D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161124351.778482.226140@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

D. A. Tsenuf wrote:


All this is true, but are you then asking to build a small-gauge track?
If the track is compatible with other tracks, it's much more
cost-effective to use the same cars as on other tracks - i.e.
286,000-pound cars. Using smaller cars (200,000 are the smallest left
in any quantity) could work, but means that goods would have to be
re-loaded before entering the main rail network (in the interest of
maximizing capacity per car).
The only problem with your reasoning is that you're assuming this line
can stand alone, when in reality it needs to be fully compatible with
the connecting lines and will be sharing much of its equipment with
them.


I'm just blue-skying here.
1) I would build the rail to the same specs.So no, no narrow-gauge
track

I was being mildly facetious. :)

2) While traffic is low, build only one track that needs siding to go
both ways.
3) There will be a point where trafffic will make 2 one-way tracks
justifiable.

I agree with the premise, though I don't think there will ever be that
much economic power generated by northern Quebec.

3) Equipement cost, both purchase and operation is a major cost
So build smaller an lighter gear and less powerfulll engines to
make
it more cost-effective on routes that are lower volume for freight and
passengers
Airlines have no problem doing that
Bigger, more powerfull planes for the long hauls
Smaller, less powerfull for commuter traffic

With airplanes, first of all they don't travel on any surface like rail
or pavement, second of all they don't share planes much among companies
and routes, and third of all people can move themselves between planes.
It's a lot more time-consuming when the cargo must be moved between
trains piece by piece.

4) With smaller tractors, you may take longer to get up to speed, but
once there, you only have to overcome wind and rolling resistance.
So use a bigger pickup, or a small flatbed truck as the basis for
your engines

I'm OK with using a smaller engine for that line.

5) Design lighter "trucks" AKA wheel carriages for this use.
Als make the wheel carriage "trucks" daisy-chainable. So that you
can easily build as long or as short a train as you need.

It would be nice to have lighter trucks, but that means lower-capacity
rail cars, and it's much more expensive to order new custom-built cars
that can't be exchanged with other rail companies compared to ordering
slightly-used interchangeable cars.

6) Use a standard shipping container as your basic size of flatbed
"trailer"
Use it as an open flatbed
Or attach a variety of boxes to it, including a passenger
compartment built to the same size

In this case, you'd see a standard COFC (container on flatbed car)
setup, see point 5.

7) Build a tractor that could pull 5-10 of them MAX.

Why not just buy a small yard engine from somewhere? I'd also want to
pull about 20, just so that some excess capacity can be soaked up.

8) Design the engine to also have a passenger compartment, just like a
bus. Unlike rail, buses only need a driver.

Engines are huge. If you want this to be a passenger route, attach a
passenger car. I highly doubt you'd need more than one, and they tend
to be very light anyway.

There is no need to keep with the current heavy equipement and standards
for
such heavy equipment on low-density routes, which will NOT use all that
power

It's financially unjustifiable to build all-new equipment for one
low-volume line. Short lines invariably succeed by working with the
larger rail lines to standardize equipment, rather than branching off
on their own.

Build low-power and capacity equipment to run on such routes.
It's been successfully done with trucks and airlines
Why can't it be done with rail ?
.
See point 5, and as for trucks, they tend to be load at origin-unload
at destination with a maximum of one transfer, whereas trains may
transfer loads 3 or 4 times, or even more.

"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161133799.241299.34720@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

D. A. Tsenuf wrote:

5) Design lighter "trucks" AKA wheel carriages for this use.
Als make the wheel carriage "trucks" daisy-chainable. So that you
can easily build as long or as short a train as you need.

It would be nice to have lighter trucks, but that means lower-capacity
rail cars, and it's much more expensive to order new custom-built cars
that can't be exchanged with other rail companies compared to ordering
slightly-used interchangeable cars.


I think you're not thinking outside of the box
And that has been the problem with railroads for the last 60+ years.
On the less trafficked routes, it makes a lot of sense to go with smaller,
lighter and thus less expensive equipement that is only used on such a route
Look at the run to Churchill
For the volume of traffic on that line, they do NOT need a FULL-sized engine
or rail car.
I suspect that running lighter equipment on a dedicated route would
reduce operating, maintenance and investment costs.

D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161133799.241299.34720@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

D. A. Tsenuf wrote:

5) Design lighter "trucks" AKA wheel carriages for this use.
Als make the wheel carriage "trucks" daisy-chainable. So that
you
can easily build as long or as short a train as you need.

It would be nice to have lighter trucks, but that means lower-capacity
rail cars, and it's much more expensive to order new custom-built cars
that can't be exchanged with other rail companies compared to ordering
slightly-used interchangeable cars.


I think you're not thinking outside of the box
And that has been the problem with railroads for the last 60+ years.
On the less trafficked routes, it makes a lot of sense to go with
smaller,
lighter and thus less expensive equipement that is only used on such a
route
Look at the run to Churchill
For the volume of traffic on that line, they do NOT need a FULL-sized
engine
or rail car.
I suspect that running lighter equipment on a dedicated route would
reduce operating, maintenance and investment costs.

Well, I'm thinking practicality is all, and interchangeability of
equipment saves money in the long run. Since cars are interchanged far
more often than engines, I agree with your small-engine small-train
concept.

"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161124113.152449.131590@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
"Steve A." <zoningpermit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161104517.290049.165750@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

D. A. Tsenuf wrote:
"Carl Rogers" <carl-mtr@calrog.com> wrote in message
news:m9_Yg.13658$GR.12471@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Andrew Kirschner wrote:
Indulge me please. I have a weird facination with this topic:



http://www.nunatsiaqnews.com/news/nunavik/61013_03.html

October 13, 2006
James Bay Cree promote road to northern Quebec
Link to south could bring lower prices, other economic benefits
JANE GEORGE

Within 10 years, you may be able to drive from Nunavik all the way
to
Montreal.

