>
> If we weren't spending a billion a day for
> defense...
>

We're not! Even so, we wouldn't be spending one thin dime on defense if everyone would just leave each other alone, or not try to cram their religion at the point of a gun / terrorist bomb, or go on political power trips, or..or..or... Where oh where is this perfect world that many "so-called" liberals keep touting!

>
> A small point often overlooked though, is that "If
> the train fits (in the siding) it sits." A mile
> long freight will not fit in a half mile siding.
> Do the math. A ten car passenger train will. Why
> sidings are so short is another issue.
>

A more to the point question, is why are freight trains too long - so as to not fit in sidings as they actually exist. Trains longer than a district was designed for will cause the dispatcher's hair to fall out - fast. They significantly diminish track capacity because they limit the dispatcher to only the few sidings long enough. If two opposing long trains are forced to meet at a short siding, it can take hours to pass - unless sufficient manpower is kept at both ends (cabooses), then still it takes maybe 45-50 minutes.

Moreover, it stands to reason that since longer trains occupy each block for a significantly longer time, fewer trains per hour may use the track. Compounding this reality is the fact that longer trains are slower, adding even more time in each block. As I have posted before, there are many ills caused unwieldy, cumbersome, and now under-manned trains.

There was a time not too long ago when some railroads were noted for their "Short Fast Train" strategies. The mighty Union Pacific was one of them. It was once mighty, anyhow. Short fast trains did work then! But it seems that the college educated corporate bean counters that now run the railroads can't see the forest for the trees, as they look only at individual train productivity; rather than at the system as a whole.

Some railroads do seem to still get it - at least locally. BNSF can still be observed shortening up longer trains coming up the high capacity valley line, before they depart Stockton for Richmond; which is still mostly ABS track warrant territory with frequent short sidings. (Pittsburg siding is being lenghened, but this seems to be a low priority project)

It should also be noted that the perrenial complaint about putting passenger trains in the siding is mostly bogus. It won't matter much if Amtrak has to wait on the siding, or on the main - it still waits. In fact, since most sidings are slow running track bounded by restricted speed turnouts, delay actually can be minimized if the first train to arrive goes into the siding - whoever it is. It may then traverse the siding slowly (as required) while it would have otherwise waited. When the opposing train finally does arrive, it then may do so at speed, getting out of the way much quicker. Thus the longer and more unwieldy the opposing freight, the greater the time savings for Amtrak with this procedure.

For those interested, the two volume book "Elements of Train Dispatching" by Thomas White is a very good treatise on how to dispatch, and what is currently wrong with modern operating methods. I believe it is still available at various rail oriented websites. I also saw it at Amazon not to long ago.

OPB