearl Harbor caught it
>completely
>by surprise.
The attack was not the surprise; the location was.
[...]
>A small group of revisionist investigators have disputed this orthodox
>interpretation at almost every turn. Revisionists argue that, instead
>of
>following an aggressive plan of conquest, Japanese moves were
>fundamentally
>defensive efforts to protect vital Japanese interests.
It's no secret the Japanese felt they were being forced into war
by such things as the American-led oil embargo, or that they
hoped that they could strike rapidly and decisively since they
didn't have enough oil for more than six months of war. Unelss,
of course, they could capture the southeast Asian oil fields.
>And instead of
>seeing the U. S. simply reacting to Japanese aggression, as the
>orthodox
>version would have it, the revisionists see the U. S. goading the
>Japanese--by aiding China (with whom Japan was at war), military
>expansion,
>quasi-secret alliances, and economic warfare--to take belligerent
>actions.
Not much revisionism required there...
>Finally, some revisionists go so far as to claim that Roosevelt had
>foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor but refused to alert the
>military commanders in order to have a casus belli to galvanize the
>American
>people for war. These revisionists see the effort as part of
>Roosevelt's
They may claim as they wish, but there is no "smoking gun" I am
perfectly willing to accept it as incometence on the part of the
US government combined with a deep-rooted belief that the
yellow-skinned Asians were no match for the good ol' USA..
[umpty squatch lines deleted; I'll wait for the book to come out]
Stephen Sprunk
> Scott A Crosby wrote:
>> End-host connectivity to the internet has usually been Ethernet,
>> though with Wavelan, that may change. This was done because ethernet
>> was cheap and 'good enough' for local area networking. But once data
>> leaves the LAN, its going over ADSL, SDSL, T1, T3, WDM, DWDM, OC-3,
>> OC-48, OC-192, PPP links or any of another dozen L2 link-layer
>> protocols. Although Gigabit Ethernet has 'Ethernet' in its name, I
>> don't believe it uses a shared medium for communication, making
>> calling it with the term 'Ethernet' a misnomer. As it is, with modern
>> switched full-duplexed networks, 100baseT Ethernet is effectively a
>> point-to-point protocol with no collision or physical-layer link
>> contention.
Full-duplex operation drops CSMA/CD, which many consider to be the heart of
Ethernet, but the same framing, MAC, and LLC layers are present from the
original 3mb Ethernet all the way to 10GigE LAN Phy. 10GigE WAN Phy is the
first major deviation, and that's to achieve compatibility with SONET/SDH.
>> FYI, the Kahn and Cerf paper outlining TCP is two years older than the
>> first drawing by Metcalf describing ethernet.
>
>
> Sure. You can use anything from the orignal thick ethernet to Janet (
> parallel port network ) to .. I started my career on those technologies.
>
> But the point remains that America is slow to adopt change except in areas
> that are 'empty' and even then they tend to have instances of brain
> fatigue.
> An awful lot of research comes from the EU and they tend to adopt useful
> technology faster, despite the example of www which wasn't really
> 'planned'
> so much as 'happened'.
Not all "progress" is that. IP has its flaws, but in the end it's turned
out to be a much better model than anything else that's appeared so far.
Most of IPv4's flaws are fixed in IPv6, but some remain for backwards
compatibility.
Many europeans adopted the OSI protocol as a replacement for TCP/IP long
before the WWW happened; OSI ended up being a miserable failure in the
marketplace because it was slow, expensive, and difficult to implement --
typical of anything designed by a committee instead of a small team of
highly focused experts.
Europe has an advantage that it's easier to deploy technologies (of any
sort) because each country only considers its own costs and internal
interoperability; the US is a bit slower to deploy anything because it has
to fit a much larger user base, but once we make a decision to _do_
something, it happens pretty quick and is deployed universally.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Ian St. John
>
> Not all "progress" is that. IP has its flaws, but in the end it's
> turned out to be a much better model than anything else that's
> appeared so far. Most of IPv4's flaws are fixed in IPv6, but some
> remain for backwards compatibility.
And look at how long it has taken to get even a start at IPv6, LOOOOONG
after it was formally defined. I expect it to get into mainstream use
outside of proprietary long distance backbones in no more than a decade or
so.
>
> Many europeans adopted the OSI protocol as a replacement for TCP/IP
> long before the WWW happened;
ISO/OSI is a formal definition of a protocol stack, it is nothing to do with
TCP/IP or equivalent. TCP/IP is an *implementation* of some of the layers of
OSI.
> OSI ended up being a miserable failure
> in the marketplace because it was slow, expensive, and difficult to
> implement -- typical of anything designed by a committee instead of a
> small team of highly focused experts.
Nuts. You are clueless. The OSI formal specification is the basis for most
networking stacks. http://www.techadvice.com/tech/O/OSI_protocol.htm
>
> Europe has an advantage that it's easier to deploy technologies (of
> any sort) because each country only considers its own costs and
> internal interoperability;
That would normally be a reason to slow development, except of course, that
the EU is quicker to adopt common standards than the U.S. who tend to bicker
and fight rather than cooperate.
> the US is a bit slower to deploy anything
> because it has to fit a much larger user base, but once we make a
> decision to _do_ something, it happens pretty quick and is deployed
> universally.
The U.S. is slower to adopt standards because there is too much money to be
made by winning a monopoly on the dominant standard. Thus they work AGAINST
the definition and spread of any common standards, focussing on their own
and how to lock it up with patents and proprietary code and most of all make
a quick buck.
>
> S
Fred B. McGalliard
...
> Put five "experts" in a room and they will come up with ten
> conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor.
