(01-23-2017, 11:36 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-23-2017, 11:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-23-2017, 11:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-21-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-21-2017, 11:50 AM)David Horn Wrote: In a way, that makes my point. At one point in time, Chicago was served by 9 railroads that all used different track spacing and profiles. Needless to say, moving goods from rail system A to rail system B involved unloading by hand, transport between rail yards in some cases and reloading by hand. That is intolerable today.
And yet, there is still no freight rail link between North Station and South Station in Boston, last I checked. Somehow we tolerate it.
Are you purposely obtuse? The issue was standardization of the track. not where it was laid. Once you standardize, a railcar on System A could be transferred to System B. Nothing forces the two to merge operations, but having incompatible equipment makes the option moot.
Lack of a rail link also prevents transfer of rail cars. Since we have that situation right here in Boston, that's obviously not "intolerable today", as you claim.
Again, the two can work together if they chose. If they had equipment that was incompatible, the option wouldn't exist. That's the purpose of standards. The same logic applies broadly to most technologies, old or new.
It causes friction, to be sure, but even incompatible track is not a deal-breaker. Russia/FSU/Mongolia and China (or Russia/FSU and Europe) do plenty of trade by rail, and yet the FSU/Mongolia's track is incompatible and requires that the bogies be changed/containers be transferred to a new train. What does this have to do with a need for a higher level of bureaucracy, again?