Another Transit Dream Proves Worthless-at $12 Billion
Sancho Panza
Speculating in Worthless Stock While the Trains Speed to London
PARIS
AT the age of 10, the Eurotunnel can be considered a success. Trains whisk
travelers between London and Paris in two and a half hours, less time than
it takes to get from New York to Washington.
Financially, however, Eurotunnel is in "a stable equilibrium of failure,''
as Richard Shirrefs, the company's chief executive, put it as he proposed
yet another restructuring, one that was long on talk and short on details.
Eurotunnel was supposed to be a private-sector company. Margaret Thatcher,
then the British prime minister, was adamant about it when the tunnel under
the English Channel was being planned in the 1980's. But it was never really
a commercial proposition. So there were fudges and absurdly optimistic
forecasts, not just at the beginning but during repeated restructurings.
Lewis Carroll's promise of jam tomorrow but never jam today should resonate
with shareholders. When Eurotunnel sold shares in 1987, dividends were
forecast in 1995. By 1990, the jam was expected to arrive in 1999. In 1997,
dividends were forecast for 2006.
Now 2006 looks like the year of disaster if nothing is done. Eurotunnel is
paying its bills now only because the British and French railroads pay for
capacity they do not use. Those excess payments bring in about 30 percent of
Eurotunnel's revenues, and the contract requiring the payments ends that
year.
After repeated restructurings, Eurotunnel has so many different layers of
debt that it is almost impossible to keep track. Michael Wilkins, a managing
director at Standard & Poor's, says Eurotunnel's senior debt is investment
grade, but its lowest-rated debt is in the low junk category, and there are
billions in debt below that, "most of it toxic waste."
The toxic waste ought to be close to worthless, but it is regularly
purchased at a discount by the company, which expects people to view lower
debt levels as a sign of progress. It gets the money to do that by selling
tax losses to other British companies. That is a peculiarly inefficient way
for the government to subsidize Eurotunnel, through reduced tax payments
from profitable companies, but at least it keeps the subsidies off the
government's budget. (The French government evidently does not allow that
game to be played with its taxes.)
The shares are down about 90 percent from the 1987 offering, but they are
still wildly overvalued. This week, they lost 20 percent of their value in
the two days after the bad news came out, but then recovered a bit as
speculators came back in. Institutional investors have long since abandoned
the stock, leaving it largely to French individuals, who really poured in
last year as the shares tripled from their lows on some unrealistic
optimism.
With officials unwilling to admit that the shares have no intrinsic value,
there is a potential for mischief. A group of shareholders wants to throw
out management at this year's annual meeting. Mr. Shirrefs says the
dissidents' strategies "are neither consistent nor credible," but in
reality, he has little to offer shareholders either.
What is really needed is a plan to reduce debt, now £6.3 billion, or about
$11.9 billion, by at least half. Then the company might be able to cut fees
for trains. That would increase use of the tunnel, as Mr. Shirrefs says is
necessary. But his talk of a global settlement involving competitors and
governments seems vague and could run into a host of problems.
Shedding that much debt would require unpleasant truths to be faced. Don't
be surprised if the result is another half measure, assuring the need for
yet another restructuring, employing more investment banks. Four are already
working on this restructuring, and more may be added. At least someone is
profiting.
Martin Edwards
>Financially, however, Eurotunnel is in "a stable equilibrium of failure,''
>as Richard Shirrefs, the company's chief executive, put it as he proposed
>yet another restructuring, one that was long on talk and short on details.
>
which has to make money, while roads are a public good which is paid
for out of taxation.
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.
Eddy Valiant.
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/
Brian Robinson OR Carol Goter Robinson OR Bill Robinson
> >
> >Financially, however, Eurotunnel is in "a stable equilibrium of failure,''
> >as Richard Shirrefs, the company's chief executive, put it as he proposed
> >yet another restructuring, one that was long on talk and short on details.
> >
> It has never been adequately explained why railways are a business
> which has to make money, while roads are a public good which is paid
> for out of taxation.
And if roads are paid by user fees and pay their way, why haven't we
privatized all the arterials? Nothing is preventing a private company
from charging its users gas fees for the privilege of using the roads.
--BER
Robert Coté
Big...@netscape.net (Martin Edwards) wrote:
> >
> >Financially, however, Eurotunnel is in "a stable equilibrium of failure,''
> >as Richard Shirrefs, the company's chief executive, put it as he proposed
> >yet another restructuring, one that was long on talk and short on details.
> >
> It has never been adequately explained why railways are a business
> which has to make money, while roads are a public good which is paid
> for out of taxation.
>
False premise yeilds false conclusion. Roads are a public good
administered by public control but paid by beneficiaries. Wre this
standard applied to rail transit a ticket tax on top of full operating
costs fares would be in place. Don't get me wrong, this is just about
person transport. Rail is a wonderful, efficient, congestion reducing,
safe way to move many goods, just not people. Whether rail transport is
public or private isn't the issue, at issue is full cost recovery. For
rail it is well within a conservative business model to make a profit
moiving cargo and well nigh impossible moving people. Thus with no
profit rail transit falls on government to subsidize.
