Would trains be a better way of transporting goods that would have otherwise been transported around..?

Question

the country by lorry?

I am trying to argue for a debate against the idea of long haul travelling for lorries... Would trains make the atmosphere cleaner (because lorries emit CO2)? Yet wouldn't trains make the transport costs more expensive and therefore making the price of the product more expensive?

Lorna

Answer 1

Here is an example from America.

Between Houston, Texas, and Dallas, Texas is both a major highway and a parallel railroad. Goods were being transported by semi-truck (lorrie) back and forth on the highway, while the railroad was under-utilised. A government official (IIRC a senator) saw this discrepancy and passed a law requiring cargo trailers to be hauled by train between the 2 cities. This saved millions of dollars per year in fuel cost, but the driver's union (teamsters) was quite upset, because a lot of truck drivers were out of work in that area (they eventually moved to other areas to work, though).

From an environmental standpoint, it is better to haul freight by train. The downside is the logistics of getting the freight from the train terminals to their final destination. Trucks have the ability to deliver freight directly to markets. Every major market (store) in the US has at least one truck freight dock in the rear of the store. They do not have train terminals.

.

Answer 2

If you every played Transport Tycoon, you wouldn't be asking this question, but basically, railroad won't work because...

1) Railroad is slow for freight, as they typically load up 50-100 segments and therefore usually they plod along at 30-45 MPH. Passenger trains are much lighter and go faster. Thus, for long distances, speed becomes an issue.

2) Rail doesn't always go where you want to go. Rail lines are expensive to build, usually you end up delivering to the nearest "major city" and from there, you STILL have to use lorries (or as we Yanks call them, trucks) to take it the rest of the way.

On the other hand, for stuff that is NOT speed sensitive, and have a lot of "bulk", such as minerals and ores, standard clothing and textiles, even cars and trucks (being sent to a dealer, it doesn't matter if it arrive in a week vs. a day), a train would be idea, since operating costs are VERY LOW for the same capacity on other stuff. Just think about it:

-- airplane: very fast, carries quite a bit, small crew, costs a FORTUNE in fuel, only from airport to airport
-- truck/lorry: can go almost anywhere there is road, small crew, but limited capacity (when compared to transport plane or train), small crew, relatively miserly in fuel
-- train: can go only where rail goes, small crew (just the engines and infrastructure maintainence/switching), ENORMOUS capacity (50-150 carriages at a time!), extremely miserly in fuel

And I haven't even gotten into the air quality issue yet.

Each transportation method has its place / niche.

Answer 3

While it's true trains can haul more than just about anything,they are not as flexible that is to say you cannot transport goods directly by train and in some cases delivery is required on a deliver it now basis directly from manufacturer to receiver.
Yes trains are far more expensive and so would increase the price of goods and you would still have to use some form of transport from the sidings to the customer,so we are back to trucks.

Answer 4

Trucks can move products more efficiently, because they move things directly, instead of having to go to rail yards, and be switched. Also, they allow for smaller lots of products, therefore allowing manufacturers to stock less parts or raw materials, allowing the manufacturer to have less space tied up storing parts or raw materials.