Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
And who will pay for the rail? YOU and everyone else. Just like the black hole of Amtrak that we keep throwing money at.
I did not exaggerate at all. Doing what you suggest will increase lead times for products to get where they are needed by several day if not weeks. And the cost of getting good in will skyrocket. When rail car is loaded, it does not do a direct to the destination run. It gets switched at rail yards, held up in transit, and even sometimes, gets lost in the system. And that is at the level of rail we have now. If we expand it too quickly, this problem will magnify considerably.
It could be a matter of semantics. What do you consider "long haul". Most freight is moved less than 800 miles. A lot of what I haul is ag products for bakery production. They can't have product sitting on a rail car for days. Orders are made based on production, which varies daily. They cannot afford to have product arrive more than a few hours early, or a few hours late. And the order is place no more than two days out.
Auto assembly plants. There is limited space available at the plants. They cannot have rail cars stacked up with inbound parts for assembly. And what if one of the components turns out to be bad? They would have rail cars full of bad product that would need to be returned, new product made, and shipped back to the plant. Like say a bad set of valves for instance. Whereas, if trucks are loaded and coordinated with the production line, once a bad part is found out, the trucks enroute can be turned back, and new corrected parts already made up and on their way to the assembly plant, causing minimal disruption. When an assembly line has to shut down due to lack of parts or delays, it cost $100,000 an hour! Don't believe me, call GM, Ford, FCA, any plant you want and they will tell you. You want to see the price for automobiles go into the stratosphere, then put everyone on rail. But in reality, rail is never going to be the primary option.
Sure, produce and such goes coast to coast, as does midwest meat and egg production heads out to the coasts. But one thing is for certain. You cannot load a head of lettuce on a train and expect it to reach it's destination before spoilage occurs. Frozen goods, yes. Fresh produce, no way. That is so time critical, that it can only be moved by truck efficiently.
If you took the time to actually study a little about logistics, supply chains, etc, you would understand why things are the way they are, and why 80% of everything that moves in the U.S. goes by truck and will for a long, long time. It is more efficient, and trucks pay their way. One typical semi truck pays more in fuel taxes, ad valorem taxes, license and permit fees, Federal Highway Use Tax, etc towards the infrastructure than most people in the U.S. make for their total income in a year. A far higher amount per impact on the roads than someone with a car. But that's ok, lets shut the trucks down and you can pay for the roads.
And when it is all said and done, many research groups have shown that only 60%, at best, of all that we pay for roads actually is used for roads. The other 40% gets lost in the black hole of bureaucracy.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Why is it whenever you and I have this discussion, you always exaggerate and misstate things?
First off, when I say more goods need to be shipped by rail, I also mean that railways need to be expanded nationwide to accommodate more rail shipments. Secondly, you always exaggerate by saying people will have to wait for weeks to get their goods if shipped by rail. That simply isn't true. We're talking about a difference of a couple days in shipping time, not weeks. A little planning ahead will alleviate that problem. Lastly, you always act like I'm advocating for the removal of ALL semis from our roads...I'm am not saying that, and I have never said that. What I am saying is that we could very easily get rid of most of the LONG HAUL truck traffic...those goods could be shipped by rail...I realize there will always be a need for semis to ship from the rail yards to the final destinations...quit exaggerating and misstating what I said to make your point...
All I am saying is that we as a nation could ship far more product than we currently do by rail. Yes, I realize there are certain things that can't be shipped by rail, but there is also a lot that could be. Less truck traffic on our roadways would be a good thing...
And who will pay for the rail? YOU and everyone else. Just like the black hole of Amtrak that we keep throwing money at.
I did not exaggerate at all. Doing what you suggest will increase lead times for products to get where they are needed by several day if not weeks. And the cost of getting good in will skyrocket. When rail car is loaded, it does not do a direct to the destination run. It gets switched at rail yards, held up in transit, and even sometimes, gets lost in the system. And that is at the level of rail we have now. If we expand it too quickly, this problem will magnify considerably.
It could be a matter of semantics. What do you consider "long haul". Most freight is moved less than 800 miles. A lot of what I haul is ag products for bakery production. They can't have product sitting on a rail car for days. Orders are made based on production, which varies daily. They cannot afford to have product arrive more than a few hours early, or a few hours late. And the order is place no more than two days out.
Auto assembly plants. There is limited space available at the plants. They cannot have rail cars stacked up with inbound parts for assembly. And what if one of the components turns out to be bad? They would have rail cars full of bad product that would need to be returned, new product made, and shipped back to the plant. Like say a bad set of valves for instance. Whereas, if trucks are loaded and coordinated with the production line, once a bad part is found out, the trucks enroute can be turned back, and new corrected parts already made up and on their way to the assembly plant, causing minimal disruption. When an assembly line has to shut down due to lack of parts or delays, it cost $100,000 an hour! Don't believe me, call GM, Ford, FCA, any plant you want and they will tell you. You want to see the price for automobiles go into the stratosphere, then put everyone on rail. But in reality, rail is never going to be the primary option.
Sure, produce and such goes coast to coast, as does midwest meat and egg production heads out to the coasts. But one thing is for certain. You cannot load a head of lettuce on a train and expect it to reach it's destination before spoilage occurs. Frozen goods, yes. Fresh produce, no way. That is so time critical, that it can only be moved by truck efficiently.
If you took the time to actually study a little about logistics, supply chains, etc, you would understand why things are the way they are, and why 80% of everything that moves in the U.S. goes by truck and will for a long, long time. It is more efficient, and trucks pay their way. One typical semi truck pays more in fuel taxes, ad valorem taxes, license and permit fees, Federal Highway Use Tax, etc towards the infrastructure than most people in the U.S. make for their total income in a year. A far higher amount per impact on the roads than someone with a car. But that's ok, lets shut the trucks down and you can pay for the roads.
And when it is all said and done, many research groups have shown that only 60%, at best, of all that we pay for roads actually is used for roads. The other 40% gets lost in the black hole of bureaucracy.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Why is it whenever you and I have this discussion, you always exaggerate and misstate things?
First off, when I say more goods need to be shipped by rail, I also mean that railways need to be expanded nationwide to accommodate more rail shipments. Secondly, you always exaggerate by saying people will have to wait for weeks to get their goods if shipped by rail. That simply isn't true. We're talking about a difference of a couple days in shipping time, not weeks. A little planning ahead will alleviate that problem. Lastly, you always act like I'm advocating for the removal of ALL semis from our roads...I'm am not saying that, and I have never said that. What I am saying is that we could very easily get rid of most of the LONG HAUL truck traffic...those goods could be shipped by rail...I realize there will always be a need for semis to ship from the rail yards to the final destinations...quit exaggerating and misstating what I said to make your point...
All I am saying is that we as a nation could ship far more product than we currently do by rail. Yes, I realize there are certain things that can't be shipped by rail, but there is also a lot that could be. Less truck traffic on our roadways would be a good thing...