In this special case of the Eurotunnel (notice the shift away from
Chunnel) it is a business because it was sold as a business both to the
public and the respective governments. I see nothing wrong and much
right about letting the business part fail, let a new company come in an
fail, until someone gets it right.
Martin Edwards
>Chunnel) it is a business because it was sold as a business both to the
>public and the respective governments. I see nothing wrong and much
>right about letting the business part fail, let a new company come in an
>fail, until someone gets it right.
While this is true, it was bound to be done that way at the time, ie
during the Thatcher-Reagan axis, not because of public opinion but
because of the ruling ideology. Thatcher came to power not because
most people were Friedmanite, but because Labour was down the toilet.
Many, possibly most, Europeans now see it as an essential part of the
emerging European infrastructure.
Jon Bell
or Paris, or is planning a branch to the other side of the Big Pond, this
is off-topic for both m.t.r.a and m.t.u-t. m.t.r.e added, and followups
set to go there only.]
In article <c0kgtt$7qd$1...@news.monmouth.com>,
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Jeff W
Eurotunnel is
paying its bills now only because the British and French railroads pay
for
capacity they do not use. Those excess payments bring in about 30
percent of
Eurotunnel's revenues, and the contract requiring the payments ends
that
year.
This is written as a suprise/shock or just a fact. Because I always
say that like hotels and airlines, passenger rail is a service all the
same. And as the two former modes of travel, this is all standard
contract things. Airlines contract with hotel rooms for crew, pay for
them if they use 'em or not, etc.
Just hopping it's all a matter of fact story and not sometype of usual
muckraking.
Robert Coté
Big...@netscape.net (Martin Edwards) wrote:
> >In this special case of the Eurotunnel (notice the shift away from
> >Chunnel) it is a business because it was sold as a business both to the
> >public and the respective governments. I see nothing wrong and much
> >right about letting the business part fail, let a new company come in an
> >fail, until someone gets it right.
>
> While this is true, it was bound to be done that way at the time, ie
> during the Thatcher-Reagan axis, not because of public opinion but
> because of the ruling ideology. Thatcher came to power not because
> most people were Friedmanite, but because Labour was down the toilet.
> Many, possibly most, Europeans now see it as an essential part of the
> emerging European infrastructure.
>
Interesting. First that Reagan enters the issue at all. Second that
market interests are only politically viable when all other prospects
are exausted. Third that the project is now of European character
rather than it's one time British/French labeling. The same public that
elected The Iron Lady was in no mood to shoulder the costs of the
Channel Tunnel as well. The Chunnel was and remains a good idea that
isn't priced right. Blaming the project debt problems on Thatcherism is
a stretch. One of the problems is that "right pricing" would probably
load the capacity with cargo at the expense of passenger service.
Brian Robinson OR Carol Goter Robinson OR Bill Robinson
> So if a freight operates from Brussels to London, a distance most
> US class 1s won't bother to serve,
Interesting, they are surely a couple hundred miles apart. I'm sure
you could find a US railroad willing to serve an origin/destination
pair a couple hundred miles apart, provided they were a regular customer!
> the train will first have a loco change and a crew change at the
> border to France, travel a few miles to the tunnel, have another loco
> change and crew change at the tunnel entrance, travel trough the
> tunnel, will have another loco change and crew change in Ashford...
>
> Of course, such operation can't compete with truck. Even though the
> trucks have to be loaded on railroad cars, they loose less time.
Here in the US, all I ever hear on the advertisements the railroads
put out and the announcements about how wonderful railroad transport
is all about truck terminals, how every train of the future will
carry 500 trucks (not truckloads) and how wonderful they are for the
environment, etc. This makes me about as excited about rail transport
as the ads on the Metro telling me that "your transit system is 100%
powered by clean, all-American COAL"
--BER
bras...@despammed.com
Robinson OR Bill Robinson <wr...@erols.com> wrote:
> Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>
> > So if a freight operates from Brussels to London, a distance most
> > US class 1s won't bother to serve,
>
> Interesting, they are surely a couple hundred miles apart. I'm sure
> you could find a US railroad willing to serve an origin/destination
> pair a couple hundred miles apart, provided they were a regular customer!
Depends on the company. The four biggest companies in the USA would
probably not be interested in talking to anyone moving stuff under 300
miles, unless it was a large coal fired power plant with several trains a
day serving it.
As they are common carriers, they do have to accept shipments for less
distance than that, but it would take a lot of effort on the part of the
customer to be able to get the railroad willing to take it.
I remember talking to someone who had dealings with Conrail, and their
minimum ship distance at the time was some 100 miles. The customer had to
ship stuff to a siding in the middle of nowhere and then back to their
location in order to move the shipment. It was material that could not be
easily moved by truck.
