Re: Route 81 Problems Again

Article View: dc.driving

Article #13169

#13169

From: Dave Rabinowitz
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:00

11 lines
1394 bytes

>One thing is for sure: the "piggyback" system carries far less cargo than
>the equivalent boxcar, but weighs more in gross tonnage.  Compared to the
>interstates, how can that be called efficient in terms of flexibility,
>cost/benefit, and rapidity of transportation of goods (from warehouse to
>warehouse)?

The same argument would apply to container ships, yet for general cargo 
they're the only kind you'll see any more because of efficiency, cost/benefit 
and rabidity of transportation of goods.  A similar approach for railroads, 
where loading is done using custom cranes and everything is set up to minimize 
turnaround time, could lead to rapid rail transport, too.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <770n26$g99$1@news.NERO.NET>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References:

<36931C18.7BC4@ix.netcom.com> <76vv3f$qe3$2@lark.jmu.edu> <3693bb4b$0$6145@mojo.crosslink.net> <3695c809.19538689@enews.newsguy.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1011e5,d51225d01e68264c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1011e5,public
X-Google-Thread: 101049,d51225d01e68264c
X-Google-Attributes: gid101049,public
X-Google-Thread: fb785,d51225d01e68264c
X-Google-Attributes: gidfb785,public
From: daver@hudson.ECE.ORST.EDU (Dave Rabinowitz)
Subject: Re: Route 81 Problems Again
Date: 1999/01/06
Message-ID: <770n26$g99$1@news.NERO.NET>
X-Deja-AN: 429563709
References: <36931C18.7BC4@ix.netcom.com> <76vv3f$qe3$2@lark.jmu.edu> <3693bb4b$0$6145@mojo.crosslink.net> <3695c809.19538689@enews.newsguy.com>
Organization: Network for Education and Research in Oregon
Newsgroups: dc.driving,dc.general,va.general

Reply to Parent Message