But with the price tag for a road south from Kuujjuaq estimated at
$1
billion, the idea of building a less expensive and shorter road for

$250 million to the start of Quebec's road network in La Grande
from
the twin Inuit and Cree communities of Great Whale is gaining
momentum.

C'est assez cher; mais si on peut traverser une bonne route sans
problèmes d'une route avec les graviers, on peut trouver un meilleur
àccès en route à la baie Hudson!



Je suis pret a parier que ca aurait coute moins cher de faire une un
chemin
de fer a 2 tracks qu'une route sur le meme parcours.

Mais pour un chemin de fer, meme qu'il coute plus d'un route pave,
c'est la compagnie privee qui le maintien.

(It should cost less to build the highway than two rail tracks along
the same route, he says, and I respond in broken French that in the
case of rail, at least the private rail company is the one maintaining
the right of way, which of course should reduce the long-term costs.)

Aussi, c'est probable qu'on ne doit pas avoir plus d'un track.

(Also, you probably only need one track, since traffic would be so low.)

The advantage of 2 tracks is that you could have 2-way traffic ALL the
time.
The cost of laying 2 tracks side-by-side is not double the cost of a
single
track.
And it would eliminate the cost of managing traffic that you have with a
single track.
#
# Well, two tracks requires additional right of way, and it requires
# additional ballast, steel, and ties. Those costs are indeed
# considerable, especially if you're asking the railroad company itself
# to do it all. There is no need to have two-way traffic on this line
# because the region isn't a big enough generator. An occasional siding
# would allow traffic to pass whenever necessary, and the railroad
# company itself could schedule that.

Well, in the cost of building a road for cars and other vehicles that has
to
be 2 lanes.
I would estimate that the cost of a 2-track railway would be less in the
long-run. and last a lot longer too.

"Anna Blatch"
Where is the best area to stay in vancouver for first timers- close
to restaurants and shopping. I am currently leaning towards Hyatt or
Sutton Place?

I enjoyed my stay in the Best Western Downtown. Not fancy but allright
and near Granville Island.

Mrk
Look up the Sylvia Hotel on Beach Ave. Old-fashioned seaside hotel,

I am staying at hotels in Vancouver, Marriott / Best Western / Hilton
/ Holiday Inn. They all seem to require photo id on checkin. I am a
Canadian citizen. Is it a legal requirement for them to verify photo
ID, or is it just common practice in Canada? I have observed that
hotels in UK and France do not typically require ID, whereas hotels
in
Florida do require photo ID on checkin.

What are the rules in Canada?I've stayed in several cities in Canada over the past 3-4 years and have
never been asked for a photo ID (I'm a U.S. citizen). The most recent

Hotels -- or other businesses -- increasingly need to know the identity
of their customers, for a variety of reasons. First among these is the

need to prevent fraud due to "identity theft", the use of stolen or
forged credit cards. The best way for a merchant to do this is to ask

for photo ID that matches the credit card.

And if the hotel burns down, the owners can give the authorities an
accurate list of guests!I totally agree and would never mind if anyone asked for photo I.D. as
it is mutually a protection to my credit card on my behalf as well as a

This government action has been a terrible betrayal which will ruin
many people's retirement.
Support them! sign the petition! Harper broke his word and caused a
great deal of financial
damage to Canadian investors.

The petition link is:

http://www.petitiononline.com/DC103/petition.html

The petition is:

To: Government of Canada
Mr. Harper you Lied to Canadian citizens when you
promised not to tax trusts. The tax on trusts announced
by your Minister of Finance on October 31 2006, has resulted
in the loss of billions of dollars of ordinary Canadians'
savings and jeopardized the income and well being of retirees.

We demand the Minister of Finance, immediately commence a study
to develop a plan that would see Canadian investors compensated
for this incompetent government action. Compensations could include
grandfathering of existing trusts, additional capital loss deduction
for funds lost from RRSPs and any other tax adjustments possible to
assist retirees and Canadians recover their losses.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned


***********We have now 1046 signatures!************************

Why is it such a shit hole? Is it the people or is it the ice falling from
the tower? Maybe it's the Jamaicans shooting each other for the crack?

Why is it such a shit hole? Is it the people or is it the ice falling from
the tower? Maybe it's the Jamaicans shooting each other for the crack?

All three, plus the fact it's a colony of socialists.

All three, plus the fact it's a colony of socialists.

All three, plus the fact it's a colony of socialists.

When was the last time you were in Toronto to see for yourself?

All three, plus the fact it's a colony of socialists.

When was the last time you were in Toronto to see for yourself?

"Joe" <dropdead_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173278142.030837.83240@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
All three, plus the fact it's a colony of socialists.

When was the last time you were in Toronto to see for yourself?

I actually used to live there in the 60's and 70's.

It is very noticeably gone DOWN HILL. Toronto has seen better days. Too
much socialism and not enough workers. Union mentality all over. Have
been there off and on over the years, visiting the old neighbourhood for
nostalgic reasons. Now it is better called the "hood".

The culture seems to have deteriorated moral values, over crowding, too
many on government dole yet the education system seems to produce greedy
poorly educated lazy socialists that view the government as a god or
something. Likely has to do with the insane amount of taxes and fees.

Of all the Canadian cities I have lived, I would never return there to
live.