Here is an example of how the large railroad companies normally treat
short range shipments:
Here in Portland, there is a plant that grinds up scrap metal from all
over the metropolitan area. This scrap metal is then sent to a steel mill
in McMinnville, Oregon, which is a distance of under 100 miles. From
southeast Portland to McMinnville, the railroad movement is over a short
line company called Portland & Western. Within the city itself, it moves
in the Portland switching district tariff area and by means of one of the
"big four" railroads in the USA.
It normally takes about 5-8 days for cars loaded with scrap metal to go
from north to southeast Portland - all of about 10 miles. It then takes
all of 1 day for the cars to get to the steel mill in McMinnville and
return. It then takes another 5-8 days to retrun the empties to the metal
shredding facility. The average cycle time is 17 days - only one day of
which involves the cars moving a signficant distance.
Please understand that these are not exactly small shipments. I've seen
as many as 35 loaded cars (and the cars carry as much as 80 to 100 tons of
scrap metal each) in trains headed for McMinnville. So, this isn't
exactly a one or two cars per day movement.
Unfortunately, Hajo is correct when it comes to the large railroad
companies. The four large companies are really only interested in the
very largest of customers, and to most others they appear as huge
ponderous bureaucracies. The regionals and short lines, however, have
made a lot of progress when it comes to making money on the short-haul
markets - markets that the large companies gave up on years ago. However,
the regionals can only reach so far before their capacity is constraned by
their connection to the outside world.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
John McCoy
news:402debe7...@news.btinternet.com:
> It has never been adequately explained why railways are a business
> which has to make money, while roads are a public good which is paid
> for out of taxation.
In the specific case of the Eurotunnel, the flaw in your arguement
is calling it a "public good". Many on the British side would not
agree with that, from the start of the tunnel project (since the
French seem to view the tunnel as a good way to get rid of
undesirables stored at the refugee camp at Sangatte, British
opinion has not improved in recent times).
John
Philip Nasadowski
Brian Robinson OR Carol Goter Robinson OR Bill Robinson
<wr...@erols.com> wrote:
> Interesting, they are surely a couple hundred miles apart. I'm sure
> you could find a US railroad willing to serve an origin/destination
> pair a couple hundred miles apart, provided they were a regular customer!
Regular, as in a few mile long trains a week. Otherwise, they won't
return your call.
> Here in the US, all I ever hear on the advertisements the railroads
> put out and the announcements about how wonderful railroad transport
> is all about truck terminals, how every train of the future will
> carry 500 trucks (not truckloads) and how wonderful they are for the
> environment, etc.
Given US locomotive emission standards? The trucking industry (heck,
ANY other segment of the transport industry) would kill to have such lax
regulation. Even 'low emissions' locomotive spew visable messes of
particulates, and other wonderful stuff (the LIRR's new fleet was the
supposed 'low emissions' type, and the roofs are covered with a layer of
oil. This is 'normal' according to EMD. There are heavy soot marks on
the underside of even new overpasses). No EGR, no catalysts - even EFI
is regarded as 'new' technology. IIRC, the average EMD or GE prime
mover wouldn't even be allowed as a stationary engine these days without
major changes.
> This makes me about as excited about rail transport
> as the ads on the Metro telling me that "your transit system is 100%
> powered by clean, all-American COAL"
Well, the AAR is about the only proponent of coal besides a few
utilities out west which have acient coal burning plants. nobody else
pretends that coal is clean. Of course, a major shift from coal would
sink a few RRs, since it's the only thing US freight operators can
handle without totally screwing up these days. It is probbably, by far,
the dirtiest way to generate electricity known to man. In the northeast,
getting a coal burner built is probbably all but impossible by now, the
last in lower NY closed decades ago. BTW, the NY Times magazine had an
article on a coal plant out west (Ohio?). The owner's novel 'soultion'
to pollution was to by up the surrounding town. I wouldn't let the
enviro's off the hook either - instead of trying to get some - ANY -
progress, they instead insist on drastic insanity like new source
review, etc.
Sancho Panza
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc2sob6.48v...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>Which leads to the conclusion, that for the anonymous
> coward hiding behind "Sancho Panza",
Maybe for people for whom $12 billion is chump change, the unprovoked
issuing of personal insults is de rigeur. There could also be other reasons
why the writer does not directly address the source of the report, a rather
reputable publication in these parts. But, then again, such intemperate
reactions are what lead many people to reclassify such devotees as over the
top.
Jordan Bettis
> BTW, the NY Times magazine had an article on a coal plant out west
> (Ohio?).
Since when has Ohio been "out west?"
If you need a map of the US, you can borrow mine.
--
Jordan Bettis -- Chicago Il.
<http://neighborhoods.chicago.il.us>
Photographs of Life in the Neighborhoods of Chicago
David Jensen
in <87wu6pt...@trillian.hafd.org>:
>Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> writes:
>
>> BTW, the NY Times magazine had an article on a coal plant out west
>> (Ohio?).
>
>Since when has Ohio been "out west?"
Since it was west of the Hudson and not on the ocean.
>
>If you need a map of the US, you can borrow mine.