And 4 of them are correct, while three others so unbelievable that no one
would ever imagine them to be true are also valid.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Not all "progress" is that. IP has its flaws, but in the end it's
>> turned out to be a much better model than anything else that's
>> appeared so far. Most of IPv4's flaws are fixed in IPv6, but some
>> remain for backwards compatibility.
>
> And look at how long it has taken to get even a start at IPv6, LOOOOONG
> after it was formally defined. I expect it to get into mainstream use
> outside of proprietary long distance backbones in no more than a decade or
> so.
The driving force behind IPv6, address space depletion, was mitigated by
CIDR; it still presents many advantages over IPv4 and several countries
(China, Japan, Korea, various parts of Africa) are moving to IPv6 now
because they can't get enough IPv4 addresses to serve their users even with
CIDR.
>> Many europeans adopted the OSI protocol as a replacement for TCP/IP
>> long before the WWW happened;
>
> ISO/OSI is a formal definition of a protocol stack, it is nothing to do
> with
> TCP/IP or equivalent. TCP/IP is an *implementation* of some of the layers
> of
> OSI.
You're referring to the OSI _model_, which is described in ISO TR 9575. The
OSI _protocol stack_ is defined in ISO 8648, 8348, 8306, 8307, 9548, 8822,
8823, etc.
See, the OSI _protocol stack_ is so dead in the market you don't even know
it existed. But it did, and Europeans drove the entire effort through
academia, the ISO, ITU, the market, and eventually into the ground.
Americans were content to stick with the simpler, more elegant IPv4 and won
in the end.
>> OSI ended up being a miserable failure
>> in the marketplace because it was slow, expensive, and difficult to
>> implement -- typical of anything designed by a committee instead of a
>> small team of highly focused experts.
>
> Nuts. You are clueless. The OSI formal specification is the basis for most
> networking stacks. http://www.techadvice.com/tech/O/OSI_protocol.htm
The OSI _model_ was developed long after the TCP/IP model, which only has
four layers. In fact, the OSI model was an attempt to fight IBM's
well-marketed seven-layer Systems Network Architecture -- which is still in
heavy use today, though mostly as tunnels across IP networks. Its use today
as applied to TCP/IP is actually confusing, since layers 5 and 6 don't exist
in modern networks, layer 2 is actually two separate layers, etc.
me
> >Finally, some revisionists go so far as to claim that Roosevelt had
> >foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor but refused to alert the
> >military commanders in order to have a casus belli to galvanize the
> >American
> >people for war. These revisionists see the effort as part of
> >Roosevelt's
>
> They may claim as they wish, but there is no "smoking gun" I am
> perfectly willing to accept it as incometence on the part of the
> US government combined with a deep-rooted belief that the
> yellow-skinned Asians were no match for the good ol' USA..
Folks tend to forget that communications then, were not what
they were today. Additionally, the military was not then, what
we know today. Washington was primarily concerned with protecting
their code breaking successes. Much of the behavior of Washington
can be explained away as merely protecting their code breaking
activities from detection. Potentially incompetent decisions,
but ones which were common at the time.
Hatunen
wrote:
Not to mention womewhat imperfect translation of coded messages
from the Japanese along with a lack of understanding of some of
the nuances of Japanese, and the fact that there was a lot of
coded traffic so one or two important messages were hard to see
in the crowd, except, of course, by hindsight.
Stephen Sprunk
news:oydsmaj...@bert.cs.rice.edu...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:13:22 -0400, "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca>
> writes:
>> "if you build it, they will come". Fact is that the barrier to HSR is the
>> fact that there is no HSR and therefore no incentive to denser
>> communities.
>
> An interesting conjecture. Maybe when/if the US grows to a population
> of a billion or so, we'll see more HSR.
The key is population density, not absolute population. The Northeast US
has a population density today of 787ppl/sqmi, which puts it above many
countries with successful HSR...
S. Korea: 1248ppl/sqmi; Japan: 867ppl/sqmi; Germany: 601ppl/sqmi; France:
281ppl/sqmi; Spain: 205ppl/sqmi
The rest of the US is at the low end of that or below; Florida's population
density is only 272ppl/sqmi, and the Midwest's is even lower. California is
213ppl/sqmi and Texas' is a platry 78ppl/sqmi. The US overall is
76ppl/sqmi.
However, there are pockets of high-density areas in the US, not surprisingly
located around rail stations. My neighborhood, for instance, is around
22,000ppl/sqmi and that's a ten-fold increase since rail transit was added.
If you build it, they _do_ come. NYC's average density of 25,000ppl/sqmi
would be impossible if it weren't for the subway. The key to HSR is
density, and the key to density is transit.
>> Mainly because U.S. trains had establihsed themselves as slow, noisy and
>> with no fixed schedule. Given the lack of progress in train technology,
>> being 'leapfrogged' by air is logical.
>
> Could you explain why you think US passenger rail declined in the
> 50's?
The American obsession with private cars and the accompanying development of
suburbs that made local transit ineffective for the majority of people.
Once people have paid the cost for a car (or several), there is a natural
tendency to use it even for those trips which would be more efficiently
served by other modes. Hence, people who formerly took rail for long trips
started driving instead, and with the establishment of the EIHS would likely
get to their destination much faster as well.
Air is a different beast; the airline industry created a new market and the
demand for its services. HSR in other countries has effectively taken part
of that new market (or denied air entry into its own market) but Amtrak
never had the funding to do that here.
> The northeast corridor is the rare place where trains in the US can
> compete with air or automobile. How about in the other 90% of the
> country?
There are many other places where HSR can compete with air time-wise, but
nobody has the budget to build them. Steel-wheel trains will never compete
for long-distance business, but in the short-haul markets served by
"regional" airlines, rail would have a lower cost of service once the tracks
were in place.