Railroads are not always the fastest way. New York State is about the size of Great Britain and for a boxcar to cross the state can take 5 days. A canal boat can cross the state in the same amount of time. The reason it takes 5 Days is that the railroad car has to be switched and sorted to a yard....then wait for a train off the main....then after ariving in Albany NY or New York...Be switched and sorted again....then wait for a local to drop it off at the siding. (sometimes they even lose the railroad car in our "Hump Yards" that are the size of the city of Liverpool). A canal boat on the erie canal is equilivent to 15 railroad cars and go door to door provided both industrys are on the Erie Canal. The Problem is labor costs again but here in the USA the railroads also have to pay for there own track and is taxed on there right of way.
In Europe the resaon that most freight does not move by rail is the short distances that freight has to go and the fact that slow moving freight trains get in the way of high speed rail. In the USA our railroad and waterway system (Dont forget that we have the largest canal system in the world with the Ohio-Missipie river sysytem-)is a profit motovated system. Trains are slow but our railroad system and our barge works to haul 10,000 tons of coal or grain long distances of 1,500 miles or more...Freight rates are about 1,000 dollers a car or more so a 100 car freight train can bring in 125,000.00 worth of revenue. One barge hold about 15 railroad cars worth of freight...thats about 10,000 dollers of revenue. At the avarage hourly rate that labors get paid and the high cost of petro can a barge or string of them travel across great britain and break even? --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Kim the coal regularly drifts up & down the Lea & Stort selling > retail to the boats > > >On Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:42 AM [GMT+1=CET], > >trainfinder22 > ><<mailto:trainfinder22%40yahoo.com>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This year we had some bulk boats and a couple of turbines move on the > > > New York Canals...The canal is also the prefeered route for factory > > > fresh yaughts moving to the great lakes.... > > > I suppose that the canal system in Britain could be a great alternive > > > to moving fertliser and bulk commditys to and from the farms as the > > > barge can park alongside the famer fields and unload fertilser > > > straight to the fields as oposed to the railway network were the > > > farmer has to pick up his fertliser at a shunting siding... > > > >There are growing prospects for short-haul traffic. In London, the part of > >the system I know best, a traffic in ballast from a gravel pit in Denham to > >a cement works in West Drayton has been extablished for about three years. > >A large recycling works is being built at Old Oak Common in West London, > >with its own new wharf so that traffic can come by water. And the planning > >prmission for the site is such that a significant amount of their traffic > >will have to be by water. This is on a 30-mile lock-free stretch. In East > >London there has been a successful feasibility trial for moving the > >tranbsfer of domestic rubbish from road to water. At present that one is > >waiting for somebody come come up with the cash to finance the change of > >equipment. > > > >It's significant that all of these are on broad waterways, which can take > >barges of an economically-viable size. I very much doubt whether similar > >traffic on the narrow canals would be able to pay its way. > > > >There was a very interesting feasibility study in connection with the West > >London recycling project. The study was funded by Transport for London, > >which is a department of the Mayor's office. It looked at the economic > >plusses and minuses. The biggest negative factor of eater transport is that > >it is slow, thus incurring a higher wages cost than road or rail transport. > >The study came to the conclusion that transport by water could pay its way > >on a trip that had no more than four locks on the route. More than this and > >a lorry could make two trips in the time a barge took to make one, thus > >cutting the cost of road transport significantly. > > > >One development that is likely to create new opportunities for freight by > >water is a change in the country's regime for management of rubbish. At the > >moment much of this is going into land-fill, but this is going to be cut > >down (if not cut out) in favour of a mix of recycling and incineration. > >Some authorities (including the Mayor of London) are keen to have the new > >recycling and incenraion plants built waterside to encourage getting rubbish > >traffic off the roads on to the water. > > > >Also it is hoped that much of the contruction taffic, and later the > >supplies, for the 2012 Olympics in East London will travek by water. BW has > >worked with outside agencies to build a lig new lock to allow barge access > >to parts of the Bow Back Rivers which aren't accessible to barges at the > >moment. But it all depends on contractors putting in successful tenders to > >cary the goods by water. I am aware that there are some contractors > >interestied in doing so. > > > >Mike Stevens > >narrowboat Felis Catus III > >web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk > > > >Defend the waterways. > >Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