He's got one. It's from the New Yorker.
--
Proselytizer in Washington Square Park: "We have congregations all
over."
Me: "I'm from Wisconsin."
Proselytizer: "We don't have anything north of Boston."
Me: [quietly waits for proselytizer to leave as I sit in stunned
confusion]
bras...@despammed.com
<jor...@hafd.org> wrote:
> Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> writes:
>
> > BTW, the NY Times magazine had an article on a coal plant out west
> > (Ohio?).
>
> Since when has Ohio been "out west?"
He's probably talking about what happens after the predicted "Big One"
(west coast earthqueake) and everything west of Lake Michigan falls into
the Pacific.
However, I remember that in the 1980's and early 1990's, the Useless
Snooze & World Distort used to publish a college and university evaluation
every year. Their georgraphic categories included one called "Midwest and
West" that lumped Ohio and Oregon into the same geographic category.
Jon Bell
Oh, since about 1790 or whenever the Northwest Territory was established.
:-)
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
(who was born in the onetime capital of the Connecticut Western Reserve,
today's northeast Ohio)
Brian Robinson OR Carol Goter Robinson OR Bill Robinson
What's even creepier is when Washington Metro assembled its last 3 batches
of subway cars (including one shipped into Baltimore's freight terminal and
one from a plant in NY state) they have adopted the policy of TRUCKING them
from Baltimore/NY to the rail yard for delivery and have essentially closed
Metro's freight siding (which was used to deliver the initial shipment).
The assembly plants and freight terminals of course have more rail access
than just about any other US manufacturer.
This shows you just how broken our rail freight system is in the US when
it comes to fair competition with the roads (and within the system).
Profitable, yes -- but then many systems that rely on cherry-picking and
gouging the little guy are profitable...
--BER
Brian Robinson OR Carol Goter Robinson OR Bill Robinson
> Well, the AAR is about the only proponent of coal besides a few
> utilities out west which have acient coal burning plants. nobody else
> pretends that coal is clean. Of course, a major shift from coal would
> sink a few RRs, since it's the only thing US freight operators can
> handle without totally screwing up these days. It is probbably, by far,
> the dirtiest way to generate electricity known to man. In the northeast,
> getting a coal burner built is probbably all but impossible by now, the
> last in lower NY closed decades ago.
DC has not one but two coal plants in the heart of the metro area --
one in the middle of Anacostia and one smack dab in Old Town Alexandria.
Presumably due to easy acccess to mountaintop removal facilities in WV.
(I'd rather see Kerry lose WV than support mountaintop removal.)
Martin Edwards
>elected The Iron Lady was in no mood to shoulder the costs of the
>Channel Tunnel as well. The Chunnel was and remains a good idea that
>isn't priced right. Blaming the project debt problems on Thatcherism is
>a stretch.
I wasn't blaming Thatcherism for the debt problems, but for the fact
that it had to be sold as a business proposition at all.
One of the problems is that "right pricing" would probably
>load the capacity with cargo at the expense of passenger service.
Good point.
Martin Edwards
>Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> writes:
>
>> BTW, the NY Times magazine had an article on a coal plant out west
>> (Ohio?).
>
>Since when has Ohio been "out west?"
>
>If you need a map of the US, you can borrow mine.
>
It may not be now, but it was once. Once, Harrisburg was the
frontier.
Martin Edwards
(Sigh) No more heroes any more.
Philip Nasadowski
> Since when has Ohio been "out west?"
Well, it's west of me, and it's out a ways, so yeah, it's "Out west".
yes, i realize it still qualifies as the eastern/middle part of the US,
but it's still quite a ways west from me, thus it's "out west". Not all
the way, but still out a bit. just like i call the east end of LI "out
east", even though it's not that far from me (I suppose Europe would be
out weast now, wouldn't it?)
Sancho Panza
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
> Posting nonsense without any attempt of a reality check, while hiding
> identity, is cowardish behaviour to me.
Why don't you call one of the world's most resepected newspapers cowards? In
the last year, they have become far more open to corrections and other
comments from the public. But maybe that is too big a target to pick on.
Better to go after the small fry, huh?
Martin Edwards
To which paper do you refer, and how do you know how many people
respect it?
Sancho Panza
"Martin Edwards" <Big...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4031131f...@news.btinternet.com...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:52:12 -0500, "Sancho Panza"
it?
Presumably, it shouldn't be too difficult to check the original reference
before posing a tendentious question. It was posted less than two days ago
and should continue to appear on most news readers. If it doesn't, please
alert.
David Lesher
>What's even creepier is when Washington Metro assembled its last 3 batches
>of subway cars (including one shipped into Baltimore's freight terminal and
>one from a plant in NY state) they have adopted the policy of TRUCKING them
>from Baltimore/NY to the rail yard for delivery and have essentially closed
>Metro's freight siding (which was used to deliver the initial shipment).
>The assembly plants and freight terminals of course have more rail access
>than just about any other US manufacturer.
Better, the CAF plant in Hunt Valley MD is on a rail line, but lacks
a rail head.
And when I bring up the question of dragging those new Metro cars
to their users, I get a chorus of 'You can't do that' responses
equal to the Navy brass when Henry Kaiser told FDR that HE could
build ships on a production basis... and did.
The railroad business has gotten as inbred as Ma Bell was pre
1984/MFJ. It will need lots of genetic manipulation and soon, or
it will be too late.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
David Lesher
NE Ohio was officially the "Western Reserve"...
The OP was likely a New Yorker who's never been across the Hudson.
Bill Bolton
> Presumably, it shouldn't be too difficult to check the original reference
> before posing a tendentious question.
Even more presumably, you could have simply answered the question.
Your non-answer has exposed your true colours well enough.
Bill
Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia
John R Cambron
Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>
> David Lesher schrieb:
>
> > And when I bring up the question of dragging those new Metro cars
> > to their users, I get a chorus of 'You can't do that' responses
>
> Of course you can. See
> http://www.xilo.de/465/bau/cfr02kg080103.html
>
> The unit will get an old freight car at each end, which have the
> automated couplers commonly used by modern passenger rail MUs. The brakes
> of the MU unit will be switched off, with the freight cars at each end
> being responsible for the required brake power.
>
> Switching off the brakes is necessary, since the receiver won't consider
> it funny, if the new MU arrives with flat spots. The problem with the
> coupler does not need explanation.
>
> The principle works well, if the unit carries standard automated
> couplers. Some Metro systems have chosen their very own coupler system,
> though.
> In order to set up special adapter cars for these couplers, it must be a
> /very/ big order. ;-)
Common practice in the United States in the past for delivering
rail transit vehicles from the manufactures assembly plant to
to the transit property was loaded aboard specially fitted TOFC
fat car. This was how the Rohr cars were delivered to bart and
WMATA.
--
======================================================================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or >>>Hebron<<< MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
James Robinson
>
> Common practice in the United States in the past for delivering
> rail transit vehicles from the manufactures assembly plant to
> to the transit property was loaded aboard specially fitted TOFC
> fat car. This was how the Rohr cars were delivered to bart and
> WMATA.
The BART cars were delivered by truck. I can recall passing them on
highway 101 on their way north from Los Angeles.
The WMATA cars were indeed delivered by rail.
John R Cambron
Correction noted.
> The WMATA cars were indeed delivered by rail.
--
Martin Edwards
Why was my question tendentious, and to which paper do you refer?
Jeff nor Lisa
> The BART cars were delivered by truck. I can recall passing them on
> highway 101 on their way north from Los Angeles.
>
> The WMATA cars were indeed delivered by rail.
The 1960-61 Phila Market-Frankford cars were delivered by
truck. This made sense since it was a relatively short and
easy drive from the Budd Company's Red Lion plant to the
Frankford El terminal; while a rail routing would have been
circuitous.
I don't know how the recent Mkt-Fkd "M4" cars were delivered.
I've heard that some subway cars were delivered on their own
wheels rather than on a flatcar, but cannot confirm. It would
seem strange to do so because of braking differences of a freight
train.
David Lesher
>I've heard that some subway cars were delivered on their own
>wheels rather than on a flatcar, but cannot confirm. It would
>seem strange to do so because of braking differences of a freight
>train.
Why? You have say 6 cars ready to go to the Left Coast.
I can see 1 mover, one converter/HEP flatcar, and then the six cars.
The converter provides the needed coupler interchange, and enough
750VDC power to run the controls on the cars in question. (The big
power demand would be air compressors; you can supply head-end air
instead...) A reasonable amount of conversion electronics allows
brake control from up front.
But is it even needed? I.e: can one locomotive + one flatcar brake
a 7 car train where the car weights are [fill in what CAF cars
weigh..]? I don't know but bet you guys do.
But the 'flat spots' brings up a good question. Do any current cars
have antilock brakes? I'd assumed new ones would; they appear to be
a successful in both car and heavy trucks to date. Obviously rail
cars would be an issue, but transit cars should be straightforward.
[Please note none of this says anything about putting the 6 in the
middle of a hopper car string...]
David Lesher
>Common practice in the United States in the past for delivering
>rail transit vehicles from the manufactures assembly plant to
>to the transit property was loaded aboard specially fitted TOFC
>fat car. This was how the Rohr cars were delivered to bart and
>WMATA.
But not subsequent cars, from what John has said in the past. They
came by truck.
I keep wondering if the
<http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-38/Medium/EC00-0212-16.jpg>
will be used to deliver the next order of Metro cars...
John R Cambron
I recall reading somewhere and seeing photos of the NYCTA R46
being delivered on there own wheels from Pullman Standard in
special freight trains. I also recall the recently retired
NYCTA Red Birds R33 were also delivered on there own wheels
from Saint Louis Car Company.
James Robinson
>
> Why? You have say 6 cars ready to go to the Left Coast.
>
> I can see 1 mover, one converter/HEP flatcar, and then the six cars.
While it might be technically feasible, it would also probably be
cost-prohibitive. First there is the cost of setting up the flatcar,
then the cost of running a short, special train, all of which would have
to be recovered from the shipper. The truckers would probably be able
to undercut the price the railways would want to charge.
> But is it even needed? I.e: can one locomotive + one flatcar brake
> a 7 car train where the car weights are [fill in what CAF cars
> weigh..]? I don't know but bet you guys do.
Not likely. You would probably need one or two additional cars to
provide sufficient braking.
> Do any current cars have antilock brakes?
They pretty well all do. Antilock brakes on rail passenger equipment go
back to the 1950s. They were adaptations of those used on aircraft.
Access Systems
> John R Cambron wrote:
>> Common practice in the United States in the past for delivering
>> rail transit vehicles from the manufactures assembly plant to
>> to the transit property was loaded aboard specially fitted TOFC
>> fat car. This was how the Rohr cars were delivered to bart and
> highway 101 on their way north from Los Angeles.
> The WMATA cars were indeed delivered by rail.
and I some years ago passed some trucks with California double deck cars
headed up I-81 in Penn. (probably shells but they were mostly
covered) even pulled over and got a photo or two. maybe the biggest cars
I've seen trucked. Baltimore Light Rail vehicles were also trucked
in.
both obviously special permit oversized loads
Bob
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail acce...@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
Steve Lackey
> The same public that
> >elected The Iron Lady was in no mood to shoulder the costs of the
> >Channel Tunnel as well. The Chunnel was and remains a good idea that
> >isn't priced right. Blaming the project debt problems on Thatcherism is
> >a stretch.
>
> I wasn't blaming Thatcherism for the debt problems, but for the fact
> that it had to be sold as a business proposition at all.
>
> One of the problems is that "right pricing" would probably
> >load the capacity with cargo at the expense of passenger service.
>
> Good point.
This is only a problem if you agree that moving people deserves
subsidy. Otherwise, if we expect the project to be self-financing
while engaging in business that is an inherent loss, we're being a little
dishonest.
The whole idea of providing maximum public service and still running
a profit is a little suspicious. What you CAN do is just minimimize the
losses, that's about it. How much "loss" do they think is "efficient" to
maintain passenger service?
Brian Robinson OR Carol Goter Robinson OR Bill Robinson
> > Here in the US, all I ever hear on the advertisements the railroads
> > put out and the announcements about how wonderful railroad transport
> > is all about truck terminals, how every train of the future will
> > carry 500 trucks (not truckloads) and how wonderful they are for the
> > environment, etc.
>
> Passenger transport in the USA has the lowest energy efficiency of any
> country on planet earth.
>
> In contrast, freight transport in the USA looks much better for the ton
> mile. And the single reason for this is the high modal share (about 40%)
> of railfreight. Therefore, the claim is true without doubt.
This statement ignores what happens to all those trucks at both ends.
Hint: I bet you wouldn't want to live near a rail freight terminal.
Sancho Panza
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc31ahe.k48...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
> Posting nonsense without any attempt of a reality check, while hiding
> identity, is cowardish behaviour to me.
It appears that the insult is directed solely to someone who disagrees with
a given position. Other pseudonymous posters are not subjected to such
treatement. At any rate, here is another report about chump change, this
time $8.2 billion, from the same questionable source. You have to wonder how
the local press covers such an inconsequential story.
"The futuristic system, which is designed to track and collect tolls from
trucks with a network of satellites and wireless transmitters, was supposed
to set the standard for Europe and the world.
Instead, it has become a humiliating symbol to many here of the decline of
German engineering.
The German government has threatened to hold DaimlerChrysler and its
partner, Deutsche Telekom, liable for damages in excess of 6.5 billion euros
($8.2 billion). The companies are already paying 250,000 euros a day in
fines, a penalty that will increase to 500,000 euros a day next month."
NY Times 2/20/04
Martin Edwards
>of subway cars (including one shipped into Baltimore's freight terminal and
>one from a plant in NY state) they have adopted the policy of TRUCKING them
>from Baltimore/NY to the rail yard for delivery and have essentially closed
>Metro's freight siding (which was used to deliver the initial shipment).
>The assembly plants and freight terminals of course have more rail access
>than just about any other US manufacturer.
>
>This shows you just how broken our rail freight system is in the US when
>it comes to fair competition with the roads (and within the system).
>Profitable, yes -- but then many systems that rely on cherry-picking and
>gouging the little guy are profitable...
>
>--BER
Interestingly this goes back to the days of the opening up of the loan
prairie. Shipments of equipment would often go past the destination
to the nearest main town, then back again and the farmers would be
charged for the whole distance. A rural political movement called the
Grangers was formed to protest this sort of thing.
Hank Tiffany
> >What's even creepier is when Washington Metro assembled its last 3 batches
> >of subway cars (including one shipped into Baltimore's freight terminal and
> >one from a plant in NY state) they have adopted the policy of TRUCKING them
> >from Baltimore/NY to the rail yard for delivery and have essentially closed
> >Metro's freight siding (which was used to deliver the initial shipment).
> >The assembly plants and freight terminals of course have more rail access
> >than just about any other US manufacturer.
> >
> >This shows you just how broken our rail freight system is in the US when
> >it comes to fair competition with the roads (and within the system).
> >Profitable, yes -- but then many systems that rely on cherry-picking and
> >gouging the little guy are profitable...
> >
> >--BER
>
> Interestingly this goes back to the days of the opening up of the loan
> prairie. Shipments of equipment would often go past the destination
> to the nearest main town, then back again and the farmers would be
> charged for the whole distance. A rural political movement called the
> Grangers was formed to protest this sort of thing.
Which of course is when (1870's & 80's) the railroads were cast as
THE Evil Monopoly which led to the over-regulation of the 20th
Century and the the massive subsidys to any other mode, so as to
cut down the Evil Railroads, which remained the mainstream policy
until at least 1980, arguably until 2004, and put us in the mess
we're in now...
Hank
--
Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small
Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all
Aidan Stanger
> This is only a problem if you agree that moving people deserves
> subsidy. Otherwise, if we expect the project to be self-financing
> while engaging in business that is an inherent loss, we're being a little
> dishonest.
>
> The whole idea of providing maximum public service and still running
> a profit is a little suspicious. What you CAN do is just minimimize the
> losses, that's about it. How much "loss" do they think is "efficient" to
> maintain passenger service?
That idea's not suspicious at all. The airlines and ferries do!
Philip Nasadowski
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
> "The futuristic system, which is designed to track and collect tolls from
> trucks with a network of satellites and wireless transmitters, was supposed
> to set the standard for Europe and the world.
Geez, and EZpass's implementation is messy? At least it works and
hasn't been a mess, though there's been a few amusing flaws that popped
up. Ok, NJ screwed up bigtime, but NY's implementation was smooth
enough.
> Instead, it has become a humiliating symbol to many here of the decline of
> German engineering.
Try a recent VW. Not like your old bug. Oddly, Trains mag had a
section on overrated/underrated things in railroading. The French
system was deemed overrated, the *British* was deemed underrated. If
anything, I think the German system is underrated, since they seem to be
the innovators now.
> The German government has threatened to hold DaimlerChrysler and its
> partner, Deutsche Telekom, liable for damages in excess of 6.5 billion euros
> ($8.2 billion). The companies are already paying 250,000 euros a day in
> fines, a penalty that will increase to 500,000 euros a day next month."
Heh. I'm waiting for T to start doing local and LD service in the US,
they're already big into wireless, though I don't think many people know
who T is anyway - they just call the service T Mobile, and make no
mention of being the (only?) German phone company...
Jack May
"Aidan Stanger" <st...@iweb.net.au> wrote in message
news:1g9i3xy.13r174kv8lxfgN%st...@iweb.net.au...
> > The whole idea of providing maximum public service and still running
> > a profit is a little suspicious. What you CAN do is just minimimize the
> > losses, that's about it. How much "loss" do they think is "efficient"
to
> > maintain passenger service?
>
> That idea's not suspicious at all. The airlines and ferries do!
Ha, ha, ha! What airline are you thinking of that provides maximum public
service?
Everyone I use is cramming people together to provide the minimum possible
acceptable service that will not drive away customers.
Martin Edwards
>> Interestingly this goes back to the days of the opening up of the loan
>> prairie. Shipments of equipment would often go past the destination
>> to the nearest main town, then back again and the farmers would be
>> charged for the whole distance. A rural political movement called the
>> Grangers was formed to protest this sort of thing.
>
>Which of course is when (1870's & 80's) the railroads were cast as
>THE Evil Monopoly which led to the over-regulation of the 20th
>Century and the the massive subsidys to any other mode, so as to
>cut down the Evil Railroads, which remained the mainstream policy
>until at least 1980, arguably until 2004, and put us in the mess
>we're in now...
>
>Hank
Thanks for the update. :-)
bras...@despammed.com
(Aidan Stanger) wrote:
> > The whole idea of providing maximum public service and still running
> > a profit is a little suspicious. What you CAN do is just minimimize the
> > losses, that's about it. How much "loss" do they think is "efficient" to
> > maintain passenger service?
>
> That idea's not suspicious at all. The airlines and ferries do!
What ferry system?
WashDOT ferries (the largest ferry system in the USA) are a major expense,
and will get even more expensive when they start talking about major
capital expenses - like ship replacement or rebuilding. Considering the
average age of their ships, that will happen one of these days.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
Jack May
<bras...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:brasil98-230...@69-30-9-70.pxd.easystreet.com...
> What ferry system?
>
> WashDOT ferries (the largest ferry system in the USA) are a major expense,
> and will get even more expensive when they start talking about major
> capital expenses - like ship replacement or rebuilding. Considering the
> average age of their ships, that will happen one of these days.
We are voting on raising the bridge tolls on all bridges crossing the San
Francisco Bay on March 11th. A healthy chunck of that money will be to
start a very large ferry service around the Bay that will probably greatly
exceed the losses of the WashDOT. This is being pushed by one our
politicians.
As I have said many times, no state can come anywhere near matching the
stupidity and incompentence of California legislators.
Aidan Stanger
> (Aidan Stanger) wrote:
>
> > > The whole idea of providing maximum public service and still running
> > > a profit is a little suspicious. What you CAN do is just minimimize the
> > > losses, that's about it. How much "loss" do they think is "efficient" to
> > > maintain passenger service?
> >
> > That idea's not suspicious at all. The airlines and ferries do!
>
>
> What ferry system?
>
> WashDOT ferries (the largest ferry system in the USA) are a major expense,
> and will get even more expensive when they start talking about major
> capital expenses - like ship replacement or rebuilding. Considering the
> average age of their ships, that will happen one of these days.
The ferries across the English Channel. The Chunnel was expected to
decimate their business, but instead they became more efficient and are
busier than ever.
Does the USA not have privately operated ferries?
bras...@despammed.com
(Aidan Stanger) wrote:
> Does the USA not have privately operated ferries?
The only one I can think of is the railroad car float (no autos or people)
at the end of the Chessapeake Bay. There might be one of the Great Lakes
island to shore services that is privately operated. The rest are all
pretty much either gone or converted to government operation.
James Robinson
>
> Does the USA not have privately operated ferries?
There is a real mixture of service offerings. Some ferries are operated
by the individual states, counties, or cities, some are privately
operated with grants from various government agencies, and there are
some completely private operations. The largest operations tend to be
the government services.
Jon Bell
The S.S. Badger (operated by Lake Michigan Carferry, Inc.) carries
passengers and automobiles across Lake Michigan between Ludington,
Michigan and Manitowoc, Wisconsin. It was originally a railroad carferry,
but hasn't carried rail cars since 1990.
<http://www.ssbadger.com/> (Lake Michigan Carferry site)
<http://www.carferries.com/> (a carferry fan site; follow the link for the
"Pere Marquette Fleet" for a history of the Badger)
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Michael G. Koerner
>
> In article <1g9ohw0.1v37n6y133k91cN%st...@iweb.net.au>, st...@iweb.net.au
> (Aidan Stanger) wrote:
>
> > Does the USA not have privately operated ferries?
>
> The only one I can think of is the railroad car float (no autos or people)
> at the end of the Chessapeake Bay. There might be one of the Great Lakes
> island to shore services that is privately operated. The rest are all
> pretty much either gone or converted to government operation.
I don't have a link handy, but a private company is working to start a
ferry service between Milwaukee, WI and Muskegan, MI.
I'm not sure of the setup, but the Manitowoc, WI-Ludington, MI ferry
might also be private/for profit.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Peter Schleifer
wrote:
>Does the USA not have privately operated ferries?
The Shelter Island Ferries (North Ferry Company
(http://www.northferry.com/) and South Ferry Company
(http://www.pagelinx.com/sisferry/ind.htm)) are privately owned and,
as far as I know, unsubsidized, as are the companies that operate the
Port Jefferson-Bridgeport and Orient Point-New London ferries.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"
Hank Tiffany
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:51:43 +0930, st...@iweb.net.au (Aidan Stanger)
> wrote:
>
> >Does the USA not have privately operated ferries?
>
> The Shelter Island Ferries (North Ferry Company
> (http://www.northferry.com/) and South Ferry Company
> (http://www.pagelinx.com/sisferry/ind.htm)) are privately owned and,
> as far as I know, unsubsidized, as are the companies that operate the
> Port Jefferson-Bridgeport and Orient Point-New London ferries.
In a lot of places the government built bridges and put the ferries,
of both private & public ownership, out of business betwixt 1920 &
1960. SF bay would be a good example of that, btw. OTOH, there are
still a few places where ya gotta use the ferry to get over the river,
for example the one WA state ferry over here on the dry side across
the Columbia on state hiway 21 (it's FREE!) But I'm not sure of any
others.
Aidan Stanger
> Aidan Stanger schrieb:
>
>
> > The ferries across the English Channel. The Chunnel was expected to
> > decimate their business, but instead they became more efficient and are
> > busier than ever.
> >
> > Does the USA not have privately operated ferries?
>
>
> In the USA, profitable shipping is far more difficult than in Europe.
> Your Google search word: "Jones Act".
>
Does the recent signing of the free trade agreement between the USA and
Australia change that?
Sancho Panza
<bras...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:brasil98-260...@69-30-10-77.pxd.easystreet.com...
> The only one I can think of is the railroad car float (no autos or people)
> at the end of the Chessapeake Bay. There might be one of the Great Lakes
> island to shore services that is privately operated. The rest are all
> pretty much either gone or converted to government operation.
The approximately dozen ferry lines that connect New Jersey and New York are
all privately owned and operated, and they carry tens of thousands of
travelers daily. They also performed a major and key role in evacuating
Manhattan on 9/11/01.